The Long Road to Animal Welfare

This is a very long essay by Wayne Pacelle published in the magazine Foreign Affairs by the Council on Foreign Relations. In this essay he covers ballot initiatives; use of Michael Vick to promote anti-dog fighting (not to mention raise money); history of the animal rights movement; HSUS successes. Pacelle covers his version of the HSUS heroic efforts in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina. Pacelle includes as a success story an anti-confinement ballot measure in Florida in 2002; however he fails to mention there were only 2 hog farmers in the state. After the ballot passed, both farmers sent their herds to slaughter. 

The article states: "The two largest groups, the HSUS and the ASPCA, together raise and spend nearly $400 million a year and have assets approaching $500 million."

The Long Road to Animal Welfare -

How Activism Works in Practice

By Wayne Pacelle

On election night in November 1992, I waited anxiously with other animal welfare activists at the Radisson Hotel in Denver, Colorado, to learn the outcome of a statewide ballot measure to ban the baiting, hound hunting, and spring hunting of black bears. The initiative was a big deal both for me (it had been my idea) and for the animal welfare movement more generally. Colorado was a political redoubt for the National Rifle Association and other pro-hunting groups; if the ballot measure passed, it might inspire other reforms for animals, and if it failed, it might set the movement back years. Most of my fellow activists had been skeptical about the initiative, arguing that it was a fool’s errand because the hunting lobby was too strong to defeat. But the leaders of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS—then as now, the largest animal protection organization in the country—had overruled their political staff and decided to support the effort, on principle. “It’s too important not to try,” John Hoyt, then the group’s president, told me. “If we lose, I want to be on the side of the losers.” In the end, we won big, getting 70 percent of the vote.

Full Article at link: 
 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-06-16/long-road-animal-welfare

News Briefs and Updates October 24, 2014

Dear SAOVA Friends,

Campaign financing information has been released by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that includes contributions through September 30.  We have a few notable updates for you from these figures. The Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) spent a total of $78,493 supporting the campaign of Congressman Gary Peters (D) to win the open Senate seat race in Michigan against challenger Terri Lynn Land (R).  A close second is Senator Jeff Merkley (D, OR) where HSLF has contributed $75,150 to assist his re-election.

We reported previously that HSLF had contributed $41,794 to the campaign of Tony Strickland (R) in the California district 25 open Congressional seat race against Steve Knight (R).  Rounding out the list of top expenditures is the HSLF contribution of $50,941 to Congressman Bruce Braley (D) challenging Joni Ernst (R) for the open Iowa Senate seat.  

As of October 23, HSUS/HSLF contributed approximately $2 million to Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, headed by HSUS state director Katie Hansberry, in support of their ballot initiative.  Question 1 on the November ballot would ban the use of bait, dogs and traps for bear hunting in the state. The current report from the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices shows only one percent of the campaign funds raised by supporters of Question 1 actually came from Maine donors. In addition, HSUS/Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting filed a lawsuit in September requesting an injunction against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to prevent them from speaking out publicly against Question 1 and to have all content opposing Question 1 removed from their website.  

Last week Superior Court Justice Joyce Wheeler rejected the injunction request.  “Restricting speech on contested public issues is directly contrary to the public interest, which favors a robust and dynamic public discourse,” Wheeler said in her 15-page decision. “It is [for] the voters, not the plaintiffs or the courts, to assess the relative merits of conflicting speech.  Judge Wheeler continued, “The public interest would be adversely affected if plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order were granted when DIF&W’s speech is on topics squarely within its competence as governor of statutory directives from the Legislature.”   HSUS/Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting plans to appeal the decision.

Please read and share the rest of our updates. The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated.  Make your vote count on November 4th!

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators

http://saova.org

ALDF PETITIONS TO REGULATE GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS

San Francisco — On October 16, the national nonprofit Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) filed a formal rulemaking petition with the California Air Resources Board to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from animal agriculture, as it does for the energy and transportation sectors. The petition calls on the agency to require “factory farms” to report greenhouse gas emissions to the Air Resources Board, which will “cap” these emissions. California’s groundbreaking cap-and-trade program stems from the state’s 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act.  ALDF’s first-of-its-kind state petition asks the Air Resources Board to include animal agriculture in that program. California uses more than 25 million acres of land for agriculture. “Animal agriculture is systematically responsible for cruelty to millions of animals, pollution of natural resources, and health problems in our state,” said ALDF Executive Director Stephen Wells. “Our state agencies should regulate pollution from the animal agriculture industry like they do for cars and trucks.”

YET ANOTHER HSUS AWARD

The inaugural “Humane Filmmaker” award will be presented this month to Director Darren Aronofsky for using computer-generated images instead of animals in the movie “Noah”.  According to HSUS the film shows that animals can be a large part of entertainment production without risking their welfare. “As more directors like Aronofsky choose digital alternatives in film, TV, and advertising, animal actors could become as obsolete as celluloid film” said Debbie Leahy, HSUS Manager of Captive Wildlife Protection.

PERDUE/HSUS JOINT PRESS RELEASE

October 13, 2014.  Perdue Farms, Inc. and The Humane Society of the United States are pleased to announce the settlement of two federal cases in New Jersey and Florida concerning Perdue's "humanely raised" claim on its Harvestland chicken labels. The settlement requires the plaintiffs to dismiss their claims with prejudice, in exchange for Perdue agreeing to remove the "Humanely Raised" label claim from its Harvestland chicken packaging.

