Animal Welfare or Animal Rights?

Here are some of the differences:

As animal welfare advocates. . .
• We seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals.
• We support the humane treatment of animals that ensures comfort and freedom
from unnecessary pain and suffering.
• We believe we have the right to "own" animals -- they are our property.
• We believe animal owners should provide loving care for the lifetime of their

As animal rights activists. . .
• They seek to end the use and ownership of animals, including the keeping of pets.
• They believe that any use of an animal is exploitation so, not only must we stop
using animals for food and clothing, but pet ownership must be outlawed as well.
• They want to obtain legal rights for animals as they believe that animals and
humans are equal.
• They use false and unsubstantiated allegations of animal abuse to raise funds,
attract media attention and bring supporters into the movement. (The Inhumane
Crusade, Daniel T. Oliver)

HSUS is the 'Humane Society of the United States.' It is supported mainly by small donations from millions of
Americans because it has been almost 100% successful at marketing itself as 'for the animals.' However, it's more
accurately thought of as a business that provides the animal rights movement with the service of squeezing
rights to use animals than as an animal welfare organization.

■         HSUS is not connected with any animal shelters or direct animal welfare activities. Of top 12 HSUS Animal
Stories of 2005 (grey wolves, abused tigers, pet cloning, Internet hunting, dove hunts, animal fighting, seal hunts,
laying hens, trophy hunting, HSUS-FFA joining, Katrina relief and horse slaughter), only hurricane relief had to do
with helping Fido or Fluffy as promoted in their materials.

■         HSUS is devoted to making animal use (including pet ownership) steadily more difficult and expensive. Its
main actions divide into: (a) Promoting laws to restrict use/ownership, (b) propaganda in support of such laws,
and (c) fundraising/self- promotional actions. YOU WILL LOOK IN VAIN FOR AN HSUS ACTION THAT MAKES

■        Specific campaigns include anti-hunting, anti-meat farming and meat eating (the organization's
headquarters forbids animal products), anti-pet breeding (it is the chief promoter of the so-called 'Pet Animal
Welfare Statute' or PAWS), anti-circus/rodeo, and anti- animal use medical and other research.

■        HSUS has a net worth of over $110 million and (since the recent merger with the Fund For Animals) an
annual budget approaching $100 million. Its money goes to fund many sorts of anti animal use campaigns, to
excellent executive salaries, and to very high (~53% of gross) fundraising expenses.

■        HSUS is in the process of expanding its litigation capabilities. In 2005 it announced a new “Animal
Protection Litigation Section," dedicated to “the process of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal
protection lawsuits in state and federal court.”

■        HSUS has legal control over dozens of other corporations. It has effective control over state level affiliates in
about half the states which it uses to carry out no-fingerprints lobbying on state measures: aside from PAWS
these state groups are the main route for anti-breeding laws. It has affilates of one sort or another in many foreign

■        A few quotes:
When he became president of HSUS (2004) Wayne Pacelle described some of his goals for The Washington Post:
“We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts … [and we’re] phasing out animals used in research. Hunting? I
think you will see a steady decline in numbers.” "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process
to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in
California. Then we will take it state by state." Wayne Pacelle, October 1, 1990.

Shortly after Pacelle joined HSUS in 1994, he told Animal People (an inside- the-movement watchdog newspaper)
that his goal was to build “a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.”

"One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of
human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, now CEO, HSUS, 1993

"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." J.P. Goodwin, now Director of Grassroots Outreach with HSUS.
Formerly with the Animal Liberation Front, Mr Goodwin has a lengthy arrest record and a history of promoting
arson to accomplish animal liberation. This quote appeared on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion
group in 1996.

“The entire animal rights movement in the United States [views the act of the British parliament banning hunting
with dogs] as one of the most important actions in the history of the animal rights movement. This will energize
our efforts to stop hunting with hounds.” Wayne Pacelle, now CEO, HSUS, London Times, December 26, 2004

HSUS actions:

•        Passed an amendment to the Florida constitution banning (on grounds of cruelty) the use of farrowing pens
which prevent the sow from rolling on and crushing piglets. They paid expenses for out-of- state volunteers to
collect the necessary signatures to put the measure on the ballot and spent heavily on supporting media. There
were at the time two hog farms in the state. The same measure is now being attempted in Arizona and one of the
New England states, both also with little hog farming. Attacking accepted animal practices in places where they're
almost unknown establishes precedents that will be used to support attacks in other places.

•        Passed a ban on production of fois gras in California which had one farm. The same is now being attempted
in Hawaii which has none.

•        Currently suing Ringling Bros. circus alleging cruelty to elephants, a violation of the Endangered Species

•        Suing New Jersey Department of Agriculture to overturn regulations defining common intensive farming
practices as "humane."

•        Attempted to ban hunting of bears with bait and with the use of dogs in Maine. The referendum effort failed
by a narrow margin.

•        HSUS is the chief force behind PAWS. Its state level 'no fingerprints' affiliates are pushing comprehensive
breeder licensing bills in several states each year.
In most of these actions and dozens of others each year, HSUS attacks as 'cruelty' accepted practices which are
unfamiliar to most people, in places where they're least familiar and/or of little importance. Another common
approach is the one being used for PAWS: use of rare horrible examples to suggest the existence of a
widespread problem requiring restrictive legislation.

Before deciding that 'good' breeders aren't vulnerable we should consider how the average voter would respond
to the statement "Because the breeding of pets is so important and problems are so common, dog and cat
breeders should be licensed and inspected by the government."

The animal rights effort to end animal use in our country including the breeding and ownership of pets will not be
contained unless we:

★        Unite to oppose nearly all HSUS actions,

★        Take effective steps to tell our side of the story to the general public, and,

★        Expose HSUS for the fraud that it is. When the money from people who believe their $25 check actually
helps animals dries up, it is over. Until then we will continue to lose the war for our rights and our animals.

What is the Humane Society of the United States?
By Christopher Aust
August 2004

I was rather amazed at the number of people who wrote to me about my opinions regarding the
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) when I did my last few articles. Then again, maybe I
shouldn't be. Before about two weeks ago, I myself was rather ignorant as to the real goals of
HSUS, and where their, (actually your) money goes. As I always do though, I decided to
edumacate myself about them.
I also conducted a poll of 100 average people. Just the average Joe in the street. 94% of the
people thought HSUS ran the local shelters in their community. 4% knew about their other
programs and the remaining 2% had no idea who they were. Of the 94% all said they would donate
to HSUS based on what they knew about them. I'm betting HSUS is banking, literally, on these
types of individuals.
I also went online and found some rather interesting, at times quite scary, information on several
web sites. I would have interviewed a HSUS representative, but after last week's newsletter, I got
an email from one that was little more than hate mail and very offensive!

Coleman Burke, then president of the American Bible Society, Cleveland Amory and  Helen Jones,
founded HSUS in 1954. As far as I have been able to tell, Mr. Burke served as their President until
1970 when John Hoyt, a Presbyterian minister, took over as President and CEO until 1996.
Until just a few months ago, the President and CEO was Paul Irwin, a Methodist minister. The
current CEO and President is Wayne Pacelle who admittedly has had ties with some radical (and I
mean radical) animal rights groups in the past.
Now, is it important I mention the religious background? Maybe and maybe not. What I noticed
though is the organization, at least to me, has an evangelical feel. Is this a bad thing? No. I don't
see why unless you are running the finances in a manner similar to Jim and Tammie Faye Baker!
That sure is the way it looks to me.

