Rush Limbaugh Goes Anti-Gun With Humane Society Ads

Opinion by National Shooting Sports Foundation
(April 27, 2009) in Society / Guns
By Bill Brassard | NSSF Aiming for Accuracy

We hope Rush Limbaugh pulls his support for the Humane Society of the United States. In case you missed it, "El Rushbo" recently recorded two advertisements that, unfortunately, lend credibility to a group that is the most well-financed anti-hunting force in America.

For now we will give Mr. Limbaugh the benefit of the doubt, believing he simply was confused about what HSUS stands for, as are many Americans, including a number of hunters and shooters who mistakenly contribute to HSUS and thereby inadvertently strengthen a group that works against them and their hunting traditions. Mr. Limbaugh may have thought HSUS was the group that ran the local shelter for dogs and cats (Rush makes note of his cat, Pumpkin, in one of the ads). Well, HSUS is not your local humane society. Please remember that.


In response to Mr. Limbaugh's misguided support of HSUS, the sporting community has sent a number of letters to him, including one signed by 28 pro-hunting, pro-conservation groups, including NSSF, gently chastising him for getting cozy with an organization that has been connected with nearly every major piece of anti-hunting legislation. The letter seeks to educate Mr. Limbaugh about the vital role that hunters, trappers and anglers play in conserving America's wildlife and wild places.


“Every year, billions of dollars are pumped into conservation and local economies by American hunters, anglers, and trappers through the purchases of their licenses, equipment and clothing, and through their expenditures on hotels, travel, and dining.”

The letter points out to Mr. Limbaugh how his endorsement assists HSUS in advancing its agenda:

"Your decision to produce these advertisements for HSUS, and the implied endorsements that come with them, are a real coup for their cause. With America’s most prominent conservative spokesman on board, they have the opportunity to make in-roads in to a new cross-section of our country.

"You are helping them to mainstream their image in the minds of reasonable people. Your collaboration furthers the anti-hunting and anti-fishing agenda of HSUS, which will undermine the great success of conservation and threatens the economies of small towns and rural states across our nation."

While we hope Mr. Limbaugh realizes his mistake and reconsiders his support for HSUS, we hope just as much that this episode of mistaken humane society identity serves as an "teaching moment" for all Americans, especially those who approve of hunting, which by the latest surveys is about 78 percent of the public.

Since you remember best what you read last, we'll say again that the HSUS is not affiliated with your local independent animal care agency. That's what HSUS wants you to think, though. The wolf in sheep's clothing. Don't fall for it.

Thank You for your Comment

We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Alex M
    Sport?

    When did we begin to accept the proposition that violence, which is intrinsically connected to hunting, is fun or "sport"? Don't we generally reject this kind of reasoning, opting instead for non-violence, as a matter of morality?

    From the the NY Times:

    "A sport involves two individuals or teams that follow the same rules, are similarly equipped and let the best individual or team win. Hunting will qualify as a sport only when the hunter fairly chases the animal, on foot, without a weapon, one on one. But hunters are not likely to accept that challenge, because the animals they chase are stronger, faster and smarter."

    The authors of this op-ed surely don't mean to suggest that killing nonhuman animals is the only method of "conservation" and economic support for "small towns and rural states across the nation." The former is self-evidently false given alternative birth control methods and the artless label of these activities as "sport."

    The latter doesn't follow as a matter of ethics for if it did those who opposed slavery would have been correctly criticized for brining normative judgments to bear on the economic status quo.

    - Alex MUS April 27, 2009 4:53PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Henry Bowman
      NYT quote?

      It’s laughable to think humans EVER hunted nonhuman animals on foot and bare-handed. Humans invented weapons, because animals are indeed faster and stronger, but obliviously not smarter. This technological advantage afforded our ancestors time to improve on other technologies, such as farming. Bingo! Civilization was born. Without hunters, you could not sit at your desk declaring moral superiority. You owe your very existence to hunters.

      - Henry BowmanUS April 28, 2009 1:31PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • mattinohio
        LAUGHABLE?

