Anti-Hunting Group Announces Litigation Division

Discussion in 'Maine Deer Hunting' started by Mark Orion Luce, Dec 3, 2004.

  1. 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,

    Posted by,
    Mark Luce
  2. kenton6

    kenton6 Administrator


  3. New Jersey Supreme Court Politicizes Wildlife Management-
    New Jersey

    Join our e-mail alert list

    A ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court will allow the state to overrule hunting seasons authorized by the state’s independent Fish and Game Council.

    The first effect of the decision is that Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Bradley Campbell has cancelled the state’s 2004 black bear hunt. However, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is concerned that the decision may have far-reaching ramifications for the future of hunting and wildlife management in New Jersey.

    In a remarkable decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fish and Game Council’s regulations are subject to the approval of the politically appointed DEP Commissioner.

    “The court’s judgment strips science from the wildlife management decisions in New Jersey,” said U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Senior Vice President Rick Story. “It allows politics to be the determining factor for controversial wildlife issues, such as the 2004 bear hunt.”

    The New Jersey Fish and Game Council based its decision to hold the bear hunt on sound science. Hunting is known to be the most effective tool to manage black bears. According to Division of Wildlife biologists, New Jersey has an over-abundant bear population.

    But Commissioner Campbell has been opposed to the 2004 hunt since its onset.

    “He obviously based his decision to stop the hunt on personal conviction, the influence of the anti-hunting movement and, perhaps, a quest for power,” Story said. “And the court has deemed that appropriate.”

    The Supreme Court’s ruling was an atrocious example of legislating from the bench, Story said.

    In its unanimous ruling, the court decided that the Fish and Game Council is responsible for setting policies "for the protection and propagation of fish, birds, and game animals," but those policies are "subject to the approval of the commissioner."

    “The law establishing the Fish and Game Council in no way affords the Commissioner such authority,” said Story, “but the Supreme Court gave him that power when it unanimously ruled in his favor.”

    The court also interjected its opinion as to what constitutes sound wildlife management policy. It stated that the council has no proper bear management plan, claiming that the 1997 plan is inadequate. The Fish and Game Council considers the plan, which cites hunting as an option to control bear numbers, to be policy. The court snubbed the recommendations of professional wildlife biologists when it ruled that the hunt would not be permitted until the state updates its bear management plan.


    Information on this website can be reprinted with a citation to the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and

    For more information about how you can protect your rights as a sportsman, contact The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, 801 Kingsmill Parkway, Columbus, OH 43229. Phone (614) 888-4868. E-Mail us at

    Posted by,
    Mark Luce