Officers and Directors
HSUS is an organization with their primary focus being animals. As I reviewed the names and titles
of the Board Officers and Directors, I found it curious they had no DVM's (vets) on either. They
have three MDs', three PhDs' and six attorneys. Am I the only one that finds this odd? Plenty of
lawyers, but no vet. Hmmm…Maybe it's just a typo.

Comparative Financial Operations Report
When I conducted my interview with Kathy Bauch a few weeks ago, she refused to answer any
questions regarding HSUS' finances for a "newsletter." She did offer to send me their 2003
financials though. This is what they send whenever some one has questions about their finances.
As I mentioned last week, if it was similar to what they have online, it would be vague and difficult
to decipher. What I got was much more.
What I received is their 2003 Annual Report. It is a twenty-one page "report" that wasobviously
very expensive to print. Tucked way in the back is exactly what I expected.
A vague and difficult to read one page financial report. The rest appears to me to be a very
expensive sales letter and nothing more, complete with a postage paid envelope to send in your
Now you might say, "So what? They have to promote themselves." I agree. However, this
publication has six pages of calendar quality photos of nothing but animals. Two and a half pages
of self-glorifying articles from HSUS staff, none of which was necessary. How much donor money
could have been saved by deleting this junk from the thousands and thousands of these reports
they printed?
According to the Comparative Financial Operations Report for 2003, the HSUS has $116,205,882.00
in total liability and net assets. Over $5,000,000 of that is in cash and cash equivalents, and another
nearly five and a half million in receivables. They also have nearly $93,000,000 in market value
investments. Not too bad.
In 2003, in revenue, additions and transfers, HSUS made $76,923,670. Of that amount, sheltering
programs received $10,551,527 and it was shared with animal habitat and wildlife programs. Now,
assuming it was an even split, sheltering programs received $3,517,175.66
Now that's a lot of money, but not when you consider a good sized shelter can cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars a year to run, three million is really a drop in the bucket. They spent
$21,145,769.00 in fundraising and membership development. Six times what they put into their
shelter programs, which is what most people I talked to think HSUS does with the money donated
to them.

Providing Help or Selling It
I'm not sure what they spent the money on for their shelter programs, but I will assure you they
didn't fund any shelters. In fact, they charge shelters and Animal Control offices for their
assistance and instructional material. I have been able to find little and or nothing HSUS doesn't
charge for when it comes to helping a shelter and their educational programs.
For instance, lets say you or your town runs an animal shelter that is struggling for one reason or
another, which most are, HSUS is ready to come in and help. For between $4000.00 and $20,000.00
they will send their experts to your shelter through their Animal Services Consultation Program.
The fee depends on the size of the agency and the complexity of its programs, charged on a
sliding scale based on your agency's resources. In other words, the more you have, the more
they'll take.

Youth Programs
Now, lets go back to our youth. You're in middle or high school and want to start a club to promote
rescue and do things to help companion animals. HSUS can help you with that, too. Just go to There you can buy a package full of all kinds of propaganda and learn to be a full-
fledged animal activist. They will sell your child a club starter kit for $22.00 and then give activity
suggestions like their "Fight Fur" program.
Here they encourage kids to make flyers and hand them out in front of businesses to protest
against shoppers buying fur. HSUS will also give your child cards to distribute at such events.
They'll show your child pictures of dead animals in traps and direct them to other sites where they
can see pictures of hunters beating seals over the head.
They will also promote vegen/vegetarian lifestyles to your child. Just go to the message board for
kids and you can read how many of the kids are distressed, after reading the material HSUS SOLD
them, because their parents will not let them go vegen. You will also see posts promoting PETA!
Now I want to be fair here. They do have some decent material that is age appropriate and
educational in nature. I think it's overpriced; for instance, your child can rent a video to show their
class for $25.00, but some of it is good material. However, there is little promoting appropriate
training, grooming or responsible ownership of companion animals. It seems to me the whole
focus is turning  our children into activists, vegens and extremists.
Now if I want my child to be a vegen, or an activist, I will make that decision and not HSUS. Our
kids have enough on their plate without having to be weighed down with this information or
agenda. Additionally, kids are kids and don't always make appropriate decisions. When dealing
with complex issues like activism and  protesting, it would be easy for them to get into trouble or
hurt. Doesn't PETA target children too?

Ethical Financial Practices
Let's get back to the money: Former President John Hoyt once instructed his members on
becoming more humane: "We begin, I suggest, by living more simply, more sparingly." Let's see
how he did. He made around $200,000.00 in the late 1980's running HSUS. In 1986, HSUS bought his
house in Maryland for $310,000 and allowed him and his family to live there, free of rent, until 1992.
When he retired as CEO, HSUS gave him a $1,000,000.00 bonus.
Paul Irwin, another former President, while making $300,000.00 from HSUS, was given an
$85,000.00 interest free loan to renovate his cabin in Maine. The cabin was held in trust by HSUS,
however his family continued to use it until he died. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Makes me

Guilty by Association
Let's look at some of HSUS' associations: In April of 2000 HSUS sent J.P. Goodwin as its emissary
on an anti-fur mission to China. Goodwin is not just any animal rights zealot, he was an avowed
member of Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a group once called one of the biggest domestic
terrorist organizations by the FBI. He had been convicted for vandalism of several fur retailers and
their property. Less than a year later, he was formerly identified as a HSUS legislative staff
If you don't know about ALF you should check them out. They truly scare the heck out of me. They
are, in my opinion, every bit as much a threat to people as Al Quiada. I cannot believe HSUS would
hire such a person. When asked questions about an arson fire at a slaughter house in Petaluma,
California, and a Utah feed co-op that nearly killed a family, Goodwin stated, "We're ecstatic!"

Then, there is the PETA connection ...
HSUS has repeatedly hired PETA employees in their organization. Their head of investigations,
several investigators, a computer programmer, just to name a few. Sorry folks, my opinion is,
once a terrorist, always a terrorist. When HSUS hires these people, they appear to support the
crimes these individuals may have been involved in.
In 2003, HSUS VP Martin Stephens was asked to recommend three people to serve on an EPA
"pollution prevention and toxics" panel. Two of his three choices were PETA employees.