The proposed class action cases were filed in 2010 and 2013 by individual consumers who contended that Perdue's "Humanely Raised" claim on the packaging of its Harvestland brand chicken was misleading. Perdue vigorously opposed plaintiffs' claims.

"We are pleased to see the claim removed from Harvestland's packaging, which we view to be misleading," said Peter Petersan, Director of Animal Protection Litigation for the HSUS. "We will continue to work to protect both animals and consumers."

"Perdue rejects the plaintiffs' allegations and maintains that its labels are not misleading in any way. Nonetheless, it has agreed to discontinue the labeling claim at issue," said Herb Frerichs, General Councel for Perdue Farms. "Perdue is committed to treating animals with respect and to ensure their health and safety. We are pleased this lawsuit has been resolved."

Source: HSUS press release http://tinyurl.com/pvd59w7

SANCTIONS ISSUED IN 'PUPPY MILL' ONLINE DEFAMATION SUIT

Burlington County Superior Court Judge M. Patricia Richmond awarded $25,000 in legal fees on October 16 to Clifford Mintz of East Windsor N.J. to be paid by plaintiffs Donna Roberts and Dawn Abrams. The fee decision comes four years after Richmond granted summary judgment dismissing Roberts' and Abrams' claims against Mintz. 

Mintz had been ranting on his blog against Roberts and Abrams, accusing them of running a puppy mill.  According to reports the dispute began when Mintz purchased a second dog from the breeders. Mintz claimed he thought the dog was another purebred, but that it turned out to be an unhealthy mix-breed.   Roberts and Abrams claimed they told him the dog had been rescued from a pet owner who could not care for him.

Roberts and Abrams compared the blogging attacks to cyber-bullying and after two years filed a defamation suit against Mintz; however, the suit was dismissed on First Amendment grounds by Superior Court Judge Patricia Lebon.  HSUS had joined the lawsuit in defense of Mintz, arguing the suit was designed to stop him from warning the public through protected speech about the unscrupulous business practices of dog breeders.

NATIONAL SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION, HSUS JOINT PROJECT

John Thompson, executive director of the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA), believes animal abuse is too common.  “So if we can stop a case of animal cruelty, we may intercept violent crimes against people as well”, says Thompson.

The NSA was instrumental in working with the FBI to have animal cruelty offenses, including animal neglect, listed as a separate category in the Uniform Crime Report (UCR), the prime source of information on crime in the U.S.  Animal cruelty crimes will now be classified as distinct Group A offenses, joining other major crimes such as arson, assault, and homicide, and will require the reporting of both incidents and arrests. The reported crimes will be categorized as simple/gross neglect; intentional abuse and torture; organized abuse; and animal sexual abuse.

NSA in partnership with ICE BlackBox and the HSUS have launched a new feature within the ICE BlackBox app to report animal abusers. The ICE BlackBox app not only records the abuse, but also notes the GPS coordinates.  When someone begins recording an event, the recording is uploaded to the NSA secure servers in Alexandria VA to its National Law Enforcement Center on Animal Abuse (NLECAA).  Kaema Akpan is heading up that effort as the center's attorney and will filter the videos to the right police agencies.  According to the NLECAA website, HSUS-funded agents will be used to assist in alerting local authorities and district attorneys.

Thompson noted that local law enforcement departments taking part in pilot programs tied directly to ICE BlackBox would instantly receive recordings of animal abuse from local citizens.

In the HSUS press release Thompson said: “We encourage everyone who has a smartphone and cares about protecting animals and our communities to download this new app.”  Thompson added, “We want to give special thanks to Cesar Millan and the Cesar Millan Foundation for their contribution in the public service announcement video that was shown at the news conference.” This PSA is the first in a series on reporting animal abuse with the ICE BlackBox App.

The app originally developed for the National Neighborhood Watch program was modified to allow the public to report animal abuse.

Sources: ABC News; AL.Com; HSUS press release http://tinyurl.com/n6gghcw

National Sheriffs’ Association website http://tinyurl.com/kdru9l2

National Sheriffs’ Association media contact: Susan Crow scrow@sheriffs.org

SAOVA DONATION MATCH FOR PET RULE LAWSUIT

The Sportsmen’s & Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance (SAOVA) will accept donations earmarked for support of the Associated Dog Clubs of New York State (ADCNYS) lawsuit against the USDA and HSUS to block enforcement of the "retail pet store" rule that requires thousands of small-scale breeders to be licensed and inspected by the federal government. SAOVA will match donations received up to $500.

Donate here

Ex-ASPCA CEO Disowns ASPCA “Puppy Mill” Campaign

August 25, 2014  Humane Watch

We announced our skepticism last week over the appointment of Ed Sayres, former CEO of the ASPCA, as head of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), the pet industry’s trade group. Notably, Sayres’ tenure at ASPCA and his statements about pet breeding were cause for concern. Given that the PIJAC board’s vote was 9-7 to offer him the job, there was a bit of concern among members of the industry, as well.

Sayres has issued an “open letter” stating the following, in part:

The current [pet store] retail bans generate theatrics, but not solutions, about how more people can enjoy the benefits of dog ownership. If regulations are too stringent, they will drive breeding to the unregulated underground. If they are too lax, they will allow substandard operators to stay in business. I believe my professional experience makes me well qualified to lead the discussions around these issues and find common ground. […]

In retrospect, given the nature of the ASPCA’s mission, I had a rather limited view during my tenure as the organization’s CEO, responding in the field to horrific substandard operators who represent a small minority of breeders — not the majority. My view in light of those circumstances formed the basis for the statements I made during that period and campaigns that were developed under my leadership. I know now that I was misinformed about the majority of breeders who work diligently to raise puppies humanely and to find lifetime homes through retail channels. While many in the animal welfare field still want to paint all breeders with the same low standards brush, I look forward to opening their eyes to the true nature of the breeding business.

