search
top

Slitting Their Own Wrists

It has to mystify Wayne Pacelle why hunters are so eagar to allow themselves to be divided and conquered, but that’s what often happens.  Take a look at this:

The in-your-face animal rights group – which all too often gets confused for the American Humane Society, a genuine animal-welfare organization – suddenly wants hunters to join forces with them.

You read that right. One of the nation’s most stridently anti-hunting animal rights groups wants hunters to join them in a “friend of the court” action designed to influence an upcoming Supreme Court decision.

That upcoming Supreme Court decision is US vs. Stevens, which Eugene Volokh is looking at briefing, on the opposite side of the issue from HSUS.  Pacelle wouldn’t waste his time with asking if he didn’t know he might be able to find a few suckers.  But imagine getting a federal felony indictment for buying a dove hunting video in Michigan, because your buddy in Texas invited you come down for a hunt, and suggested you buy a certain video for some pointers.   That’s what this law could potentially do.

I hope hunters will start wising up, and realize there’s no standing apart.  If they want their sport to survive, they need to treat HSUS as a mortal enemy.  Anything they do that touches any aspect of hunting must be resolutely opposed.

4 Responses to “Slitting Their Own Wrists”

  1. Bitter says:

    They’ve already got their anti-stabbing knife out to start slitting:

    A few pro-hunting groups are actually considering joining HSUS in its friend-of-the-court action.

  2. Avtomat says:

    Am I missing something? It would seem that the HSUS would want to argue that the law is constitutional–so why would hunters join them? Hunters would want to argue that the law was unconstitutional so that hunting videos would not be banned.

  3. Caleb says:

    POMA sent a notice out to their members about this case as well. The implications are actually kind of chilling, if for no other reason than the myriad of new felonies which would be created if the law would be upheld.

  4. LLD says:

    Make no mistake folks. Signing onto a USHS amicus brief is anti-hunting, since the law being decided, if upheld, means the hunting media or anyone who wants to sell any depiction of legal hunting will be a felon.

    Hunters, journalists and outdoor organizations need to support the amicus brief being written by Beth Heifetz and David Cooper with the Jones Day law firm out of D.C. Their brief supports the First Amendment and the Third Circut Court of Appeals decision that the existing law is unconstitutional. Click on the Supreme Court link on the home page of the POMA Web site http://www.professionaloutdoormedia.org.

    Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking this is about animal cruelty — which none of us believe in or support. It has nothing to do with this case. This is simply what USHS is trying to make folks believe to garner support.

top