Interesting discussion. I'm all for using your money to support organizations and causes with which you agree and keeping your money from those organizations and causes with which you disagree. I can't disagree with anyone's personal decision to support or oppose Fishpond here.
I respectfully disagree with the characterization of the HSUS as part of the animal rights movement. I've spent a fair amount of time reading literature from conservation and animal organizations of all types. HSUS would be better understood as an animal welfare, rather than an animal rights organization. PETA and the Animal Liberation Front would both be animal rights organizations. The animal rights groups see no distinction, from a moral perspective, between (in their language) human animals and nonhuman animals. From that point of view, it you aren't willing to do it to a human animal (like eat one, wear one, use one for testing) don't do it to nonhuman animals. The animal welfare groups see a distinction between human animals and nonhuman animals. Animal welfare organizations find a use for nonhuman animals in human society. Animal welfare groups, like HSUS, oppose what they see as waste of the nonhuman animal resource. In the particular example raised above, HSUS opposes shark fishing tournaments where the sharks are killed. There is persuasive evidence that overfishing of sharks causes a host of ripple effects throughout the ocean ecosystem. I am willing to be wrong, but I have not run across any literature indicating that HSUS wants to ban sport fishing altogether. My guess is that HSUS would support sport fishing that does not impact sustainable fisheries. HSUS would probably oppose the use of some hypothetical hook or line that injures more fish than other similar products.