That’s a very telling comment. Sayres says the ASPCA campaign overstated the problem. (Probably for PR and fundraising purposes, we’d wager.) No doubt, he would have the same words for HSUS’s campaign.

Meanwhile, Bob Baker, formerly an ASPCA investigator and HSUS employee, is lashing out, calling Sayres a “fake animal welfare person” who wasn’t respected in the animal rights movement. Baker was a proponent of “Prop B” in Missouri in 2010, which sought to increase restrictions on dog breeders. It’s an entirely predictable reaction from the animal rights community.

Sayres has a choice.  He’s not going to please the animal rights campaigners, who want to put the pet industry out of business and who Sayres now says operate with a skewed version of the facts.

If Sayres wants to be a good leader for the pet industry, then he has to prove himself and be proactive. If he is truly a convert then it will be obvious from his agenda, which should be shared with the industry. Goals will be a start but not enough to be convincing. Founders of both Greenpeace and MADD eventually broke with their organizations and have actively spoken out against their former organization agendas. Sayres has the same opportunity to lobby aggressively against HSUS and ASPCA and make his views known that they aren’t telling the full story. In particular, he also has to work to reverse the retail bans that have taken effect in some localities—not simply stop new bans.

Sayres has an “insider’s” perspective on animal-rights campaigns and could use it effectively, if he chooses to. We’ll be watching to see if he does. As Ronald Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.”

RELATED

What Were They Thinking?
What Were They Thinking? (Part Deux)

A tarnished animal rights movement

August 15, 2014 By Steve Kopperud

The animal rights movement isn’t having a good year, mainly because the 800-lb. gorillas of the movement aren’t having a good year.  Despite lots of noise and heavy spending, there have been no congressional or state victories of any note, and generally speaking, very little media attention.

A glance at the HSUS website shows press statements boasting cat and horse rescues and urging the residents of Hawaii, as two hurricanes bore down on the islands, “to prepare.”  New Jersey bans ivory and rhino horn, federally illegal for decades, and HSUS portrays the move as monumental.  PETA continues the tired old “girl-in-a-lettuce-leaf-bikini” publicity stunts, trumpeting endorsements by minor Hollywood types, but to the public and the media, such stunts are becoming so much white noise.

In March, Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt opened an investigation into HSUS fundraising in the state connected to the Moore, Oklahoma, tornado relief effort last year and issued a “consumer alert” relative to national animal charities.  Pruitt is talking to other states about conducting similar investigations, according to humanewatch.org.  Oklahoma is one of several states suing California over its egg production law – heavily supported by HSUS – and the state House approved a “right-to-farm” constitutional amendment.

FULL ARTICLE AT LINK

Legislation Briefs and Updates July 14, 2014

SAOVA Friends,
In our last message we noted a few of the top recipients of Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) funding.  In addition to the independent expenditures of $41,799 supporting the Congressional campaign of Tony Strickland (R, CA), HSLF recently donated another $5,000.

Moving into the top tier Senate recipients are Gary Peters (D, MI) with $5,000 and Kelly Ayotte (R, NH) increased to $4,000.   In the House, contributions to Michael Fitzpatrick (R, PA) now total $6,000 and Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) and Walter Jones (R, NC) join the favored list at $5,000 each.

The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated. Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators

CONGRESSMAN STEWART (R-UT) INTRODUCES WILD HORSE, BURRO LEGISLATION
Rep. Chris Stewart Introduces Bill Giving States the Ability to Manage Wild Horses and Burros

July 10, 2014 Washington, D.C. – Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) introduced legislation that would give states and Indian Tribes the option to take over the management of wild horses and burros. The Wild Horse Oversight Act of 2014 would preserve all protections under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, and simply allow states to implement horse and burro management plans that address the specific needs of their own state.

“The federal government has never been able to properly manage the horses and burros in the west,” Stewart said. “Every state faces different challenges, which is why it’s important that they have the ability to manage their own wildlife.”

In the 43 years that the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act has been in place, the ranges have been overused, pushing cattle off the ranges and leading to the destruction of important habitat for native species.  “States and tribes already successfully manage large quantities of wildlife within their borders,” Stewart said. “If horses and burros were under that same jurisdiction, I’m confident that new ideas and opportunities would be developed to manage the herds more successfully than the federal government.”  This bill would allow states to form cooperative agreements to manage herds that cross over borders, and the federal government would continue to inventory the horses and burros to ensure that the population numbers as prescribed by the 1971 Act are maintained.  “In an era of fiscal crisis, the federal government just doesn’t have the money to manage these programs.”   HR 5058 text here

NEW POLICY ON INTERPRETATION OF ESA PHRASE “SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ITS RANGE’’
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries Service (Services) jointly announced a policy intended to clarify implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by providing a formal interpretation of the phrase "significant portion of its range" that appears in the ESA definitions of "endangered species" and "threatened species."  This policy clarifies that the Services can list a species if it is endangered or threatened in a "significant portion of its range," even if that species is not endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. Under the policy, a portion of the range of a species is defined as "significant" if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range. The new policy goes into effect on July 31, 2014.  Final Policy, FAQ, and Interim Guidance posted here  

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SUED OVER PRAIRIE CHICKEN LISTING
Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, claiming the lesser prairie chicken should have been listed as endangered. The lesser prairie chicken was listed as threatened in March.  The groups believe the listing is not doing enough to save the lesser prairie chicken because the less restrictive threatened designation allows oil, gas, wind power, agriculture and other industries to kill up to 1,300 prairie chickens a year in the five states where the prairie chicken roosts: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.