All Talk and No Action
While HSUS will admit they don't run or fund any shelters, you usually find it at the bottom of the
page or tucked away somewhere near the end of a statement. As I mentioned before, they don't
put their money where their mouth is. Get this …
In 1995, when the Washington DC animal shelter was going to have to close due to a budget
shortfall, HSUS (based in DC) offered to build and operate a DC shelter at its own expense to serve
as a national model. There were, of course, conditions.
HSUS wanted the city to give it 3-5 acres of land and tax exempt status for all of its real estate
holdings in the District of Columbia. (Remember, they buy some executives homes to live in
among other property holdings.) The DC government offered a long-term lease but HSUS refused
to proceed unless it would "own absolutely" the land. The district declined, and the only HSUS
funded animal shelter never materialized.
HSUS, who makes and has enough money to fund a shelter in every state, as well as subsidize
spay/neuter programs, declined to help the dogs in its own back yard. Why? Money is all I can
think of. Perhaps they were afraid they would soil their Armani suits by actually working with a

The New CEO
Rather than go on a tirade about the new President and CEO of HSUS, I have put some quotes
from him below. Read them, and you decide.
"I think they wanted the aggressive approach," he says. "They wanted someone who was going to
think things up. And they got him." June 2004, Washington Post when asked about his selection as
"We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human
selective breeding." Quoted in Animal People, May, 1993

I could go on for days about HSUS, but I will stop here. In my opinion, they are little more than an
organization whose main agenda is filling the coffers and pushing an extremist agenda through
misinformation and exploitation. Again, my opinion, they have done nothing but profit from the
contributions of people who don't know any better. I have tried to see it otherwise, I simply can't.
I highly recommend you go to and see what they have there about HSUS and
their connection with PETA. There are several other sites I found interesting, as well as many
stories about HSUS in the archive of the Washington Post.
Would I give anything to the Humane Society of the United States? Yes I would. A pooper-scooper,
they can use to go clean my yard. At least then we would know they actually have done
something for a dog this year.
This article may be republished using the following attribution box:
Copyright ©2004 Christopher Aust, Master Dog Trainer & Creator:
The Natural Cooperative Training System (NCTS) for Dogs
The Instinctual Development System (IDS) for Puppies
Subscribe to the BARK 'n' SCRATCH Newsletter:

The Humane Society of the US: It's Not about Animal Shelters
by Daniel T. Oliver, Alternatives in Philanthropy, Oct. 1997
Oliver is editor of Alternatives in Philanthropy and author of Animal Rights: The Inhumane Crusade. He is writing a
second book on the animal rights movement.

With a $46-million budget and 4.1 million members, the Washington, D.C.-based Humane Society of the United
States (HSUS) is the largest animal rights organization in the country. Founded in 1954 and staffed by 200
employees, HSUS is sometimes confused with local humane societies that find homes for unwanted cats and
dogs. But according to its own literature, "we are not . . . affiliated with any local animal shelters or humane

Indeed, HSUS’s image as an animal welfare organization no doubt helps account for its popularity with animal
lovers, who pay annual membership dues of $10.00 (individual) and $18.00 (family). Yet HSUS is an animal rights
organization, as much as the better-known People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) examined in the
July 1997 Alternatives in Philanthropy.

As that issue emphasized, donors who wish to support organizations that help animals must understand the
difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Animal rights organizations, which emerged in the early
1980s, seek to end the use and ownership of animals. Animal welfare organizations, on the other hand, have
existed for decades and seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals.

In recent years, HSUS has sought to abolish:
circuses, rodeos, horse and dog racing, and other uses of animals in entertainment; the use of animals for
educational purposes, including animal dissection in high school and college biology classes and the keeping of
marine mammals in aquariums; the hunting of seals, whales, and elephants and the trapping and raising of fur-
bearing mammals; modern livestock and poultry farming, including the use of cages for layer hens and broiler
chickens and single stall housing for veal calves; the commercial breeding of dogs.

HSUS’s Embrace of Animal Rights

HSUS’s acceptance of animal rights appears to have begun some 15 years ago. Its 1980 convention called for the
"pursuit on all fronts . . . the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of animals."2 At its 1984 convention,
John McArdle, then-HSUS director of laboratory animal welfare, urged caution in openly promoting animal rights:
"Avoid the words ‘animal rights’ and ‘anti-vivisection’ [anti-animal research]. They are too strange for the public.
Never appear to be opposed to animal research."3 In 1986, McArdle said that "HSUS is definitely shifting in the
direction of animal rights faster than anyone would realize from our literature."4 That same year, John Hoyt, HSUS
president emeritus, remarked that "This new philosophy [animal rights] has served as a catalyst in the shaping of
our own philosophies, policies and goals."5

Many HSUS personnel have come from PeTA, according to Americans for Medical Progress (AMP), an Alexandria,
Virginia-based nonprofit that promotes the humane use of animals in research. These include: Richard Swain,
vice president of investigations; Jonathan Balcombe, Cristobel Block, and Virginia Bollinger, investigations
section; Howard Edelstein, computer programmer; Leslie Gerstenfeld and Kimberly Roberts, international affairs;
and Leslie Ison and Rachel Lamb, companion animals. HSUS has also recruited employees from other animal
rights organizations. John Kullberg, HSUS’s head of investigations, is the past president of the New York City-
based American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), which like HSUS has recently become
an animal rights group. Wayne Pacelle, HSUS’s vice president of government affairs and media, is the former
executive director of Cleveland Amory’s Fund for Animals, an anti-hunting group based in New York City. Pacelle
once said, "We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals [e.g., exotic breeds of livestock and
poultry]. They are creations of selective human breeding."6 Another key HSUS employee is emergency medicine
doctor Peggy Carlson, formerly with the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a medical and
nutritional spokesman for PeTA.

HSUS was a major presence at the June 1997 Animal Rights National Convention, held near Washington, D.C.
HSUS speakers included Martin Stephens, vice president of animal research issues; Patricia Forkan, executive
vice president; Howard Lyman, director of Eating with a Conscience Campaign, who discussed ways to use the
media to promote animal rights; and Michael Fox, vice president of bioethics and farm animal protection, who has
written, "the life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration."9

HSUS also awards small grants to dozens of animal rights organizations each year. These include: Animal Rights
Community, Animal Rights International, the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting, the International Society for
Animal Rights, the New England Anti-vivisection Society, and the World Society for the Protection of Animals.

What accounts for the radicalization of HSUS? One possibility is that HSUS leaders are genuinely convinced of
the view, expressed by Peter Singer in his 1975 book Animal Liberation, that animals should not be used for
human benefit.10 But another possibility is that promoting animal rights can be more lucrative than promoting
animal welfare. In recent years, HSUS seems to have taken its cue from PeTA, which rapidly rose from obscurity
to become a multi-million-dollar organization by pioneering the use of direct mail which contained sensational
claims of animal abuse. HSUS’s John Hoyt has remarked, "PeTA successfully stole the spotlight. . . . Groups like
ours that have plugged along with a larger staff, a larger constituency . . . have been ignored. . . . Since we haven’t
been successful in getting half a loaf, let’s go for the whole thing."11

An examination of HSUS shows that many of its arguments and allegations are misleading and cannot be
substantiated. HSUS uses them to advocate public policies that would deny Americans their right to benefit from
traditional, humane uses of animals.

Lassie Won’t Be Coming Home

HSUS promotes restrictions on pet breeding and ownership that would sharply limit the supply of pets and
ultimately deny many responsible pet owners the pet of their choice. It maintains that there is a "raging pet-
overpopulation crisis . . . an appalling overabundance of dogs and cats caused by human carelessness and
irresponsible breeding."12 Because an estimated 4.5 million dogs and cats are euthanized each year in the U.S.,
HSUS has called for the elimination of large dog breeding kennels and the enactment of mandatory pet
sterilization laws.

Some euthanasia will always be needed because some animals are too old, sick, or vicious to be adopted. But in
fact, euthanasia has dropped dramatically in the last two decades despite a doubling of the dog and cat
population. In 1973, 20 percent (13 million) of all dogs and cats were euthanized, compared to less than five
percent today.13 This reduction is largely attributable to humane organizations, veterinarians, breeders, and
concerned citizens who have recommended or paid for pet sterilization, sponsored dog obedience-training
classes (behavior problems are the main cause of dog abandonment), and otherwise informed the public about
responsible pet ownership.

