Guest
Stars
Stars
Future
Links
Starlets
Clubs
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 animals.
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)
The Twelve Steps of the Animal Rights Agenda
("The Politics of Animal Liberation," by Kim Bartlett, editor of Animals' Agenda,
November 1987.)
1. Abolish by law all animal research.
2. Abolish by law all other types of animal testing.
3. Encourage vegetarianism for ethical, ecological, and health reasons.
4. Phase out intensive confinement livestock production.
5. Eliminate use of herbicides, pesticides, etc.
6. Transfer animal law enforcement of Department of Agriculture to another agency.
7. Eliminate commercial trapping and fur ranching.
8. Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing for sport.
9. Urge US action to prevent destruction of rainforests and end international trade in
wildlife and goods produced from exotic and/or endangered fauna or flora.
10. Discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or
purebred dogs and cats. Promote spay and neuter of all pets by government
subsidized clinics.
11. End the use of animals in entertainment and sports, with reappraisal of zoos and
aquariums.
12. Prohibit genetic manipulation of species.
******************************************************
*****************************************************
INTRODUCING HSUS
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 ANIMAL USE OR PET
OWNERSHIP EASIER, MORE COMMON, MORE FUN, OR MORE
SUCCESSFUL.
■ 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 countries.
■ 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 Act.
• 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!
Founders
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 donation.
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 humaneteen.org. 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 wonder.
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 member.
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 dog.
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 CEO.
"We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of
human selective breeding." Quoted in Animal People, May, 1993
Overview
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 activistcash.com 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: subscribe@Master-Dog-Training.com
VISIT NOW: http://www.Master-Dog-Training.com
******************************************************
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 organizations."
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 breeders.19
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 numbness;
"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 trapping;
"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 drowning.
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 (http://www.hsus.org)
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.
____________________
Notes
1. HSUS web site, http://www.hsus.org, "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, brochure.
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, 1994.
37. Responsive Management, "Americans’ Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare, Animal Rights and
Use of Animals," final report, October 1996.
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 animals.
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)
The Twelve Steps of the Animal Rights Agenda
("The Politics of Animal Liberation," by Kim Bartlett, editor of Animals' Agenda,
November 1987.)
1. Abolish by law all animal research.
2. Abolish by law all other types of animal testing.
3. Encourage vegetarianism for ethical, ecological, and health reasons.
4. Phase out intensive confinement livestock production.
5. Eliminate use of herbicides, pesticides, etc.
6. Transfer animal law enforcement of Department of Agriculture to another agency.
7. Eliminate commercial trapping and fur ranching.
8. Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing for sport.
9. Urge US action to prevent destruction of rainforests and end international trade in
wildlife and goods produced from exotic and/or endangered fauna or flora.
10. Discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or
purebred dogs and cats. Promote spay and neuter of all pets by government
subsidized clinics.
11. End the use of animals in entertainment and sports, with reappraisal of zoos and
aquariums.
12. Prohibit genetic manipulation of species.
******************************************************
*****************************************************
INTRODUCING HSUS
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 ANIMAL USE OR PET
OWNERSHIP EASIER, MORE COMMON, MORE FUN, OR MORE
SUCCESSFUL.
■ 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 countries.
■ 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 Act.
• 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!
Founders
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 donation.
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 humaneteen.org. 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 wonder.
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 member.
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 dog.
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 CEO.
"We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of
human selective breeding." Quoted in Animal People, May, 1993
Overview
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 activistcash.com 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: subscribe@Master-Dog-Training.com
VISIT NOW: http://www.Master-Dog-Training.com
******************************************************
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 organizations."
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 breeders.19
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 numbness;
"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 trapping;
"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 drowning.
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 (http://www.hsus.org)
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.
____________________
Notes
1. HSUS web site, http://www.hsus.org, "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, brochure.
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, 1994.
37. Responsive Management, "Americans’ Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare, Animal Rights and
Use of Animals," final report, October 1996.
| Dante Kennels |
| Established 1974 |
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
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
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
RIGHT TO OWN AND USE ANIMALS
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 welfare.
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 whatsoever.
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 allowed.