Kansas, Oklahoma and several New Mexico counties joined a lawsuit by the Permian Basin Petroleum Association in Texas claiming the species designation is overreach by the federal government that will hamper the energy and agriculture industries.  As of early June, about 160 oil, gas, wind, electric and pipeline companies had enrolled about 9 million acres across the five states, committing more than $43 million for habitat conservation over the next three years, according to a news release from the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA).

The service faces a November deadline to make its decision on the Gunnison sage grouse and will decide on the two other species next year.

COMMENTS REOPENED ON SNAKE BAN
Federal Register Tuesday, June 24, 2014.  Docket ID: FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announces the reopening of the comment period on the proposed rule published on March 12, 2010, which proposed to amend our regulations to add nine species of large constrictor snakes as injurious species under the Lacey Act.  Because four of the nine species were added to the regulations in 2012, this reopening notice is restricted to the five remaining species: Reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa constrictor. If you have previously submitted comments on the proposed rule, please do not resubmit them because we have already incorporated them in the public record and will fully consider them in our final decision on these five species. Only comments received or postmarked on or before July 24, 2014 will be considered. Any comments that are received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.  Comments may be submitted online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://tinyurl.com/ouqttck

HR 1528 AMERICAN VETERINARY MOBILITY ACT (VMMA)
Sponsored by Congressmen Ted Yoho (R-FL3) and Kurt Schrader (D-OR5) the bill makes modification to the Controlled Substances Act and Drug Enforcement Administration policy that currently prohibits veterinarians from transporting controlled substances to treat patients outside of the registered location. The VMMA was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent, clearing the way for this legislation to be enacted into law.  Congressman Yoho released the following statement. “As a large animal veterinarian, my operating room wasn't always in an office. Most times, it was in the field. Expecting ranchers to transport their livestock to a veterinary clinic every time medication is needed is an example of overly burdensome policy created by bureaucrats rather than the folks who know the issue. This bill will correct that problem and allow veterinarians to practice their profession without fear of unnecessary government intrusion.”

HALFWAY THROUGH 2014, HSUS IS REELING
Humane Watch, July 10, 2014. We recently passed the halfway point of 2014. And what news so far this year regarding the Humane Society of the United States? Let’s review:

The Oklahoma Attorney General announced that his office was opening an investigation into HSUS’s fundraising, issuing a consumer alert along the way.

HSUS released its latest annual report, showing that its contributions were down $20 million in 2013.
The federal racketeering lawsuit naming HSUS and two of its employees came to an end after HSUS agreed to settle the case, paying up to $15.75 million in the process. Not only that, but we discovered (and the press later reported) that HSUS was denied insurance coverage for this litigation, something HSUS “failed to tell reporters” when announcing the settlement.

Charity Navigator, the nation’s largest charity evaluator, lowered HSUS’s rating after we exposed HSUS’s incorrect tax filings, in which HSUS had inflated its revenue. (HSUS also filed years’ worth of amended returns with the IRS.)

Then, Charity Navigator replaced its rating of HSUS entirely, issuing a “Donor Advisory” against HSUS, which indicates “extreme concern.”

HSUS tried to flex its fundraising muscle on Capitol Hill, and hardly anyone showed up. Then, Capitol Hill pub POLITICO wrote not one, but two embarrassing blurbs about HSUS in the following weeks, noting in one instance that HSUS was holding a lobby day while Congress was in recess.

Quadriga Art, one of HSUS’s top contractors—HSUS has given it over $30 million in the past few years—reached a $25 million settlement with the New York Attorney General after Quadriga was exposed for keeping most of the money it raised for a veterans charity. Sound like a familiar refrain?

We blew the lid off of HSUS’s Cayman Islands scheme—exposing the tens of millions of dollars that HSUS has socked away offshore instead of giving that money to pet shelters. (By the way, have you entered our contest?)

In statehouses, HSUS anti-farmer legislation has been stymied. Actually, it’s not just agriculture issues—we can hardly think of any HSUS bills that have passed.

All in all, it’s been a bad year so far for America’s self-described “most effective” animal rights group, and an especially trying time for HSUS CEO Wayne “I don’t love animals” Pacelle.

When your opponent has taken a blow (or nine), it’s not the time to let up. It’s the time to stay on offense. We have a few things planned for the second half of 2014. Stay tuned.  

ILLINOIS PET BREEDERS - ACTION REQUIRED

SAOVA Friends,

May 9, 2014.  House Bill 4056 was amended from the Senate floor and will now prohibit Illinois pet shops from selling dogs and cats they have acquired from breeders. Instead pet shops would be required to sell dogs and cats obtained from an animal shelter or animal control facility.

Senate Amendment 1 has the full support of Governor Quinn and HSUS.  Proponents argue that this bill is needed to control pet overpopulation in Illinois, stop unnecessary shelter euthanasia, and end “puppy mill” sales in pet shops.  Supporters’ also claim the proposal will result in more healthy pets sold throughout the state.  That scenario is not likely if puppies from licensed and inspected breeders will be replaced by shelter dogs with unknown social histories, unknown dams and sires, and unknown health histories.

The Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (ISVMA) issued an alert this week in opposition to HB 4056.  ISVMA noted, “In the last few years, they have passed Anna's Law (Pet Overpopulation Control Act), legislation to establish the Pet Population Fund, and the Pet Lemon Law. Each time, they have proposed the new answer to the problem of pet overpopulation. The time and resources of this General Assembly and the lobby groups that continue to pass these laws would be better spent on public education to better inform prospective pet owners of their choices in selecting a new pet and the responsibilities of pet ownership.”

Senate Amendment 1 limits the choices of Illinois citizens to obtain a purebred pet. It should not be the business of the state of Illinois to legislate pet sales from shelters. This is an unacceptable and unreasonable restriction on trade that will hurt legitimate business and cost jobs.

HSUS and their minions are spinning the tale that responsible breeders will not be affected and might actually benefit if pet stores are gone.  We have heard that song and dance before and know what they really want is to eventually end all purposeful breeding of pets. Should the amended bill pass, the new Puppy Lemon Law will be rescinded; a source for Illinois families to purchase pets will be removed; and businesses will be lost - all to satisfy the HSUS agenda.

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED
Time is critical. The bill had already been placed on the Senate Calendar for final reading when the Amendment was attached.  It is now with the Senate Executive Committee.

Tell Governor Quinn NO to HB 4056.  Call his office 217-782-0244
Ask your Senator http://www.ilga.gov/senate/   to oppose HB 4056.

Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators
saova@earthlink.net

Kangaroo courts are coming…

SAOVA Friends,

Steven L. Kopperud is executive vice president of Policy Directions Inc., a Washington, DC government affairs/specialty communications company specializing in animal production agriculture, nutrition, agribusiness, biotechnology, animal health and welfare, food, farm policy, trade and ag research and human health-related issues. As a recognized authority on activist assaults on animal agriculture and food technology, Mr. Kopperud has spoken to audiences in the U.S., Europe, Canada, China, Australia and Latin America on threats to food production.

Kopperud has long been one my favorite voices speaking out against the animal rights agenda and tactics. Never one to mince words, he tells his audience:  “You will never negotiate successfully with an animal rights group.”

Thanks for reading.  Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators


KANGAROO COURTS ARE COMING…
April 18, 2014 By Steve Kopperud

My opinion since moving to Washington, DC – where you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a law school graduate – is the world has enough lawyers.  However, there are times when lawyers are welcome because they’re very necessary.  Today there’s an animal rights initiative just getting legs and its success or failure will likely hinge on whoever has the most – and best – lawyers.  I’m talking about the legal concept of animal “personhood.” Stick with me; this may be esoteric and sound comical, but the threat is nevertheless very real.

“Personhood” under law recognizes only a natural person or “legal personality” has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. “Personhood,” according to one legal journal, “continues to be a topic of international debate, and has been questioned during the abolition of slavery and the fight for women’s rights, in debates about abortion, fetal rights and reproductive rights (and) in animal rights activism…” (my emphasis).

In the 1980s-90s, we beat back an aggressive campaign by PETA and other animal rights groups to achieve “standing” in federal courts to sue on behalf of animals those who transgressed the animal rights philosophy, e.g. biomedical researchers, farmers and ranchers, zoos, rodeos and other legitimate users of animals. We watched class action suits filed on behalf of unnamed millions of consumers and lots of animals dismissed because the wannabe plaintiffs had no standing.

In the early 2000s, animal rights and real world lawyers sought to change companion animals’ legal status from property owned by someone to animals as semi-persons who enjoy not an owner but a “guardian.” Some California towns actually enshrined part of this philosophy in local law. The push was to allow owners who brought suit in cases of veterinary negligence or other wrongful acts to sue not just for the property value of the animal lost as is the case today, but for noneconomic damages, i.e. emotional distress, loss of companionship, etc. While pets don’t enjoy “personhood,” there is a trend in the courts to ignore the animals’ legal status and award non-economic damages.

The whole animal-as-person effort is the brainchild of Steven Wise. Wise, who’s practiced animal law for over 30 years, heads his own group called the Nonhuman Rights Project (http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/). In his own words:

“Our mission is to change the common law status of at least some nonhuman animals from mere ‘things,’ which lack the capacity to possess any legal right, to ‘persons,’ who possess such fundamental rights as bodily integrity and bodily liberty, and those other legal rights to which evolving standards of morality, scientific discovery, and human experience entitle them…The most powerful ram…is the litigating of the capacity for legal rights of those nonhuman animals who are both the most cognitively complex (they have extraordinary minds) and the most cognitively similar to humans. These include the four species of great apes, dolphins and whales, elephants, and African Grey parrots.”

Wise’s goal is to litigate state by state on behalf of “smart” animals, his targets chosen based on the evolution of common law in that state and whether there’s a “plaintiff” of sufficient standing. He’s filed three cases in New York, lost one on appeal and the other two appeals are pending. It will only take one or two successes for there to be sea change in the legal status animals, including those we raise for food, use in research to find cures and treatments or those who educate and entertain us.

