May 13 2010
HSUS wildlife policy: “Guilty Until Proven Innocent”
Today’s look into the history of the Humane Society of the United States comes through the courtesy of a HumaneWatch reader who sent us a document we'd never seen before. It's a 33-year-old newsletter from something called the National Association for Sound Wildlife Programs. (We can't find any evidence that the organization exists anymore.)
We're posting a brief excerpt from this 1977 publication in the HumaneWatch document library, because we think it shows a rather radical approach (even for its time) of preferring animals over human beings. Even in cases where the only thing people have to go on is a wild guess.
If you care about hunting, fishing, zoos, aquariums, wildlife conservation, or the private ownership of exotic animal species as pets, you’ll want to read this. It’s a rare glimpse into the mindset that gave us some of today’s (in our opinion) more backward policy approaches to wildlife. And HSUS was right in the thick of it.
Here’s what this document shows.
In June 1974 an organization called the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center (started by Marlin Perkins and based in St. Louis) hosted a Washington, DC meeting during which 14 organizations agreed on 26 principles that “reflect the viewpoint of this group.” The members included HSUS, the Fund for Animals (which HSUS would later annex), and the HSUS-related International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Later that year, the groups met again in St. Louis and formally ratified those 26 principles. It called itself the Wildlife and Habitat Coordinating Committee (another short-lived group), which may ring a bell to those of you who lived through the Civil Rights movement and recall its buzzwords. (Remember the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee?)
A press release on October 1974, also reproduced in this newsletter excerpt, spells out all 26 things that HSUS and its peer groups said they wanted. You can read the whole list for yourself. But here, verbatim, are the ones that caught our eye, and some thoughts about each:
[The] sale of non-domestic animals as pets, be they indigenous to the U.S. or imported, [should] be restricted at [the] state and federal level to possession for educational, research, and/or conservation purposes only, with specified exemptions (eg. Gerbil, guinea pig, parakeet).(*)
The asterisk at the end of this one leads to a statement that “the group was for opposition to ‘private ownership and private propagation of endangered species.’ This announcement was met with cheers and applause from the members present.”
The way we read it, the statement itself would allow for zoos and aquariums, but the opposition to all “private ownership” of endangered species would not. We also don't see any loopholes big enough for a pet fish.
All commercial exploitation (as distinct from non-commercial native subsistence hunting) of wild animal products (fur, skins, whale oil, etc.) [should] be banned. (*1)
This one, too, had a footnote, wondering aloud if “the use and manufacture of antivenin would be banned.” Good question. It’s hard to protect people against snake bites without “exploiting” a snake to collect venom samples for producing the antidote.
And who should get to decide how to distinguish “commercial” use of animals from “non-commercial” use? Who’s a “native” and who isn’t? As we learned in our interview last month with the Inuit leader Aaju Peter, these questions are still unanswered nearly 40 years later. And the statement above seems to presume that “native” people don’t have the right to earn a living from whatever they might hunt.
All commercial industries involved in collecting wild (non-domestic) foods (fish, etc.) [should] be strictly regulated. Development of alternative food sources should be sought, (soy bean fields, oyster and fish farms, etc.).
This has a sort of “locavore” ring to it, no? If you live in Michigan, apparently you shouldn’t have easy access to Pacific salmon. If you live in a desert region, we suppose you’re supposed to do without any fish at all—unless it can be “grown” in your backyard. And that Chilean Sea Bass we love so much? Forget about it.
Immediate instigation of moratoria on hunting (of grizzly bears or other species) when there is any element of doubt as to their population in a given area, pending further study.
This one is ridiculous. The phrase “any element of doubt as to their population” can turn every “yes” into a “no,” because—well, who on earth can ever say for sure how many bears, deer, or pheasant are living on a particular plot of land? It’s an impossible standard for hunters to meet. Which, we think, was the point.
International monitoring and regulation of any human interventions of ecosystems which may have regional, international, or globally deleterious consequences.
Wow. We're not going to get all tinfoil-hat-new-world-order on you, but the idea of the United Nations or some other body telling some county in Illinois where they’re allowed to build a dam or a reservoir just doesn’t seem right. And, as with all of these Utopian rules, it all hinges on who gets to decide what “may” have a negative impact.
Let’s face it: Practically everything human beings do in the wild—camping weekends, fly fishing, snowmobiling, farming, logging—all of it “may have … deleterious consequences” to some form of wildlife or other. But if we stop doing all of that, just how human would we be?
It’s practically impossible for people to live without impacting the natural environment. But we’re “a part of nature” too, right? HSUS and its allies seem to have been saying that we should be “apart from nature” at all times.
Now, we should warn you that we're reproducing this last one exactly as it appeared. ALL CAPS and everything:
Immediate intervention to prevent any disruption to an ecosystem by a corporation or development when there is no evidence to prove that human interference will have no deleterious consequences, i.e. GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.
Honest. We didn’t make up that last part.
This sounds like a precursor to the environmental movement’s “precautionary principle,” the concept that you should make scientists and farmers (and everyone) “prove a negative” before permitting them to do practically anything.
It’s the same rationale that propels green groups to lobby against the cultivation of genetically modified food crops. “Who cares if the boost in food production can keep a billion or two people from starving?” the logic goes. “It might possibly be harmful; and unless you can prove it isn’t, you shouldn’t be allowed to do it. Period.”
We're starting to understand why HSUS allied itself very early on with the nascent environmental movement. They have all the cool trump cards.
Related Documents
Related Organizations
Posted on 05/13/2010 at 10:37 AM by the HumaneWatch Team
The Best of HumaneWatch • History • Hunting & Fishing • Wildlife • (10) CommentsComments
As many of us know animal rights moneybags like Bob Barker have been routinely buying law schools for many years. Georgetown, George Washington and UVA in Charlottesville – are just a few examples.