        Yes you're right, we do owe our very existence to hunters. Hunters who hunted for food not for a sport. Hunting for food is necessary, for sport is exessive.

        - mattinohioUS April 29, 2009 1:52PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Alex M
        Clarification

        The cited article doesn't suggest a descriptive or historical claim. It exposes how labeling hunting a "sport" begs the question.

        My additional comments were meant to ask why we view violence as "sport" or fun given that we generally have strong normative commitments against violence.

        Furthermore, assuming the accuracy of your historical claim, what ethical prescriptions can we reasonably deduce from this fact? It stands to reason that we could extend your logic to the case of human slavery and institutionalized racism . I am a white American. I could surely argue that I have certain latent privileges living in a society once dominated by a racist paradigm. Is continued racism, therefore, ethical? Or must we look to today's norms to evaluate this claim?

        - Alex MUS April 29, 2009 2:30PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Pierre
    Where is the world do you get "Anti-Gun" frrom this?

    Seriously, the PSA's are about stewardship and stopping dog fighting.


    - PierreUS April 28, 2009 10:03AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Dave S
    Has nothing to do with dog fighting

    Rush was duped into believing that HSUS is an honorable organization and made some PSA's on dog fighting. He would not be feeling the heat had he made the same PSA's for even a slightly more honorable organization. It just goes to show how many people do not realize the full agenda of HSUS. Not only are they anti-hunting, but they are anti- meat and anti-flyswatter. I don't want Wayne Pacelle telling me what I can and can't eat. I have spoken to many ranchers and farmers (I am a large animal veterinarian) who have given money to HSUS, thinking that they were helping their local dog shelter. They were livid when they found out that they had contributed to an organization who wanted to put them out of business.

    - Dave SUS April 29, 2009 8:24PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Dave S
    Non-Human Animals?

    All animals are non human.

    - Dave SUS April 29, 2009 8:25PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Alex M
      "Nonhuman animals"

      Dave S.,

      Evolutionary biology exposes your error here. A human being is a member of a species of bipedal primates in the family Hominidae (also known as "great apes"). We are, therefore, a species of animal.

      So, when I say "nonhuman animals " it is simply to clarify that when we distinguish between a cow, for example, and a human being, we are not identifying an insuperable difference; simply a different species of animal. This is important because we generally assume that the word “animal” means not human, which is nonsensical.

      A correction is necessary. The Humane Society of the United States isn’t “anti-hunting” or “anti-eating flesh.” They are pro-logical consistency. For example, as my original comment was meant to illustrate, we inconsistently condone violence during the “sport” of killing deer, while stridently opposing violence – especially for “sport” – in any other context.

      - Alex MUS April 30, 2009 9:48AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Dave S
        Non-human Animals

        The error is in the faulty beleif in evolutionary biology. I didn't come from apes and this fact is borne out by the elusive "missing link." So, all animals are non-human. But I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, here.

        I need further explanation of your correction. When JP Goodwin, HSUS Grassroots Coordinator says, "My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." And Wayne Pacelle says, "If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would." and "Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.", you don't think HSUS is anti- meat and anti-hunting?

        - Dave SUS April 30, 2009 10:37AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Alex M
          Continuing

          You don't believe in evolution , therefore, you must believe that we currently exist in one of the, perhaps the singularly, greatest conspiracy in history. Shocking, indeed.

          No, again, HSUS is not "anti- meat ." In some instances, true cases of need, for example, consuming animal bodies isn't ethical unjustifiable. They are pro-logical consistency. Not consuming flesh when there isn't a need, but merely a "want," is but one example of a wrong that follows from this consistency. Given that veganism is healthy at all stages of the life cycle, according to the American Dietetic Association (ADA), our consumption of flesh is defitionally unnecessary.

          Dave S, you should consider the animal rights discourse in detail prior to assuming you understand the position.

          - Alex MUS April 30, 2009 5:34PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • Dave S
            Conspiracy

            Survival of the fittest is real. To that point, we have evolution . But it certainly is not the origin of the species. The fastest rabbit will outrun the coyote, so he will breed and develop more fast rabbits. That is the only evolution that occurs.