Animal agriculture must pay attention to this legal threat now. This sounds fanciful, even ridiculous, but remember at least two European nations amended their national constitutions to recognize animals as “sentient creatures.” Remember there exists the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) to provide pro bono (free) legal assistance to animal rights groups, that HSUS and TV game show host Bob Barker have spent literally millions of dollars endowing “animal law” chairs at some of this country’s biggest and most prestigious law schools, and the American Bar Association (ABA) has an “animal law committee” and the majority of its members aren’t our industry’s best legal minds.

Which brings us back to lawyers, numbers and talent. We need to find working attorneys willing to donate – yes, I said donate – time and talent to help us prepare for this assault before someone files a personhood suit on behalf of pigs – deemed by those in the animal rights movement as one of the most intelligent animals we routinely kill and eat.

We need young attorneys and law school students to help us – and the rest of legal animal users – to maintain our legal rights and protections. We’re fortunate to have the National Agricultural Law Center at the University of Arkansas (http://nationalaglawcenter.org/). This is a group which needs our attention, our support and our donations. I have a feeling it may be our version of ALDF one day in the future.

Check out the websites I’ve listed; check the Internet and newsfeeds for “animal law” and “animal personhood.” It’s a serious issue – at least for the other side – and one that gives the term “kangaroo court” a whole new meaning.

Copyright 2014 Brownfield, All rights Reserved. Written For: Brownfield
Reprinted with Permission

http://brownfieldagnews.com/2014/04/18/kangaroo-courts-coming/
http://tinyurl.com/k69wg4b

Continue To Spread The Word: HSUS Is A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing

by Amanda Radke in BEEF Daily
Feb. 17, 2014

A Wisconsin dairy producer takes HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle to task for his organization’s deceitful practices.

Over the weekend, I spoke at the annual meeting of the Wisconsin Cattlemen’s Association. On our way back to South Dakota from Wisconsin Dells, we stopped in Minnesota to visit my husband Tyler’s family. We were visiting with his grandparents when we both noticed a pair of winter gloves lying on the table. Eblazoned on them were the words, “Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).”

Immediately, Tyler asked his grandma where she got those gloves. Worried that the gloves were a reward for her $19.99 donation to HSUS to save homeless dogs and cats (a fallacy that HSUS claims in its advertising), we were somewhat relieved to hear she had received the gloves from a neighbor. My mother-in-law had explained to Tyler's grandma how HSUS is an adversary to animal agriculture, and Tyler’s grandma had dutifully tried to obscure the “United States” part of the gloves with a black permanent marker.


What I found disturbing, however, was that the neighbor who had given Tyler's grandma the gloves is from an active hog-producing family. Apparently there are still well-intentioned farmers and ranchers out there who unknowingly donate money to HSUS, the very organization that seeks to end animal agriculture.
full story at link: http://beefmagazine.com/blog/continue-spread-word-hsus-wolf-sheep-s-clothing

MO Supreme Court Decision - MoFed wins

Missouri Federation of Animal Owners (MoFed) has received word that the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri just handed down its decision on the HSUS vs. State of Missouri concerning shelter fees for shelters and rescues. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court and ruled against HSUS in their effort to relieve licensed humane societies and shelters of paying the same fees as dog breeders in Missouri.

MoFed presented the idea in the state legislature and then Representative Brian Munzlinger attached the language to the omnibus agriculture bill several years ago. HSUS immediately filed a lawsuit which was ruled against all the way to the State Supreme Court. The 7 to 0 decision today is yet another defeat for HSUS!

MoFed held its ground and refused to let HSUS' attempts to pass legislation to circumvent the rulings of the courts. Defeating the efforts of HSUS in both the legislature and courts of Missouri is another win for animal owners and another sound defeat for HSUS!!! Read the Ruling

Kudos to Rep. Steve King's Amendment to the Farm Bill

In more specific news about the House Ag Committee markup earlier this week, Chris Clayton reported yesterday at the DTN Ag Policy Blog that, “In a shot against state ballot initiatives on agricultural production standards, the committee adopted an amendment thatprevents states from denying the trade of an agricultural product from another state based on its means of production.

“Committee members got into the details of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution and the way it may be usurped by state ballot initiatives on issues such as pork gestation or egg production. The amendment goes after the spreading use of such state ballot measures.

“Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who introduced the amendment, characterized it as a ‘protect interstate commerce amendment’ by prohibiting states from regulating the means of production over a particular farm product. King cited issues such as pork production, eggs and cages for hens and expressed concern that states adopting such laws on production standards would restrict shipping of those products from other states.”

Speaking on yesterday’s AgriTalk radio program with Mike Adams, Senior Director of Congressional Relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation, Mary Kay Thatcher, indicated that the King Amendment was “the Amendment of the Farm Bill yesterday.” To listen to a portion of Ms. Thatcher’s remarks on this issue from yesterday’s AgriTalk show, just click here (MP3- 1:27).

To listen to the full discussion leading up to the vote on the King Amendment that took place Wednesday night during the House Ag Committee markup, just click here (MP3- 23:00). The clip includes remarks from Reps. Steve King (R., Iowa), Kurt Schrader (D., Ore.),Dennis Cardoza (D., Calif.), Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), Chairman Frank Lucas (R., Okla.), Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D., Minn.), Mike Conaway (R., Tex.), and Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.).
The audio clip is a bit lengthy, but the discussion regarding the King Amendment was interesting and educational. Source: FarmPolicy.com, Inc.

Related: Rep. King statement on the Protect Interstate Commerce Act (PICA) Amendment

HSUS sends notices of plans to sue 51 pork producers

In its continuing campaign to disrupt animal agriculture, HSUS is now preparing to file suits against a number of North Carolina, Iowa, and Oklahoma pork producers. Does your Congressman understand the real HSUS agenda?