HSUS argues that so-called "puppy mills"—large dog breeding kennels that "mass produce dogs for resale in pet
stores"—are a main cause of pet overpopulation.14 The kennels, it contends, engage in "cruel commerce" that
treats puppies "like so much merchandise." Living conditions are said to be "squalid," "foul," "unsanitary" and
"inhumane," and puppies are "ill-treated," "often ill," and "sick and traumatized."15

However, HSUS does not define "mass" production, other than to say that it "may" involve "hundreds of dogs."
Moreover, it offers no evidence that conditions among the limited number of "large" kennels it has investigated
are typical of larger kennels in general, or that conditions are better (or worse) among smaller- or medium-sized
kennels. USDA inspectors already visit licensed dog kennels at least once a year and respond to complaints
about unlicensed kennels. (In 1994, the USDA inspected 10,705 kennels.) Minor infractions are sometimes found,
and a few kennels have been shut down. But there is no evidence of widespread abuse or neglect of dogs at
breeding kennels.

Nonetheless, HSUS consultant and former chief investigator Robert Baker has said, "I don’t care if these people
go to jail or not. I don’t care what happens to them. I just don’t want them in the business of dealing with dogs."16
HSUS’s John Hoyt told one audience, "Don’t breed, don’t buy, don’t even accept giveaways. . . . The ‘good’ pet
stores we shall encourage to become even better, which ultimately might mean selling no dogs and cats."17
Baker has similarly advised the public to "stop buying puppies in stores."18

Yet even assuming a widespread puppy mill problem, a boycott of pet stores would do little to address the matter:
only six to eight percent of the 5.7 million dogs born each year are sold in pet stores; the rest are sold directly by

HSUS has also proposed mandatory pet sterilization laws and high license fees to deal with pet overpopulation.
In 1993, it called on local, county, and state legislators to enact either voluntary or mandatory dog and cat
breeding bans and to initiate mandatory pet sterilization laws. While HSUS president Paul Irwin said that "HSUS is
not attempting to eliminate companion animals with these measures," the mandatory breeding ban contained
these stipulations:

"A two year moratorium would be imposed on all breeding" and would be lifted when a government-appointed
task force "so recommends;"

"During the moratorium, retail pet establishments would be prohibited from selling dogs and cats under the age
of six months" (i.e., no puppies or kittens);

"Penalties: For each puppy or kitten born in violation of the moratorium, the owner or person possessing the
animal shall pay a penalty of $100. . . ;"

"All cat and dog owners [would be required] to purchase a license / mandatory ID tag. For those owners who
want to keep their animals [fecund], a $100 per year surcharge would be required;"

"If an individual wanted to breed an animal, a breeder permit could be obtained" for an additional $100. "If a
person breeds without a permit," the fine would be $250 per litter plus $10 for each animal.20

Such tight restrictions on legal markets for puppies and kittens would almost certainly encourage gray or black
markets for these animals, where safeguards on animal welfare would be minimal or nonexistent.

HSUS and the New Jersey Humane Society recently promoted a bill (A2612) in that state that would have required
commercial breeders, defined as anyone "who owns or operates a breeding facility and sells or offers for sale
more than five dogs or cats per year," to register with the state. Of course, a single litter often has more than five
kittens or puppies. While the bill did not leave committee and was withdrawn before a vote, HSUS sought to
impose stringent kennel standards that would likely have driven many breeders out of business.

These stipulated that:

Indoor temperatures be maintained at 50 to 80 degrees for dogs over eight weeks of age and 65 to 80 degrees for
puppies and kittens under eight weeks;

Air be circulated eight to 12 times per hour;

Indoor dog runs of appropriates sizes be provided for different breeds of dogs;

Separate enclosures of appropriate sizes be provided for cats;

Dogs receive twenty minutes of unleashed exercise per day.21

A first offense would have brought a $5,000 fine and a five-year ban on the sale of dogs and cats. Subsequent
violations would have earned a $10,000 fine and additional five-year bans. Hearings would be held only at the
request of the accused individual.

While HSUS operates programs to train shelter workers, it runs no animal shelters and makes no significant
contributions to them. When the Washington (D.C.) Humane Society, a separate organization, almost closed its
animal shelter in 1995 due to a lack of funds, HSUS did nothing—despite its multi-million-dollar budget. Ironically,
that same year HSUS withdrew an offer to build and operate at its own expense a model animal shelter in the
District of Columbia. In exchange, HSUS wanted three to five acres of city land and tax-exempt status for all its
real estate holdings in the city. Negotiations ended when HSUS sent a letter to Mayor Marion Barry saying it
would not proceed unless it could "own absolutely" the land, a condition the city was unable to meet.

Making the Fur Fly

HSUS has spearheaded the campaign to make fur garments socially unacceptable. Following the lead of animal
rights groups in Europe, HSUS officially launched its "Shame of Fur" campaign in 1988, posting messages on
billboards and buses, running radio announcements, and distributing press kits and videos. In the manner of
PeTA, it has also enlisted the support of celebrities, including Candice Bergen, Betty White, Rue McClanahan, and
Bea Arthur to denounce fur fashion.

HSUS’s anti-fur campaign is actually part of a larger campaign against hunting and trapping. HSUS spent
$545,340 on state-level anti-hunting ballot initiatives in 1996—more than any other animal rights organization.

Many urban and suburban donors who receive literature from HSUS cannot be expected to understand the
nature of or need for hunting and trapping. Yet wildlife management is necessary in many parts of the country to
protect human lives, property, and agriculture and to protect threatened and endangered species. Deer
overpopulation leads to countless deer-car collisions, some of which result in injury or death. Farmers lose
millions of dollars worth of livestock and poultry each year to predators—even with hunting and trapping.
Beavers build dams that flood suburban neighborhoods and homes. Foxes eat many species of endangered and
threatened birds.

HSUS alleges that "animal cruelty [is] inherent in the fur industry. Millions of sentient animals are raised or
trapped and brutally killed each year for fur garments. . . ."22 The centerpiece of HSUS’s campaign is to outlaw the
steel-jaw leghold trap, a device that captures animals by the foot or paw. HSUS makes the following claims about
the traps:

They cause "excruciating agony."23 In fact, they apply pressure to two sides of an animal’s limb, causing

"Animals frequently bite off their own trapped limbs" in efforts to escape.24 This happens only on very rare
occasions. If animals "frequently" bit off their limbs and escaped, trappers obviously could not make money

"Animals may remain trapped for long periods, during which they are likely to suffer and die from exhaustion,
dehydration, predation, freezing, or starvation. . . . Many animals have been found alive after suffering in traps for
as long as two weeks."25 Research shows that most trapped animals are held for less than eight hours.26 Many
states require that leghold traps be inspected every 24 hours. Even so, most trappers, out of economic interest,
check their traps two or three times a day since poachers or predators may take captured animals;

"Five million nontarget animals . . . are accidentally caught in traps . . . each year," and "small children" and pets
are also at risk.27 Many animals inadvertently caught are actually secondary target species such as skunks that
threaten birds or livestock. Trappers minimize the possibility of accidental captures by using appropriately sized
traps and selective baits and by placing traps in ideal locations such as just outside a muskrat burrow. Leghold
traps, which are usually fairly small, spring harmlessly under human feet. There is no documented case of a child
being seriously injured in a leghold trap. While unsupervised pets have sometimes been caught, attended pets
can usually be released without harm by compressing the trap springs;

Trapping "threatens the survival of entire species." Because hunting and trapping are highly regulated in all 50
states, no species of animal in the U.S. today is threatened or endangered because of them.