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.
animal rights or anti-animal purposes specificially prohibited! Copyright 2000 Rabbit Industry
Council
RIGHT TO OWN AND USE ANIMALS
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 welfare.
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 whatsoever.
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 allowed.
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 HSUS, PETA, ASPCA or AHA. |
| 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.AnimalScam.com • www.ActivistCash.com • www.PetaKillsAnimals.com
(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.AnimalScam.com • www.ActivistCash.com • www.PetaKillsAnimals.com
7 Things You Didn’t Know About HSUS!!!
(the Humane Society of the United States)
1. The Humane Society of the United States(HSUS) is a “humane society” in
name only, since it doesn’t operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility
anywhere in the United States. During 2006, HSUS contributed only 4.2 percent
of its budget to organizations that operate hands-on dog and cat shelters. In
reality, HSUS is a wealthy animal-rights lobbying organization (the largest and
richest on earth) that agitates for the same goals as PETA and other radical
groups.
2. Beginning on the day of NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s2007 dog
fighting indictment, HSUS raised money online with the false promise that it
would “care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case.” The New York Times
later reported that HSUS wasn’t caring for Vick’s dogs at all. And HSUS
president Wayne Pacelle told the Times that his group recommended that
government officials “put down” (that is, kill) the dogs rather than adopt them
out to suitable homes. HSUS later quietly altered its Internet fundraising pitch.
3. 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 veal
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 ecstatic.” That same year, Goodwin
was arrested at a UC Davis protest celebrating the 10-year anniversary of an
ALF arson at the university that caused $5 million in damage. And in 1998,
Goodwin described himself publicly as a “former member of ALF.”
4.HSUS raised a reported $34 million in the wake of Hurricane Katrina,
supposedly to help reunite lost pets with their owners. But comparatively little
of that money was spent for its intended purpose. Louisiana’s Attorney
General shuttered his 18-month-long investigation into where most of these
millions went, shortly after HSUS announced its plan to contribute $600,000
toward the construction of an animal shelter on the grounds of a state prison.
Public disclosures of the disposition of the $34 million in Katrina-related
donations add up to less than $7 million.
5. After gathering undercover video footage of improper animal handling at a
Chino, CA slaughterhouse during November of 2007, HSUS sat on its video
evidence for three months, even refusing to share it with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. HSUS’s Dr. Michael Greger testified before Congress that the
San Bernardino County (CA) District Attorney’s office asked the group “to hold
on to the information while they completed their investigation.” But the District
Attorney’s office quickly denied that account, even declaring that HSUS
refused to make its undercover spy available to investigators if the USDA were
present at those meetings. Ultimately, HSUS chose to release its video footage
at a more politically opportune time, as it prepared to launch a livestock-related
ballot campaign in California. Meanwhile, meat from the slaughterhouse
continued to flow into the U.S. food supply for months.
6. According to a 2008 Los Angeles Times investigation, less than 12 percent of
money raised for HSUS by California telemarketers actually ends up in HSUS’s
bank account. The rest is kept by professional fundraisers. And if you exclude
two campaigns run for HSUS by the “Build-a-Bear Workshop” retail chain,
which consisted of the sale of surplus stuffed animals (not really
“fundraising”), HSUS’s yield number shrinks to just 3 percent. Sadly, this
appears typical. In 2004, HSUS ran a telemarketing campaign in Connecticut
with fundraisers who promised to return a minimum of zero percent of the
proceeds. The campaign raised over $1.4 million. Not only did absolutely none
of that money go to HSUS, but the group paid $175,000 for the telemarketing
work.
7. Research shows that HSUS’s heavily promoted U.S. “boycott” of Canadian
seafood—announced in 2005 as a protest against Canada’s annual seal hunt—
is a phony exercise in media manipulation. A 2006 investigation found that 78
percent of the restaurants and seafood distributors described by HSUS as
“boycotters” weren’t participating at all. Nearly two-thirds of them told
surveyors they were completely unaware HSUS was using their names in
connection with an international boycott campaign. Canada’s federal
government is on record about this deception, saying: “Some animal rights
groups have been misleading the public for years … it’s no surprise at all that
the richest of them would mislead the public with a phony seafood boycott.”