            Yes, HSUS is anti- meat , as evidenced by the quotes by its leaders. And it is anti-hunting, again, as seen in those quotes. If the ADA is correct, then why is it that new research released this week indicates that animal fats in the diet will prevent dementia? Why is it that vegetarians' brains shrink? Why is it that babies born to vegetarians have underdeveloped central nervous systems? And why is it that a UK study released two weeks ago show that vegetarians are at a higher risk for colo-rectal cancer than meat eaters? Why is it that Bill Walton blames his short pro basketball career on his decision to be a vegetarian and he told his son (now an NBA player) to eat meat?

            Alex M, you should consider the animal rights discourse in detail prior to assuming you understand the position.

            - Dave SUS April 30, 2009 6:26PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • Alex M
              The ADA

              So you do believe that we currently exist in the singularly greatest, and far reaching, conspiracies in all of history?

              The American Dietetic Association is the world's leading expert of food and nutrition . I could cite Carl Lewis, who, prior to Michael Phelps, was considered the "greatest Olympian in history," who argued that his most successful year was when he went vegan. We could of course consider the most recent study linking the consumption of red flesh to cancer and decreased life span. If we're to begin citing evidence of negative health effects and diet , the consumption of flesh and reproductive excretions would certainly prove dangerous. But this isn't necessary. It's nonsensical to argue that a vegan diet does not provide optimal nutrition.

              Therefore, until you respond to my comment clarifying your absolutist remark that "HSUS is anti- meat ," in which I explained to you where you are wrong, we cannot continue.

              - Alex MUS May 1, 2009 6:47AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Dave S
                ADA

                I believe in God. I have a strong faith in God. As far as the greatest and most far-reaching conspiracies in all of history…no, I do not believe in the animal rights movement. But I am glad to see you recognize the animal rights movement as a conspiracy.

                The ADA is, indeed, a reputable group. And they are trying to do the best they can with the science they have. Carl Lewis is a great Olympian and he may be a perfect example to support your beliefs. On the other hand, I can cite myself, as I went vegetarian for six months, not because I believed it was the best choice, but because I wanted to be able to say I had given it an honest try. I have to say, I felt OK. Not great, but OK. The biggest problem I had (besides a craving for some good food ) was stamina. About 2 months into my experiment, I got involved in a major fence building project (ironically, it was for holding cattle!). The process of digging post holes, setting posts, carrying 80 lb rolls of barbed wire while I unrolled it for the fence just wore me out. I had done this type of work on many occasions and never had I been that wore down. I would go home after working, eat supper and go to bed. The next morning, I would feel OK, but by 2PM, I was exhausted and had to fight through the rest of the day. Within two weeks of adding meat back to my diet , my stamina was greatly improved. Another issue I had during my vegetarian experience was how “anal” I had to be about making sure I stayed on the diet. Which brings me to my next point. (Continued)

                - Dave SUS May 1, 2009 2:43PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Dave S
                ADA continued

                Another issue I had during my vegetarian experience was how “anal” I had to be about making sure I stayed on the diet . Which brings me to my next point. Much of the so-called science that compares vegetarians/vegans to consumers of meat (I like your use of the word “flesh” – that makes meat sound even more flavorful, tender and delicious!) is seriously flawed and both the AMA and ADA have stated as such. For instance, if we are to compare these two groups, can we honestly say that the only difference between them is whether or not they consume flesh (man, I like that word! Thanks!)? I think you would agree that people who subscribe to vegetarianism are expressing some concern about their lifestyle, misguided as that concern may be. Some are doing it for supposed “ health reasons”, some are doing it to make a political statement, some are doing it because of low self-esteem and some are doing it just because it seems fashionable. These people have a purpose in mind when they eat, and it isn’t just sustenance. This is conjecture on my part, but I would bet you a very large steak dinner that the percentage of vegetarians who run or perform some sort of an aerobic activity is much higher than in people who consume flesh. I would also bet you another steak dinner that the percentage of smokers and drinkers included in the flesh consumers’ group would be much higher than the percentage of those in the vegetarian group. So, the comparison is very weak.

