Antis' Efforts to Stop Hunting Backed By Multi-Million Dollar Budgets

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance ^ | Dec 31, 2003 | NA

[neverdem]

Antis' Efforts to Stop Hunting Backed By Multi-Million Dollar Budgets- (12/31) National Join our e-mail alert list

As in previous years, Animal People magazine has published financial information for 136 animal charities, based on analysis of the groups' IRS reports for FY 2002.

Below are the figures for several leading animal rights groups that are working to end hunting, fishing and trapping in America, as presented in Animal People. In parenthesis are the budgets for the immediate past years.

The budgets for most of the groups stayed level or dipped somewhat, but People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ (PETA) budget grew from $13.5 million to $16.4 million in 2002. The Humane Society of the United States had an even bigger increase in its budget, from $58.8 million to $67 million.

Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF)

· budget $3,208,308 ($3,360,728 / $3,133,399 / 2,929,360)

· programs 2,543,747

· overhead 664,561

· net assets 2,407,032

Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) (previous years not immediately available)

· budget $1,260,416 ($1,072,951)

· programs 1,117,926

· overhead 142,490

· net assets 2,486,967

Doris Day Animal League (DDAL)

· budget $2,570,372 ($2,844,347 / $2,743,811 / $2,298,227)

· programs 1,977,752

· overhead 592,620

· net assets 753,186

Fund for Animals

· budget $7,358,158 ($5,600,721 / $5,386,201 / $6,383,888)

· programs 5,766,004

· overhead 1,592,154

· net assets 20,225,940

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

· budget $67,272,795 ($58,865,207 / $50,431,797 / $51,560,147)

· programs 38,620,876

· overhead 23,453,737

· net assets 85,810,587

In Defense of Animals (IDA)

· budget $2,304.433 ($2,339,784 /$1,841,705 / $1,707,270)

· programs 1,878,120

· overhead 426,313

· net assets 2,512,588

PETA and PCRM: Partners in Fundraising

The Animal People report indicates that PETA and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) should be considered as a single fundraising unit because of its joint partnership in Foundation to Support Animal Protection. Here are the numbers for the three entities:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

· budget $16,414,174 ($13,499,614 /$17,668,699 / $16,487,851)

· programs 13,741,587

· overhead 2,672,587

· net assets 5,079,120

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)

· budget $2,667,912 ($2,915,847 / $2,533,289 / $2,350,143)

· programs 2,107,232

· overhead 560,680

· net assets 887,109

Foundation to Support Animal Protection (FSAP)

· budget $2,192,281 ($2,430,555)

· programs 29,718

· overhead 2,162,563

· net assets 9,616,986

[spunkets]

" we actually did not have permission to eat animals until sin entered the garden. See it was never G-d's intention from the beginning that we did eat animals it was only after sinful acts came into exsistence."

Actually, in the story it's implied that God just decided he wasn't going to do all the work anymore. He turned it over to the misbehaving children.

In reality, the story represents God's gift of Freedom and that in all things, man's Free will was to be exercised not only to choose between good and evil, but to choose life over death. If you do not hunt, or work, you will not eat.

[missyme]

And why did you say that!

[Terriergal]

fox or deer is taking a siesta it is terrible to think you walk up to it and shoot it

doubt you'd be able to do that to a fox... but maybe if you're really lucky, a deer. And if you shoot a bow, half the time they just think they've been stung by a bee and run about ten yards from the very quiet *sound* of the bow. Then they stand there looking around wondering what happened. Very humane.

BTW people shoot wild canines in the head. Quite humane. Instantaneous. The brain has no pain receptors. They just black out and that's it. What you see is random firing of neurons. Not pleasant to see, but more unpleasant for you to see than the animal to feel.

[Dan from Michigan]

I saw a timberwolf a few years ago driving back from the UP.

They are there, and they are protected as well, although they aren't flourishing there, from what I've heard. They have to compete with black bears(which are more common) for food.

And people had been sighting them off and on for years up there. Hadn't heard about the cats though.

I've heard cougars have been seen up North. I've never seen one. Don't want to either. I have seen bears(Near Waters), which are extending their range southward.

[missyme]

So is a Big Fat honkin fleece blanket...

[Terriergal]

Because it's true. You're saying a lot of things that are not well-founded to support your argument.

[tet68]

What is so enjoyable about killing an animal?

Doing it well.

People like yourself THINK it's enjoyable, but it's something that HAS to be done.