Let’s take one example of the products of such tactics. His name is Ethan Eddy. First he worked for Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal (yes, the firm involved in the RICO suit) and then he moved to HSUS where he was Senior Attorney, Animal Fighting and Cruelty, Animal Protection Litigation Section. To quote the 2007 article cited below:
http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2007_fall/eddy.htm
“Eddy had been working in a large firm in Washington, D.C., which had the Humane Society as a client. He left the firm to become a staff attorney for the Society and realized a lifelong ambition to do legal work on animal welfare. “It’s my dream job,” he said.”
Guess his dream changed because now he is working for the US Department of Justice on –environmental and wildlife issues. So how well do you think he is standing up for the rights of taxpayers in those cases brought by HSUS and other animal rights proponents?
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=237214
Yes, folks, HSUS is infiltrating everything. And it is not by accident.
If anyone still has any doubts as to the H$U$ and the Veganist Jihad’s real intentions, I think this pretty much answers them.
These Fascist wingnuts want to regulate humanity out of existence. (Except themselves, of course).
They have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the welfare of animals - not domestic animals at least - and they seem to view Indigenous People as a quaint form of wildlife.
Their patronizing racism all aside, they are frauds, liars, thieves and terrorists, and should be treated accordingly.
“Guilty until proven innocent”, right kids? If it works for the rest of us, it works for you, too.
I highly suggest that the readers here take a look at ALL 26 items on this list.. it is frightening.. while the times have changed to essential message of these groups have not.. the germinal seeds of destruction of life as we know it are all here…
To “Leagle Beagle’s ” comments, this is just scary! I’ll bet there is a secret society of HSUS alumni out there, silently subverting all of the good things people are doing and continuing to advance the HSUS agenda on the unsuspecting public.
Michael A – Yes, it is scary but there is not much secret about it. If you pay attention and connect the dots it is easy to see HSUS actions and strategies. When Bob Barker buys a law school there is always a big press release and obsequious comments from the school.
So far HSUS has not gotten a lot of judges on the bench but these animal rights indoctrinated lawyers are making their way through the system. It is only a matter of time until they start becoming judges, too.
Many of these lawyers are making their way into our state legislators and are happily passing laws that deprive animal owners of due process and make owning animals ever more costly and difficult. Mostly animal owners are asleep and when they do find out about it they cry, “What about the constitution? How can this happen?” Well, it happens every day all over the country. A Virginia legislator stated, “Unconstitutional? We pass unconstitutional laws all the time.”
The only way to get a law labeled unconstitutional is——-to go to court! Takes lots of time and money to go down that path. Not likely to happen. So get used to seeing this.
Just another part of the HSUS plan to take animals out of our lives.
How is the IFAW affiliated with HSUS?
Thx
If this was written up before the Endangered Species Act was passed, then I cannot necessarily disagree with many of the items. Ivory on elephants caused terrible poaching problems throughout East Africa and vastly diminished the numbers of elephants—as do current farming paractices in East Africa and the fact that no one thinks anything much of people encroaching and taking over parkland to farm. Now endangered species are supposed to be protected from being brought into this country except by special permits. Farming of fish, shell fish, etc. has caused major problems for the wild variety. And sorry but Chilean Sea Bass even at $18.00 plus a pound is going extinct. I’ve never understood why a normal [person would own any of the big Cats or why any private person should own any of the endangered Big Cats!
we’ve seen what overfishing has done, not to mention what Japan and Norway’s whaling “for education and study” is doing to populations of whales—esp the great whales!
I’m all for circusses and Zoos and for defeating laws that discriminate against dog and cat breeders and farmers, but I don’t agree that these 26 items are ALL terrible!
The pictures of the posted “no hunting” signs brought back a memory….
25 years ago I was drinking the HSUS/Peta KoolAid, and I lived in a rural area that had an annual dove hunt. We had these huge mulberry trees in front of the house and I would post hand written “no hunting” signs on my property so the doves could have sanctuary. The doves began coming to my trees by the hundreds, then the thousands as they avoided the loud retorts of the hunters guns. I was so damn proud of myself. Then….Imagine a few thousand doves straining the branches of a mulberry tree…..they were dropping great gobs of wet stinky dove poo. As fast as I could shovel it up, more was dropped and the flies were insane. My pregnant mare walked under the tree and slipped in the poo, falling and ultimately losing her very valuable foal ( we had sent her to another state to be bred at tremendous cost to us at the time.) THEN, my cat fell out of one of the trees battling with too many doves. He almost died.
That was when hubby bought a dove rifle and cleared out the trees…..and I canceled my Koolaid subscriptions…..it had all stopped making sense.
Ok, I do agree that animals have the right to be free from neglect, starvation, pain…..and other abuses. There’s just no excuse for those things. However, there should be some consideration for hunters who follow the rules, get the tags (legally) and actually eat what they hunt. I simply don’t get the philosophy of idiots who run around indiscriminately run over small animals (bashing) or spotlighting other animals just for the thrill of the kill. Maybe they should be told to run and we can chase them down?
Comments are moderated, and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. Extremely lengthy comments and those that contain obscenities may be edited before they are posted.
Add a comment:
So the 12 Steps of Animal Rights a decade later——- not surprising. and the 12 Steps *clearly* says to eliminate animals in commerce. Agriculture being taken out is mentioned, since the 12 Steps wants Dept. of Agriculture out. HSUS is consistently suing Dept of Ag. Look on Justia.com to view some of their many Federal lawsuits. HSUS wants to replace Dept of Ag with their own regulatory group.