HSUS also seeks to end the raising of furbearing animals, which accounts for 80 percent of all fur pelts sold in the
U.S. It contends that animals "imprisoned" on fur farms suffer "stress and pain" from living in "tiny mesh wire
cages" where they "often can barely turn around." Moreover, they are killed by electrocution, neck breaking, and

Some 2.5 million mink and 25,000 foxes are raised annually on 450 fur farms, mostly family-owned. Since mink, in
particular, are very susceptible to disease, they must be fed a fresh, high-quality diet free from contaminants.
Gunnar Jorgenson, head of research at the State Animal Husbandry Station in Hilleroed, Denmark, notes that "it is
characteristic of [mink and foxes] that they cannot develop or reproduce normally if conditions are not optimum
with regard to cages, food and care. . . ."30 Sven Wahlberg, general secretary of the World Wildlife Fund (Sweden)
and Gunnar Krantz, chairman of the Swedish Federation of Animal Protection Societies, add that "working with
furbearing animals is . . . both hard work and time-consuming. [The animals] must be cared for every day—
weekday, weekend or public holiday. It takes a real interest in animals to work up the best material. The farmer
who has no real interest in his animals or feeling for their welfare soon suffers himself, in the form of poor
financial return."31

Research shows that neither a 400 percent increase nor a 50 percent reduction in cage size cause any changes in
behavior.32 Mink are usually killed the same way that dogs and cats are euthanized in shelters: they are placed in
an airtight container filled with carbon monoxide or dioxide bottled gas. The unit is mobile and is brought to the
cages to minimize stress from handling. The animals are immediately rendered unconscious and die without pain.
For fox, lethal injection that causes immediate cardiac arrest is typically used.

Despite the anti-fur campaign of HSUS and other animal rights organizations, annual fur sales in the U.S. have
remained relatively constant since 1990, peaking at $1.25 billion in 1996. More designers are working with fur than
ten years ago, and many models and celebrities have forsaken earlier pledges not to wear fur.

Whale of a Tale

HSUS also seeks to "stop commercial whaling."  Its website ( says that "twenty years ago
the world finally realized that whale populations were perilously threatened by the whaling that had occurred in
the oceans for more than a century. A long struggle to save the whales finally culminated in the 1986 International
Whaling Commission (IWC) decision to place a worldwide moratorium on commercial whaling."34 However,
Norway defied the ban in 1993 and resumed hunting minke whales (one of the smallest whale species). HSUS has
since urged American consumers to boycott Norwegian products, including fish, cheese, petroleum, and travel to
Norway. It has also unsuccessfully pressured the Clinton Administration to enact trade sanctions against Norway.

A potential donor could easily conclude from this that whales are threatened or endangered. In fact, the IWC, an
international association formed to conserve whale stocks, enacted a temporary five-year moratorium on
commercial whaling so that scientific assessment of worldwide stocks could be made. (IWC members voted to
extend the ban in 1991 and again in 1992.) In 1993, the IWC’s Scientific Committee concluded that only five of 76
species of whales worldwide were threatened or endangered. The other 71 were abundant enough to sustain
regulated hunting.

Nonetheless, in 1993 IWC delegates, apparently bowing to public pressure, voted 16 to 10 (with six abstentions)
to continue the ban. Three months earlier, the U.S. House of Representatives had voted unanimously for a
resolution, strongly promoted by HSUS, to oppose a resumption of commercial whaling. Janice Henke, a longtime
observer of the animal rights movement, notes that the international scientific community realizes there is no
biological basis for objecting to minke whaling: "Yet an animal rights minority has so skillfully communicated its
message to the general public that international politics demands a continued ban. People’s thinking has been
carefully shaped by animal rights professionals. Mass letter-writing campaigns and petition campaigns ensure
that this issue is managed by political, not biological, realities."35

The IWC estimates that there are one million minke whales worldwide and 112,000 in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean.
Norway hunted 425 minkes off its coast in 1996, which in no way threatened stocks. In the coastal communities of
Norway, hunting, fishing, and whaling are the main means of livelihood. Whaling generally accounts for half the
income of a fishing vessel, and there are few alternative means of employment.

Ultimately, HSUS’s opposition to whaling appears to rest on the view that whales are somehow "sacred." But just
as beef is part of the traditional American diet, whale meat has long been part of the Norwegian diet. This has
prompted some critics to accuse HSUS of cultural imperialism. Says Norwegian foreign minister Bjorn Tore
Godal, "Imagine India being in the position of threatening the U.S. with trade sanctions if it didn’t accept the
sanctity of the cow. The principle is the same."36

Past Its Peak?

As the July 1997 Alternatives in Philanthropy noted, any effort to gauge the strength of the animal rights
movement reveals mixed signs. Animal rights groups may be gaining clout in the legislative arena, where they
have 15 years experience. They successfully lobbied Congress to amend the federal Animal Welfare Act, which
covers the feeding, sanitation, and housing of animals used in biomedical research. This added an estimated $1
billion in regulatory costs to animal research in 1990—money that could not be used for biomedical research.
Animal rights groups have also effectively lobbied at the state and local levels for anti-hunting and -trapping
initiatives that ban the capture of particular species. Moreover, a terrorist fringe of the movement, led by the
underground Animal Liberation Front (ALF), may be stepping up attacks on animal research laboratories,
livestock and poultry farms, and other animal-use concerns.

On the other hand, while most Americans have by now heard the animal rights message, their attitudes and
behavior do not appear to have significantly changed. A recent survey by Responsive Management, a
Harrisonburg, Virginia-based public-opinion polling firm, concludes that only three percent of Americans "live by
the animal rights doctrine." Ninety-seven percent of those surveyed had eaten chicken or consumed dairy
products during the past two years. Ninety-two percent had eaten beef, 81 percent had worn leather, 76 percent
owned a pet, 57 percent visited a zoo, 39 percent fished, 24 percent had gone to a circus, and 17 percent had
hunted. Moreover, 79 percent agreed that "animals can be used by humans as long as the animal does not
experience undue pain." Eighty-six percent agreed that "people should have the freedom to choose to wear fur."
And 92 percent disapproved of "protesting fur clothing in a harassing manner."37

Policies promoted by animal rights groups are also being reconsidered. As discussed, Norway has defied the
International Whaling Commission’s ban on commercial whaling. The United Nations Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) recently eased a 1989 ban on international trade in ivory. Under an
"experimental" agreement, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Botswana will sell 59 tons of stockpiled ivory to Japan in
1999. Congress also recently passed an amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act that in 1998 will lift a
seven-year U.S. embargo on tuna caught by Mexican fishing vessels. HSUS and other animals rights groups
supported the ban, claiming that too many dolphins, which often swim near schools of tuna, were frightened or
accidentally killed during fishing expeditions. Yet due to Mexican efforts, dolphin deaths have declined from as
many as 130,000 annually in the 1980s to an estimated 2,500 in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Fishery. The embargo
also cost Mexico $350 million and 6,000 jobs.