Want evidence? Visit www.AnimalScam.com • www.ActivistCash.com • www.
consumerfreedom.com
Revised October 2008. Complete sources and documentation available upon
request.
(the Humane Society of the United States)
1. The Humane Society of the United States(HSUS) is a “humane society” in
name only, since it doesn’t operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility
anywhere in the United States. During 2006, HSUS contributed only 4.2 percent
of its budget to organizations that operate hands-on dog and cat shelters. In
reality, HSUS is a wealthy animal-rights lobbying organization (the largest and
richest on earth) that agitates for the same goals as PETA and other radical
groups.
2. Beginning on the day of NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s2007 dog
fighting indictment, HSUS raised money online with the false promise that it
would “care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case.” The New York Times
later reported that HSUS wasn’t caring for Vick’s dogs at all. And HSUS
president Wayne Pacelle told the Times that his group recommended that
government officials “put down” (that is, kill) the dogs rather than adopt them
out to suitable homes. HSUS later quietly altered its Internet fundraising pitch.
3. 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 veal
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 ecstatic.” That same year, Goodwin
was arrested at a UC Davis protest celebrating the 10-year anniversary of an
ALF arson at the university that caused $5 million in damage. And in 1998,
Goodwin described himself publicly as a “former member of ALF.”
4.HSUS raised a reported $34 million in the wake of Hurricane Katrina,
supposedly to help reunite lost pets with their owners. But comparatively little
of that money was spent for its intended purpose. Louisiana’s Attorney
General shuttered his 18-month-long investigation into where most of these
millions went, shortly after HSUS announced its plan to contribute $600,000
toward the construction of an animal shelter on the grounds of a state prison.
Public disclosures of the disposition of the $34 million in Katrina-related
donations add up to less than $7 million.
5. After gathering undercover video footage of improper animal handling at a
Chino, CA slaughterhouse during November of 2007, HSUS sat on its video
evidence for three months, even refusing to share it with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. HSUS’s Dr. Michael Greger testified before Congress that the
San Bernardino County (CA) District Attorney’s office asked the group “to hold
on to the information while they completed their investigation.” But the District
Attorney’s office quickly denied that account, even declaring that HSUS
refused to make its undercover spy available to investigators if the USDA were
present at those meetings. Ultimately, HSUS chose to release its video footage
at a more politically opportune time, as it prepared to launch a livestock-related
ballot campaign in California. Meanwhile, meat from the slaughterhouse
continued to flow into the U.S. food supply for months.
6. According to a 2008 Los Angeles Times investigation, less than 12 percent of
money raised for HSUS by California telemarketers actually ends up in HSUS’s
bank account. The rest is kept by professional fundraisers. And if you exclude
two campaigns run for HSUS by the “Build-a-Bear Workshop” retail chain,
which consisted of the sale of surplus stuffed animals (not really
“fundraising”), HSUS’s yield number shrinks to just 3 percent. Sadly, this
appears typical. In 2004, HSUS ran a telemarketing campaign in Connecticut
with fundraisers who promised to return a minimum of zero percent of the
proceeds. The campaign raised over $1.4 million. Not only did absolutely none
of that money go to HSUS, but the group paid $175,000 for the telemarketing
work.
7. Research shows that HSUS’s heavily promoted U.S. “boycott” of Canadian
seafood—announced in 2005 as a protest against Canada’s annual seal hunt—
is a phony exercise in media manipulation. A 2006 investigation found that 78
percent of the restaurants and seafood distributors described by HSUS as
“boycotters” weren’t participating at all. Nearly two-thirds of them told
surveyors they were completely unaware HSUS was using their names in
connection with an international boycott campaign. Canada’s federal
government is on record about this deception, saying: “Some animal rights
groups have been misleading the public for years … it’s no surprise at all that
the richest of them would mislead the public with a phony seafood boycott.”
Want evidence? Visit www.AnimalScam.com • www.ActivistCash.com • www.
consumerfreedom.com
Revised October 2008. Complete sources and documentation available upon
request.
| "The politics of Animal Liberation" written by Kim Barlett, Editor of the Animals' Agenda, Nov. 1987. THE AGENDA 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 |