HSUS: Animals > Hungry People?

If there’s one thing the Humane Society of the United States seems opposed to, it’s common sense. But in light of events in Ann Arbor, Michigan, you might be able to add logic, scientific facts, and feeding the hungry.  But before we get there, here’s the backstory.

Struggling with an out of control deer population, the city of Ann Arbor approved a deer cull given that deer-vehicle collisions were up 75%, the deer were straining the ecosystem, and the near certain increase in ticks carrying Lyme disease. Despite these sensible grounds, activists were outraged that deer had been hunted in their city.

Unsurprisingly, HSUS led the charge on non-lethal population control last year, lobbying for Ann Arbor to use birth control on female deer. Interestingly, the birth control, PZP, is developed using pig ovaries, while HSUS is generally against medical research using animals.

HSUS’s political ideology puts it at odds with biological and ecological experts.  According to wildlife expert Jim Sterba, PZP “for free-ranging whitetails, does not work. And it is neither practicable nor affordable.” That’s because PZP efficacy has only been proven on isolated populations , such as animals on islands or those living in a fenced environment. University of Michigan professor Christopher Dick, a biologist, had a blunter word for what HSUS is advocating: “Pseudoscience.”

To work anywhere else, you’d have to count, track, then shoot hundreds of deer with a dart, not once, but as long as the population is to be managed since the effects of PZP are not permanent. Plus, you’d also have to prevent any crossover from nearby herds—which takes us back to the whole only-works-on-islands aspect.

Logical contradictions and science denial aside, the other astounding thing is that activists held a “deer lives matter” rally in honor of the 63 killed in the cull. An inconvenient fact for HSUS and the activists, however, is the hunt was far from wasteful because the venison was donated to feed the homeless. In fact, if all 63 deer were used, it’d amount to about 10,080 servings of venison.

With that in mind we’d like to ask these self-congratulatory activists and HSUS—do hungry lives matter? Or do animal lives just matter more? We’d love an answer because the answers implied by your protests and lobbying seem inhumane.

Posted on 04/28/2016 at 6:02 pm by HumaneWatch Team.

Topics: Hunting & FishingWildlife

Permalink

  • al smith

    not to mention HSUS holds the patent on PXP

  • Carol Hulbert

    I wouldn’t put activists and HSUS together in the same sentence as the writer of this article has. Any animal advocate, not even an activist, knows what HSUS and their CEO are up to. Animal lives should be valued as human lives are as these days it’s not necessary to kill to stay alive. Culling any animals is a disgusting, heinous thing to do, because they’re getting in human’s way?? They should die?? If people would STOP eating animals, there would be plenty of food to feed the world, much less one town. I’m surprised at you, “Humane Watch”!

    • TeamMP

      While I agree that activists and HSUS are not the same, I must take issue with your last statement. If hunting related activities were stopped, there would be a greater strain on farmers, farm land, and the produce grown. As the herds of deer, turkey, and other “game species” is left unchecked by humans, they would over browse and destroy acres of plants grown for our consumption. The current population of deer already takes a tremendous toll on farm land and many farmers are left with a much smaller harvest.

      Add in the prevalence of tick-born diseases, CWD, and EHD…deer populations in particular need human intervention. As people continue to encroach on the home ranges of wildlife, animals have less land to occupy which results in more human/wildlife interactions (car crashes, human contraction of disease, etc.).

      It is understandable that non-hunters do not like to see animals suffer (believe it or not, but neither do hunters). However, “leaving it up to nature” to balance the herds will result in more people witnessing animal suffering due to disease, predation, and overpopulation induce starvation. Non-hunters do not need to take part in hunting related activities if they do not wish to. However, hunters do their part to “keep the balance” of population control and disease management.

      -JC

  • QBU

    Most likely if they had not gotten rid of indigenous predators in the area, the deer populations would be kept in check. Nature has it’s own checks an and balances when left to it’s own devices. At least the meat was used to feed the homeless and not just dumped in a landfill to go to waste. Sometimes the needs of the many over ride the needs of the few.

  • al smith

    Guess who owns the patent for PZP (it actually isn’t called a patent, but it amounts to the organization having full and complete control over who uses it), the contraceptive HSUS is pushing to use for sterilization of the horses? Well, that would be none other than HSUS themselves.