Whatever the future of the animal right movement, HSUS, with its recent influx of staff from PeTA and other animal
rights groups, is likely to push an even more strident animal rights agenda in the years to come. But as Americans
who now perceive HSUS as an animal welfare organization come to understand its true agenda, its fortunes are
almost certain to decline.
1. HSUS web site,, "About the HSUS."
2. HSUS, Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 1981 publication.
3. John McArdle, quoted in Katie McCabe, "Who Will Live, Who Will Die," Washingtonian, August 1986, p. 115.
4. McArdle, quoted in ibid., p.116.
5. John Hoyt, quoted in McCabe, "Katie McCabe Replies," Washingtonian, October 1986, pp. 109-110.
6. Wayne Pacelle, quoted in Putting People First, facsimile transmission dated March 24, 1992.
7. AMP, "What’s Happening with Our Humane Groups? Inside the Humane Society of the United States," October
1996, and "A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: The HSUS—PeTA Connection."
8. Animal Rights ‘97 National Convention, June 26-30, 1997, sponsored by the Farm Animal Reform Movement,
9. Michael W. Fox, Inhumane Society (St. Martin’s Press: New York, 1990).
10. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals (New York: Avon Books, 1975.)
11. John Hoyt, quoted in Carol Matlack, "Animal-Rights Furor," National Journal, September 7, 1991, p. 2145.
12. HSUS, Close-Up Report, May 1992.
13. Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy, cited in Andrew Rowan, "Pet Overpopulation: the Problem and the
Remedy," Our Animal Wards, Fall 1991, p. 10.
14. HSUS, puppy mill "Fact Sheet."
15. HSUS, "Puppy Mills Exposed."
16. Robert Baker, quoted in "Not Fit for a Dog," Life, September 1992, p. 40.
17. John Hoyt, quoted in Putting People First, "Animal Rights vs., Pets," undated sheet.
18. Robert Baker, quoted in "The Puppy Mill Connection," Animals, November / December 1990.
19. Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, telephone conversation, March 19, 1993.
20. HSUS, "Summary of the HSUS Recommendations: Pet Overpopulation," facsimile transmission dated March
24, 1993.
21. National Animal Interest Alliance, "Dog Fanciers Outfox Anti-breeding Advocates in New Jersey," NAIA News,
March / April 1997.
22. HSUS website, "Anti-Fur Campaign."
23. HSUS, "Animals: It’s their World, Too," brochure.
24. HSUS, "Fight Fur Now!"
25. Ibid.
26. National Trappers Association (NTA), "Traps Today: Myths and Facts."
27. HSUS, "Fight Fur Now!" and "Trapping in the Nineties: Who Pays the Price," HSUS News, Fall 1992, p. 9.
28. HSUS, "Fight Fur Now!"
29. HSUS, "Fur Is Out, Compassion Is In," October 1989.
30. Gunnar Jorgenson, quoted in Fur Farm Animal Welfare Coalition (FFAWC), "Fur Farming in North America."
31. Sven Wahlberg and Gunnar Krantz, quoted in ibid.
32. NTA, "Fact about Furs!" 1988 booklet, p. 17.
33. HSUS, website, "Anti-Whaling / Norway Campaign."
34. Ibid.
35. Janice Henke, paraphrased in letter dated June 2, 1993, on file with author.
36. Bjorn Tore Godal, quoted in "Defying Global Ban, Norway Still Hunts Whales," Chicago Tribune, February 22,
37. Responsive Management, "Americans’ Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare, Animal Rights and Use of Animals,"
final report, October 1996.        
Dante Kennels

My philosophy on Animal Rights is that HUMANS HAVE
RIGHTS. Animals have the moral expectation of being
treated with decency, but that is not a right. A “RIGHT” is
a legal term and comes with responsibilities and
expectations that cannot be applied to animals. I have a
MORAL and  LEGAL OBLIGATION to treat animals
decently, BUT an animal has no legal rights. You can't
legislate responsibility. You can educate, you can hold
people accountable for their actions, but no law is ever
going to force anyone, anywhere to be responsible.

Elizabeth Brinkley
What is A Puppy Mill?

I cringe now when I hear the phrase "puppy mill." What I have to say may not win any
popularity contests for me but it needs to be said.
1. What is a puppy mill? You have your definition I am sure. But there is no LEGAL
definition of a puppy mill. Because we in the fancy have freely thrown this phrase around,
we have actually aided the animal rights activists. As far as the animal rights activists are
concerned, a puppy mill is anyone who purposefully breeds ANY dogs, even a single litter!
I will bet you do not agree with this definition. But take a look at Calif. AB 1634 and see
what's going on. In terms of AB 1634, you breed a litter, you're a PROBLEM! That's the
way that bill is framed.

2. If there is no legal definition of a puppy mill, should we be in favor of preventing all
breeding of dogs based on our own personal definition of a "puppy mill?" I think not.
People want pets. You and I dont' breed enough to supply them. Think about that!

3. Can we agree there is a definition of a puppy mill? I think not. Ask 10 fanciers
independently and you will get 10 different answers. So what does the public think? How
does the public (not dog breeders) define a puppy mill? Here is where the AR's have used
us. They talk about "overpopulation" and the need to stop ALL breeding. We talk about
"puppymills" and stopping puppy mills. So the public is now confused since there is no
legal definition of a puppy mill. The public is beginning to view breeders, all breeders, as
puppy mills. We have contributed to public perception. We don't breed enough to supply
the public's desire for pets but we oppose breeding by others who see a need and plan to
fill it for profit.

4. We need to stop buying into the "overpopulation" rhetoric. People want pets and people
will have pets. It is a matter of who will supply those pets. We need to focus the public on
the value of purebreds over the various doddles and poos and mutts imported from
Mexico, Puerto Rico and everywhere else. As long as we talk about "puppy mills" we are
missing the boat. Talk about substandard kennels if you like. Talk about conditions. No
one approves of dogs badly kept. Talk about diseases brought in by mutts from tropical
climates. But don't talk about puppy mills.

5. Petland and Hunte exist for a reason: people want pets. They are commercial entities.
We hobbyists don't like the idea of commercial entitites. That's been clear for ever so
long. Does that mean that all commercial sellers are "puppy mills?" Well, there is no legal
definition, please remember. Petland and Hunte probably do a much better job of selling
commercial bred dogs than the mass breeders of doodles and poos and the chances of a
Petland dog being healthy are way ahead of what the chances are for the mutt imported
from Mexico or Puerto Rico. But the animal rights activists have been extremely
successful in convincing you, the hobbyist, that all commercial bred dogs are bred in filth
and squalor. In fact, that's not true. The terible kennels of the 80's have in large part been
weeded out by AKC's Inspections and Investigations department and 5000 inspections a
year along with the USDA inspections. There are still some bad kennels, but guess what,
there are bad hobby breeder kennels! Does that mean because you may personally know
of a kennel where the dogs are not kept well, that all hobbyists are bad? Of course not.
We just don't like the idea of commercially bred pets. But definitions count!