                - Dave SUS May 1, 2009 2:44PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Dave S
                ADA 3

                Also, as stated in the ADA position paper, only 2.5% of Americans are vegetarians. So, 97.5% are flesh eaters (that just sounds so tasty!). Many vegetarians will tout that they are living proof that their lifestyle is healthier. I am 46 years old and I would be glad to compare my health parameters to any vegetarian of any age or any sex (I just had a physical), as I am certain that I would either be more healthy or just as healthy as the vast majority of vegetarians. So, if an observation of 2.5% of Americans who don’t eat flesh, have a higher propensity to exercise and a lower propensity to smoke and drink indicates that the remaining 97.5% should become vegetarians, than my single case of outstanding health should convince the small percentage of people who are vegetarians that the opposite is true. The truth is, it doesn’t matter which side of the argument you choose to be on, it doesn’t make sense either way. There simply isn’t a good control group. Finally, the phrase “optimal nutrition” was used in your post. Since the ADA position paper states “vegetarian diets are…nutritionally adequate…”, how did we leap to “optimal”? Further, there is a companion paper that describes much of the supplementation necessary to keep the vegetarian diet “nutritionally adequate.”

                Alex M, you should consider the animal rights discourse in detail prior to assuming you understand the position.

                I will post again on the rest of your message.

                - Dave SUS May 1, 2009 2:45PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Dave S
                HSUS is anti-meat 1

                It has been stated in your prior comments that HSUS is OK with hunting out of necessity, but I believe HSUS is only OK with this until they can act upon it at a later point in time. As pointed out in one of my earlier posts, JP Goodwin, HSUS Grassroots Coordinator, has stated that his goal is to abolish all animal agriculture. This statement is certainly anti- meat . The weak evidence provided to the contrary pales in comparison to Mr. Goodwin’s straight-forward proclamation. But even if we put that aside, how are we to believe anything that HSUS says? After all, it is no secret that HSUS is fully aware that many people donate to them, thinking that they are helping their local animal shelter through some “umbrella organization.” HSUS is very happy to take money from well-meaning and trusting ranchers and farmers who are unaware that the very people they are donating to wants to put them out of business.

                - Dave SUS May 1, 2009 7:17PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Dave S
                HSUS is anti-meat 2

                Should we believe what HSUS says because HSUS said they would take care of Michael Vick’s dogs and accepted donations for that service when they weren’t caring for Vick’s dogs at all and then suggested that they should all be put down? Or should we believe what HSUS says because they accepted $34 million for Hurricane Katrina victims and could only show $7 million actually went to that cause and they couldn’t account for the rest? Or should we believe what HSUS says because they kept videotape footage of animal abuse away from officials for three months so they could release it at a time when it would provide the most impact for their vegan agenda? Or how about Dr. Michael Greger lying to Congress about the San Bernadino County DA asking HSUS to keep the video? Or how about HSUS lying about a “boycott” of Canadian Seafood in which 78% of the restaurants named as supporting the boycott were not participating at all and most of them were unaware that HSUS was using their name in an international campaign?

                - Dave SUS May 1, 2009 7:18PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Dave S
                HSUS is anti-meat 3

                In more recent news, Dr. Greger exposed his faulty thought process by blaming the H1N1 virus on large hog farms. To date, there have been no pigs that have been sickened by this virus and there have been no hog farm workers that have been sickened by this virus. Even in the town of La Gloria, where it has been speculated to be the source of the virus, there have been no pigs with the virus nor workers with the virus. Even Wayne Pacelle, in one of his blogs this week said, “HSUS is ready to be an honest partner...” It’s great that Wayne is willing to admit that that he has been dishonest in the past, but by virtue of his dishonesty, how is anyone to believe that he is being truthful when he says he is now ready to be honest? So, when HSUS says that they are not anti- meat , and their actions say otherwise, I am going to have to believe HSUS is anti-meat.

                Alex M, you should consider the animal rights discourse in detail prior to assuming you understand the position.

                - Dave SUS May 1, 2009 7:19PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...