Sitka Gear Turkey Tool Belt

Kick sportsmen off public land, end wildlife management.

Tom

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2001
Messages
4,985
Location
San Antonio, Texas, USA
Legal organization to do that. It doesn't sound to good for the habitat and wildlife. How do they want to manage that?


here it is.
Anti-Hunting Group Announces Litigation Division

(Columbus) – The nation’s largest anti-hunting group has launched a new legal department to challenge sportsmen in the courts.
An Animal Protection Litigation section was created in the wake of the recent merger of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Fund for Animals. Attorney Jonathan Lovvorn was selected to head the department. The organization intends to add four litigating attorneys by the end of the year.

“The animal rights movement sees the courts as the easiest way to realize its anti-hunting agenda,” said U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Senior Vice President Rick Story. “Anti-hunters are in court right now to halt black bear hunting and kick sportsmen off of public lands. The move to implement an HSUS Animal Protection Litigation function so quickly and the commitment to the program’s expansion prove that it is a priority for the newly formed mega-anti-hunting rights group.”

Lovvorn has been a partner with Meyer & Glitzenstein, the Washington, D.C. law firm used by the Fund for Animals in legal battles against sportsmen. He will assume his duties as vice president on January 1, 2005.

The merger of the two anti-hunting groups was announced on November 22, 2004. It will formally occur on January 1, 2005. The new group will have as much as $98 million in annual support to derail hunting and traditional wildlife management in the United States.

After the merger, the new organization will continue to be known as the Humane Society of the United States. It has stated that the abolition of hunting and trapping will be priority issues. Bowhunting is the first form of hunting that the group has vowed to eradicate.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance has begun working with bowhunting organizations, businesses and publications to organize bowhunters nationwide to prepare a defense.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussportsmen.org.
 
Does it matter? It seems to me the current President isn't doing anything to stand in their way or help the matter. As I see it, Bush isn't so great for sportsmen or the environment. As far as the means this group is using to get to sportsmen, it is through the legal system (that would be different than the executive branch).

Eventhough they have as much right to put litigation forward to stop us from hunting on public land, we also should deem it necessary to stop these lawsuits. That means grouping together to defend the rights of sportsmen. It also means to do everything possible to keep the sport as clean as possible.
 
SRR- In what way does it matter which candidate they WOULD have supported. It MAY matter in 4 years but right now, What does it matter?

For that matter what does it matter which candidate they would have supported for the executive branch when they are using the judicial branch (according to the article).

Again I ask "Does it matter?"
 
ask them Snake river.

I bet it was Kerry or Nader, but Matt is right. Its the legal system branch. You have to fight in court there.

In America, we're free to sue anybody, anytime, about anything we want to sue them for, just about. These people are going to do that.

If they can't win in the executive branch and in the legislative branch, then they try the judicial branch. They are activists. We have to oppose them in every branch, or loose.
 
MattK said:
SRR- In what way does it matter which candidate they WOULD have supported. It MAY matter in 4 years but right now, What does it matter?

For that matter what does it matter which candidate they would have supported for the executive branch when they are using the judicial branch (according to the article).

Again I ask "Does it matter?"



Yes it does matter!!

The current Whitehouse resident is far less likely to appoint judges who will side with these elitist snobs and kooks.

It's going to be an activist judge who will side with these folks, they are just shopping around for the right venue to get their agenda rolling. :MAD
 
MattK said:
As I see it, Bush isn't so great for sportsmen or the environment.

But he is not against us,,

As far as the means this group is using to get to sportsmen, it is through the legal system (that would be different than the executive branch).

.
What kind of judiciary do you think an anti-hunter might nominate? :rolleyes:
 
MattK said:
SRR- In what way does it matter which candidate they WOULD have supported. It MAY matter in 4 years but right now, What does it matter?

For that matter what does it matter which candidate they would have supported for the executive branch when they are using the judicial branch (according to the article).

Again I ask "Does it matter?"

I'm trying to make the point that simply because a candidate is an 'enviromentalist' DOES NOT mean he is the answer to a hunter's prayers- :BLEEP:
 
Tom said:
I bet it was Kerry or Nader, but Matt is right. Its the legal system branch. You have to fight in court there.

In America, we're free to sue anybody, anytime, about anything we want to sue them for, just about. These people are going to do that.

If they can't win in the executive branch and in the legislative branch, then they try the judicial branch. They are activists. We have to oppose them in every branch, or loose.
It was kerrry,and yes we need to fight them in court and I damn sure will keep on voting against the politicians who side with them.
 
SRR,

Can you provide any proof that Kerry would have sided with the anti's or that he would have made judicial appointments that sided with anti's?

Also, can you provide proof that Kerry himself is an anti-hunter?
 
BuzzH said:
SRR,

Can you provide any proof that Kerry would have sided with the anti's or that he would have made judicial appointments that sided with anti's?

Also, can you provide proof that Kerry himself is an anti-hunter?
As you told me on another post- look it up yourself :MAD

I think most everyone else knows the score
 
How do you get a 100% rating with the humain society? Have a big D after your name? If we could get some footage of Kerry smoking that goose, that would prove he wasn't an anti-hunter. Any links out there?
 
We have a hard time coming to a concesus on what is really hunting here on this board, how do you propose we do that on a national basis?
 
SRR- you are probably still worried what Bill Clinton would do in this situation. Guess what, he's no longer President, remember. Instead, you might want to worry about what the current administration would do. You may wish to look at GW's voting record on taking rights away from people. You may wish to worry about what IS, not what may have been if....

I am worried about what grounds they may use in law suits. This is a really scary thing. It would completely circumvent two branches of government and still have the same effect of a law being created.

Oh, John Kerry, Ralph Nader, etc. are not President so I would start looking ahead at resolving the problems at hand with the people that are elected and quit being a behind.
 
Hey Tom,

Did you snoop around that CASH site you linked? They use a lot of "high fence" Texas style hunting as proof/ammo that hunting should be abolished.

Too bad the rest of us have to waste our time defending ourselves from the actions of Texans sitting on feeders behind fences while using remote control guns to shoot feed-supplemented whitetails and corsicans.
 
Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Forum statistics

Threads
113,624
Messages
2,027,261
Members
36,253
Latest member
jbuck7th
Back
Top