6. Historical fact: Some of our founding breeders of our own Shelties, people we all
respect, made a lot of their living selling dogs including pets. People like Dot Foster
(Timberidge) chief author of the current standard, Betty Whelen, excellent and beloved
breeder, etc. There was a time it was ok to breed lots of dogs and sell the non showdogs
for pets, and do it proudly. What happened? We all convinced ourselves we shouldn't
breed too many dogs. We left the door open for commercial breeders and sellers.
7. The animal rights people have changed the landscape. If you help protest "puppy mills"
please remember there is no legal definition. Some of the commercial breeders have state
of the art kennels. I know you don't want to hear that, but it is true. Does a commercial
kennel that is state of the art qualify as a "puppy mill?" Does your fellow breeder who
breeds two extra litters of puppies a year qualify as a puppy mill? Does your single litter
quality you as a puppy mill? Depends on whose definition you use.
And remember that as we fight bad legislation, we are ALL Puppy Mills according to the
animal rights activists! Let's concentrate on the real enemy: the animal rights activists
who want no purposefully bred dogs at all.

Charlotte McGowan
ASSA Legislative Liaison
Permission granted to copy and use for any pro-animal-use purpose. Use in whole or in
part for animal rights or anti-animal purposes specificially prohibited! Copyright 2000
Rabbit Industry Council


We, the undersigned citizens of the United States of America, hereby assert our
constitutional and individual rights in the following matters:

I. Animal Ownership
We assert that every citizen of the United States has the right to own animals as property,
provided that said animals are treated appropriately with respect to their requirements and
We acknowledge that humans have the responsibility to ensure that the animals we own
are bred, raised, kept, and used in a humane and reasonable manner in accordance with
their purpose and needs.
We also assert that legislation, on any level - city, county, state, or national - should be
deemed invalid which restricts our right to own animals of any kind or number in
circumstances which are suited to their welfare and well-being as determined by the
resultant health and well-being of the animals.
This said, we also believe that no animal should be kept in such a manner as to pose a
clear hazard to human health, safety, or well-being.
Agriculture has always been an integral part of America and its freedoms; animals play a
tremendous part in not only our past, but our future. Allowing progressively restrictive
legislation to be passed on any level denies that animals have a place in our society
It is well-documented that much of such legislation is originated by, and popularized by,
animal rights groups. It is also known that many of the animal rights and 'humane' groups
in the US utilize intimidating, misleading, terrorist and/or discriminatory tactics against
business and individuals alike to achieve progress toward their present goals of so-called
'welfare' and future goal of no animal ownership or use whatsoever in our society. The
unsolicited indoctrination of minors via animal rights propaganda, which is often
nightmarishly graphic, in public and private schools is an invasion of the right of the
parent to ensure the child a reasonable, constructive education, and should not be
We, the animal owners of the United States of America, object to such unjust manipulation
of the legal systems of the United States, and petition the governmental bodies and
members thereof to assist their constituents in achieving a fair and just solution.

II. Animal Use
In regard to the uses to which animals and their products are put, we wish to make clear
that one of the main goals in the purposeful breeding of domestic or wild animals is the
production or improvement of food, fur, or fibre for human or animal use. Others are that
of conservation, exhibition, entertainment, recreation, and companionship. There are
exceptions to the former in few species in the United States, notably the domestic dog and
cat, considered strictly companion animals and not an alternative food source. The shed
hair fibres of some breeds, however, may be spun into fine quality yarns for use in
garments without any harm to the animals. The breeding and sale of such animals should
be subject to the welfare provisions above, most of which are already in place; ie,
reasonable and humane care, feeding, and shelter.
We assert that there is no crime in owning, breeding, raising or slaughtering animals for
food, fibre, or fur for human use; that a greater crime is wasting such products of animals
we raise for such purposes. We also assert that the slaughter of food animals on the
premises for home use is not unreasonable and should not be legislated against.
We also feel strongly that sufficient safeguards for the purpose-bred companion animal,
and the exhibited animal in circuses, aquariums, and zoos, are in place at this time.
Acknowledged as well is the concept that the producers and processors of animals raised
for their flesh, fur, or fibre are responsible for the quick, painless and humane death of the
animal for slaughter or fur; the humane and reasonable restraint of the animal raised for
its harvest of fibre during shearing or plucking; and the humane handling and euthanasia
of non-ambulatory animals or those which are too ill to fulfill their designated purpose.
Equines, being considered largely as companion animals, should be none the less subject
to slaughter at the end of their useful lives, should that be the choice of the owner. To
prevent this solution is to doom many animals to neglect and lingering death, which we as
responsible owners cannot support.

III. Responsible Ownership
We appreciate the fact that ownership carries responsibilities with it in regard to the
welfare of animals; to this end we encourage responsible ownership-the practice of
providing care, food, water, and shelter in accordance with the animals' needs and
requirements; of encouraging spay/neuter in companion animals which are not being bred
for a specific purpose; of encouraging responsible ownership in others. Responsible
ownership also entails attention to the preservation of the rights of animal ownership and
use; to this end, we request that limitations be placed on the amount of lobbying done by
anti-animal use/pro- animal rights groups to achieve a reasonable balance of data provided
to legislators by both pro- and anti-animal use groups. In addition, city, county, state and
federal agencies need to make available their policies in regard to animal ownership and
use in a clearly-understandable, easily accessed format rather than requiring the animal
owner to delve in every conceivable area of legislation to find information applicable to
their occupation or interest.

IV. Responsible Lawmaking
We, the undersigned, ask that you and your fellow lawmakers educate yourselves upon
the two very different topics of animal welfare and animal rights; confusion between the
two is the source of votes for many measures local and widespread which restrict the
rights of animal owners and users. Please do not allow the emotionally manipulative
techniques of animal rights and 'humane' groups to cause you to lose sight of the rights
of the many responsible animal owners, breeders, raisers, and users.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.
Friends don't let friends donate to
Animal rights is mental illness masquerading as philosophy!
Animal rights doesn't come from love of animals, it comes
from hatred of humans.
Home of AKC and UKC Champion and Best in Show winning Shetland Sheepdogs
7 Things You Didn’t Know About PETA!!!
(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)

1) According to government documents, PETA employees have killed
more than 19,200 dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens since 1998. This
behavior continues despite PETA’s moralizing about the “unethical”
treatment of animals by farmers, scientists, restaurant owners, circuses,
hunters, fishermen, zookeepers, and countless other Americans. PETA
puts to death over 90 percent of the animals it accepts from members of
the public who expect the group to make a reasonable attempt to find
them adoptive homes. PETA holds absolutely no open-adoption shelter
hours at its Norfolk, VA headquarters, choosing instead to spend part of
its $32 million annual income on a contract with a crematory service to
periodically empty hundreds of animal bodies from its large walk-in freezer.

2 ) PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group’
s overall goal as “total animal liberation.” This means the complete
abolition of meat, milk, cheese, eggs, honey, zoos, aquariums, circuses,
wool, leather, fur, silk, hunting, fishing, and pet ownership. In a 2003
profile of Newkirk in The New Yorker, author Michael Specter wrote that
Newkirk has had at least one seeing-eye dog taken away from its blind
owner. PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of
animals, including research aimed at curing AIDS and cancer.

3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and
other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the
North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic
terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats.
During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to Rodney Coronado, an Animal
Liberation Front (ALF) serial arsonist convicted of burning down a
Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing
memorandum, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid
Newkirk in that crime. PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce
Friedrich has also told an animal rights convention that “blowing stuff up
and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation,”
adding, “Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.”