It has to be done in order to keep OURSELVES prepared to do what we must be able to do to survive, and that is kill and harvest game.

Personally I find those who decry hunting but still eat meat morally bankrupt, as they are unwilling to take on the responsiblity for their actions.

I do not take particular pleasure in seeing the magnificent woods creature, be it the monarch of the forest or a lowly squirrel, laying dead on the forest floor, it then is only meat, but meat that will sustain myself and my family.
It's death is a responsibility I, I take on because to do other wise would be to neglect the duty I have to my family

I do not take particular pleasure in having to reach into a
steaming hot chest cavity to cut the lungs and other organs away so I can begin the long haul out to the cooler, it's
hard to keep your stomach down but you do it, you learn to do it because others are depending on you.

And lastly you kill because there may come a time when you,
your family, or another person's life may depend on your ability to do so in as cold and calculating a manner as the situation calls for, to become emotional/hysterical may mean
a result you grieve about for the rest of your life, if you live. I would certainly find it easier to kill a predator than an innocent squirrel even though he was a man but without the constant experience of hunting, I might hesitate
and in that instant lose someone I love, or my life and be unable to protect them further.

There are good ecological reasons to hunt also, and trap, but I'm not going to get into all that. Do some research,
talk to some trappers associations, all states have them, all states require them to be licensed and trap in a humane manner.

And keep this in mind, animals DON'T HAVE RIGHTS, only man
has the ability to frame that concept. In the animal kingdom
the only right is tooth and claw, and if you're a vegetarian
the term for you is....prey.

[Terriergal]

Not like fur. Try it, you'll like it! (if you can get over your self-imposed guilt).

[Terriergal]

and if you're a vegetarian the term for you is....prey.

Vegetarian = Old Indian word for 'bad hunter.'

[Tench_Coxe]

"I actually saw a proposal by an animal rights idiot -- I repeat, IDIOT -- that deer should only be taken with non-expanding bullets because soft-point bullets were banned (for use in warfare) by the Geneva convention!"

That goes on the list of my 'most asinine ideas'. The whole point of expanding bullets is to make a quick kill. Ball ammo is primarily used in warfare out of the philosophy that by wounding a soldier, it will take out 1 or more additional soldiers to get them to safety.

BTW, 'trench sweepers' were against the Geneva convention as well, but some of the old farts from WWII---guess what their favorite sidearm was in the South Pacific?

[spunkets]

" Coyotes have also been known to hunt children. I read of one scenario in which a homeowner fended off a coyote who was attacking her child in the backyard one afternoon. A well known characteristic of coyotes is their ability to 'lock in' on a target. Well, in the case of the homeowner, for the next couple of weeks the coyote kept coming back at the exact same time every day looking for the kid."

The story is false. Coyotes and wolves never attack children, or man unless they are laid out dead, or near death. They will watch you from afar and go pee where you stood after you are gone, but they never attack.

[in the Arena]

Are you a vegetarian?

mmmmm...I love vegetarians...

[Dan from Michigan]

I wonder if they'd settle for a fixed blade broadhead. It's non-expanding, that should satisfy that PETA nut. Ya think? I doubt it.

ROFL. HSUA hates bow hunting more than rifle hunting.

[Terriergal]

Personally I find those who decry hunting but still eat meat morally bankrupt, as they are unwilling to take on the responsiblity for their actions.

Bingo. I'd rather not fund (as much as possible) the poor guy who has to slaughter animal after animal full time... to me it becomes meaningless. I don't think I could work in a slaughterhouse. I'd rather butcher what I need as I needed it, and be sure that I am not hiring someone to do the dirty work for me, so I can remain blissfully ignorant of the facts of life.

The rest of your post I echo also.

[missyme]

I agree coyotes are a nuicanse basically out here people just run them over, they should be caught and euthanized instead of being ran over constantly

[Terriergal]

Coyotes and wolves never attack children, or man unless they are laid out dead,

Actually, *that* isn't true. I read a few stories just last year about urban coyotes stalking toddlers in their backyards.

[philetus]

chances are, they are some of the people who want hunting banned.

[Terriergal]

they should be caught and euthanized instead of being ran over constantly

If you feel so strongly, why don't you donate your paycheck to do have it done?

[missyme]

Do you believe Animals go to heaven?

[spunkets]

" I read a few stories just last year about urban coyotes stalking toddlers in their backyards."

They watch, but are not stalking. They nail the yuppies' pooches all the time. Most folks just find the rindstone collar. No toddlers have been grabbed.