Feedstuffs. Rod Smith 7/11/2012
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) gave notice this afternoon that it plans to file lawsuits against 51 large-scale pork producers in North Carolina, Iowa and Oklahoma for unreported ammonia releases into the environment.

HSUS said it identified the alleged offenders "after months of research" and said the companies emit "hundreds of pounds" of ammonia per day, endangering farm animals, wildlife, the environment and rural communities.

"It was no surprise," HSUS said, that many of the producers who will receive notices are affiliated with the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), the trade group representing the U.S. pork industry that defends the use of gestation stalls for pregnant sows, a practice that HSUS finds abhorrent and is seeking to end.

The letters of notice are required under the federal Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act before litigation can start.

HSUS recognized that there are producers who are "attentive" to animal welfare and environmental issues, but said some of the wealthiest producers "apparently refuse to comply with critical" public health laws.

In response to "notices" sent today to 51 pork producers by HSUS, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) said late this afternoon it is reviewing the allegations, but regardless, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is itself still evaluating air emissions data from livestock and poultry operations to develop "a better understanding" of emission rates.

NPPC said it is important to note that HSUS is not alleging environmental harm but paperwork violations of EPA's emissions reporting rule that has created widespread confusion, including one state's claim that EPA notices are "an internet hoax."

NPPC said the notices represent "another scare tactic" to get NPPC "to back off" its opposition to the HSUS-United Egg Producers agreement on hen housing and the congressional legislation that would codify the agreement into law, as well as NPPC's efforts to correct the record on the HSUS "truth-twisting campaign" against producers who use gestation stalls for pregnant sows.

Peterson Statement: Senate Approves 2012 Farm Bill

The Farm Bill with 73 amendments was approved with a 64-35 vote. Missing from the final list was amendment #2252 proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) which would codify an agreement made by the HSUS and the United Egg Producers. This amendment would have set the precedent to take husbandry standards out of the hands of experts and give control to the federal government.

For Immediate Release: June 21, 2012

WASHINGTON – U.S. House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Collin C. Peterson, D-Minn., today made the following statement after the U.S. Senate approved the 2012 Farm Bill, “The Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012.”“Today is an important step to having a farm bill in place before the current bill expires this fall. I give high marks to Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts who did an excellent job securing bipartisan support and bringing the bill one step closer to completion. I’m not on board with everything they’ve done but think that we’ll be able to work out our differences in conference committee.“It is crucial that we finish the farm bill before the current bill expires in September. Waiting until the mess that will occur during the lame duck session will not only make it more difficult, but could also result in several unintended consequences. If the House Ag Committee passes a bipartisan bill in early July, House leadership will then have little choice but to bring the farm bill to the floor before the August recess. I’m continuing to work with Chairman Lucas and members of the Committee to make this happen.”

HSUS: Lawyers in cages

It just doesn't get any better than this!

New ag organization started to protect state's animal agriculture

By Robert Pore robert.pore@theindependent.com
Published: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 8:27 PM CDT

Animal agriculture in Nebraska is a more than $7 billion industry that supports thousands of jobs.

But a group of agricultural organizations believes the livestock industry is threatened by outside groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

These organizations have formed We Support Agriculture (WSA) to educate Nebraskans about modern agricultural practices and to defend against attacks and misinformation about modern technology used to raise livestock.

WSA was announced on Tuesday at Husker Harvest Days. Pete McClymont, vice president of government affairs for the Nebraska Cattlemen, is WSA president.

He said Nebraska's farmers and ranchers are "caring people who know how to care for their animals properly."

"They go to great lengths to protect their animals from disease, predators and harsh Nebraska climate while feeding their neighbors and the world."

But they now have a new predator to contend with, McClymont said, in the form of increased activity across the country by "extreme animal rights groups who have an agenda to make Americans eat less food originating from animals -- such as meat, eggs and dairy."

He said these groups want to institute "hostile regulations that will increase the price of food and make them much more difficult to produce."

According to WSA, "This negatively affects consumers by inflating the cost of food and limiting the availability of nutritious food choices for their families."

WSA said its goal is to "defend agriculture against this extreme agenda."
Full story
Visit We Support Agriculture website

California Foie Gras ban goes into effect

The Artisan Farmers Alliance and intends to fight the California law.

Chef Gary Danko sears an inch-thick slice of duck liver in a small pan in the San Francisco restaurant where he earned a Michelin star until the meat develops a golden-brown shell.

The delicacy known by its French name, foie gras, is garnished with figs and champagne grapes, a variation on a dish he’s served since opening Restaurant Gary Danko near Fisherman’s Wharf in 1999.

“I sell probably 40 orders a night or more,” Danko said in an interview while salting the meat. “When the protesters are here, double that.”

The protesters are animal-rights advocates who say force- feeding ducks and geese to fatten their livers is cruel. Danko and other California chefs will have to remove foie gras from their menus in July, when the state becomes the first to ban the dish, under a 2004 law.

At issue is the method of feeding the birds, with a tube inserted in the esophagus.

“These birds have done nothing to deserve this fate of being force-fed several times a day,” Paul Shapiro, a spokesman for the Washington-based Humane Society of the United States, said in a telephone interview. “It’s an inhumane practice that should be relegated to the history books.”