4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with
anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, even waiting outside their schools to
intercept them without notifying their parents. One piece of kid-targeted
PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” PETA
brags that its messages reach over 1.2 million minor children, including
30,000 kids between the ages of 6 and 12, all contacted by e-mail without
parental supervision. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’
s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they
always will be.”

5) PETA’s president has said that “even if animal research resulted in
acure for AIDS, we would be against it.” And PETA has repeatedly
attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS
Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, solely because they
support animal-based research aimed at curing life-threatening diseases
and birth defects. And PETA helped to start and manage a quasi-medical
front group, the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible
Medicine, to attack medical research head-on.

6) PETA has compared Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust to farm
animals and Jesus Christ to pigs. PETA’s religious campaigns include a
website that claims—despite ample evidence to the contrary—that Jesus
Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even
suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning
harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs
“died for their sins.” PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical
teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn’t be allowed.
And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign crassly compared
the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide to farm animals.

7) PETA frequently looks the other way when its celebrity spokespersons
don’t practice what it preaches. As gossip bloggers and Hollywood
journalists have noted, Pamela Anderson’s Dodge Viper (auctioned to
benefit PETA) had a “luxurious leather interior”; Jenna Jameson was
photographed fishing, slurping oysters, and wearing a leather jacket just
weeks after launching an anti-leather campaign for PETA; Morrissey got an
official “okay” from PETA after eating at a steakhouse; Dita von Teese has
written about her love of furs and foie gras; Steve-O built a career out of
abusing small animals on film; the officially “anti-fur” Eva Mendes often
wears fur anyway; and Charlize Theron’s celebrated October 2007 Vogue
cover shoot featured several suede garments. In 2008, “Baby Phat”
designer Kimora Lee Simmons became a PETA spokesmodel despite
working with fur and leather, after making a $20,000 donation to the animal
rights group.
Want evidence? Visit • • www.PetaKillsAnimals.
9 Things You Didn’t Know About HSUS!!!
(the Humane Society of the United States)

1. The Humane Society of the United States scams Americans out of
millions of dollars through manipulative and deceptive advertising. An
analysis of HSUS’s TV fundraising appeals that ran between January 2009
and September 2011 determined that more than 85 percent of the animals
shown were cats and dogs. However, HSUS doesn’t run a single pet
shelter and only gives 1 percent of the money it raises to pet shelters, and
it has spent millions on anti-farming and anti-hunting political campaigns.

2. HSUS receives poor charity-evaluation marks. CharityWatch (formerly
the American Institute of Philanthropy) reissued HSUS’s “D” rating in
December 2011, finding that HSUS spends as little as 49 percent of its
budget on its programs. Additionally, the 2011 Animal People News
Watchdog Report discovered that HSUS spends about 43 percent of its
budget on overhead costs.

3. Six Members of Congress have called for a federal investigation of
HSUS. In April 2011, six Congressmen wrote the IRS Inspector General
showing concerns over HSUS’s attempts to influence public policy, which
they believe has “brought into question [HSUS’s] tax-exempt 501(c)(3)

4. HSUS regularly contributes more to its own pension plan than it does to
pet shelters. An analysis of HSUS’s tax returns determined that HSUS
funneled $16.3 million to its executive pension plan between 1998 and
2009—over $1 million more than HSUS gave to pet shelters during that

5. The pet sheltering community believes HSUS misleads Americans.
According to a nationally representative poll of 400 animal shelters,
rescues, and animal control agencies, 71 percent agree that “HSUS
misleads people into thinking it is associated with local animal shelters.”
Additionally, 79 percent agree that HSUS is “a good source of confusion
for a lot of our donors.”

6. While it raises money with pictures of cats and dogs, HSUS has an anti-
meat vegan agenda. Speaking to an animal rights conference in 2006,
HSUS’s then vice president for farm animal issues stated that HSUS’s goal
is to “get rid of the entire [animal agriculture] industry” and that “we don’t
want any of these animals to be raised and killed.”

7. Given the massive size of its budget, HSUS does relatively little hands-
on care for animals. While HSUS claims it provides direct care to more
animals than any other animal protection group in the US, most of the
“care” HSUS provides is in the form of spay-neuter assistance. In fact,
local groups that operate on considerably slimmer budgets, such as the
Houston SPCA, provide direct care to just as many or more animals than
HSUS does.

8. HSUS’s CEO has said that convicted dogfighting kingpin Michael Vick
“would do a good job as a pet owner.” Following Vick’s release from
prison, HSUS has helped “rehabilitate” Michael Vick’s public image. Of
course, a $50,000 “grant” from the Philadelphia Eagles didn’t hurt.

9. HSUS’s senior management includes a former spokesman for the
Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a criminal group designated as “terrorists”
by the FBI. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle hired John “J.P.” Goodwin in
1997, the same year Goodwin described himself as “spokesperson for the
ALF” while he fielded media calls in the wake of an ALF arson attack at a
California meat processing plant. In 1997, when asked by reporters for a
reaction to an ALF arson fire at a farmer’s feed co-op in Utah (which nearly
killed a family sleeping on the premises), Goodwin replied, “We’re

Want evidence? Vist: * www.HumaneWatch.
org *
Revised February 2012. Complete sources and documentation available
upon request.__._,
"The politics of Animal Liberation"
written by Kim Barlett, Editor of the Animals' Agenda, Nov. 1987.


1) Abolish by law animal research.

2) Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing, classroom
demonstrations and weapons development.

3) Vegetarian meals should be made available at all public institutions,
including schools.                 

4) Eliminate all animal agriculture. (This includes animals for food)

5) End herbicides, pesticides, and other Agricultural chemicals.

6) Outlaw predator control.

7) Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the Dept.
of Agriculture

8) Eliminate fur ranching and end the use of furs.

9) Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.

10) End the international trade in wildlife goods.

11) Stop any further breeding of companion animals, including purebred
dogs and cats. Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by State and
Municipal governments. Commerce in domestic and exotic animals for the
pet trade should be abolished.

12) End the use of animals in entertainment

When I stand up for myself and my beliefs, they call me a bitch.
When I stand up for those I love, they call me a bitch.
When I speak my mind, think my own thoughts or do things my own way, they call
me a bitch.
Being a bitch means I won't compromise what's in my heart....
It means I live my life MY way.
It means I won't allow anyone to step on me.
When I refuse to tolerate injustice and speak against it, I am defined as a bitch.
The same thing happens when I take time for myself instead of being everyone's
maid, or when I act a little selfish.
It means I have the courage and strength to allow myself to be who I truly am and
won't become anyone else's idea of what they think I "should" be.
I am outspoken, opinionated and determined. I want what I want and there is
nothing wrong with that!
So try to stomp on me, try to douse my inner flame, try to squash every ounce of
beauty I hold within me.
You won't succeed.
And if that makes me a bitch, so be it. I embrace the title and am proud to bear it.

B - Babe                                  B = Beautiful
I = Intelligent                        I - In  
T = Talented                           T - Total
C = Charming                         C - Control of
H = Hell of a Woman             H - Herself

B = Beautiful
I = Individual
T = That
C = Can
H = Handle anything  

"If you can't do something right, get a woman to do it."