Connoisseurs say the process mimics behavior in the wild, where the birds gorge themselves before migrating. Foie gras purveyors say the force-feeding causes no pain, and that opponents are trying to impose the values of vegetarians on everyone else. Full story

HSUS Announces New SC State Director

HSUS issued a press release on August 15, 2011 for the hiring of another state director. "Kimberly Kelly takes the reins for animal welfare efforts on behalf of The Humane Society of the United States in South Carolina. She will be responsible for building activist coalitions and working with local supporters, advising law enforcement, assisting with emergency and disaster preparedness, and working with animal shelters."

"Kelly, based in Charleston, is a graduate of the Charleston School of Law, and the University of California, Berkeley. She led the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund while in law school, and worked with a domestic violence organization to help start their services for pets program which provides food and temporary shelter for the pets of women trying to escape domestic violence. She also has worked with The HSUS’ Animal Protection Litigation department."

The presss release notes that last year HSUS helped pass more than 100 animal protection laws in various states. South Carolinians can expect to see a steady stream of HSUS legislation both locally and at the state legislature.

MO Farm Bureau Opposes HSUS Initiative Petition

Farm organization warns Missouri citizens that HSUS group's 'Your Vote Counts' initiative petition is dangerous.
Compiled by staff Published: Aug 2, 2011

Missouri Farm Bureau's board of directors recently voted to oppose an initiative petition being circulated to require a three-fourths vote of the Missouri legislature to change an initiative statute.

The "Your Vote Counts" initiative petition is bankrolled by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a national organization with no affiliation to local Humane Society chapters in the state.

"Missourians should be alarmed by organizations like HSUS who are hijacking Missouri's initiative petition process," said Blake Hurst, president of Missouri Farm Bureau. "They are using their vast financial resources to buy their way on the ballot with paid signature gatherers and then buy voter support by flooding the air waves with slick, misleading commercials. This is government by fundraising, legislation by thirty-second commercials.

"By requiring a three-fourths vote, the 'Your Vote Counts' proposal creates an unrealistic threshold for legislative action as a check and balance against the influence of multi-million dollar organizations like HSUS," Hurst said. "The Missouri Legislature can override a governor's veto with a two-thirds vote. They can even vote to amend the U.S. Constitution with a two-thirds vote. I sincerely doubt HSUS's ideas are more lofty or important than the Bill of Rights."

HSUS spent more than $2.5 million last year to gain voter approval of Proposition B, a state statute that further regulated dog breeders. During the 2011 legislative session, the governor and Missouri Legislature made changes to improve the initiative statute so it would put unlawful, instead of reputable, dog breeders out of business. Angered by this action, HSUS now proposes to use some of its $150 million annual budget to again buy its way on the ballot and tell Missourians how to conduct their business.

"Look no further than a state like California where budget problems are well documented and are largely a result of the ballot initiative process. California's legislature cannot itself amend ballot initiatives approved by the state's voters, not much different than what HSUS is proposing for Missouri," Hurst said. "Initiative petitions are a valuable part of the democratic process, but the process needs checks and balances. Absolute power is dangerous, and absolute power in the hands of groups with unlimited funding is a recipe for the worst kind of government of all."

Source: Missouri Farm Bureau

United Egg Producers- HSUS agreement

From Keith Good at FarmPolicy.com, Inc.

William Neuman reported in today’s New York Times that, “Two groups that are usually squawking at each other — egg farmers and animal welfare advocates — announced an unusual agreement on Thursday to work together to seek a federal law that would require larger cages and other improved conditions for the nation’s 280 million laying hens.

“The deal comes after the egg industry has been put increasingly on the defensive. Animal welfare groups have clandestinely recorded videos showing poor conditions on farms, and various states have sought to set more humane standards for hens. Egg producers have also been struggling to improve their image after tainted eggs from several farms in Iowa sickened thousands of people in a nationwide salmonella outbreak last year.

“The agreement was announced by the nation’s main egg industry group, the United Egg Producers, which represents farmers who own about 80 percent of the nation’s laying hens, and the Humane Society of the United States, the nation’s largest animal protection organization.”

The Times article added that, “The groups said they would ask Congress to pass a law enacting the new standards, which they said would be the first federal law addressing the treatment of farm animals and would pre-empt efforts in several states to set their own standards.

“The proposed federal standards would include cages that give hens up to 144 square inches of space each, compared with the 67 square inches that most hens have today. They would also include so-called habitat enrichments, like perches, scratching areas and nesting areas, that allow the birds to express natural behavior.”

Mr. Neuman indicated that, “In a statement Thursday, the National Pork Producers Council said that a federal law regulating living conditions for hens ‘would set a dangerous precedent for allowing the federal government to dictate how livestock and poultry producers raise and care for their animals.’

“Robert L. Krouse, chairman of United Egg Producers, acknowledged the difficulties ahead.

“‘That’s part of what we have to do, as United Egg Producers, is talk with these other groups and hopefully get them to see our point of view,’ said Mr. Krouse, an Indiana egg farmer. ‘We understand their concerns, but this is about egg producers, this is a solution that we’ve found for us.’”

Today’s article noted that, “A federal law would be intended to pre-empt state laws. But the groups said it would have to include a faster transition timetable for California egg farmers to match the schedule approved in the ballot measure there, which requires larger cages by 2015.”

A statement yesterday from Arnie Riebli, the President of the Association of California Egg Farmers indicated that:

“While we are still in the process of reviewing today’s agreement between HSUS and the United Egg Producers, we welcome the recognition by HSUS that the enriched colony system is a suitable hen habitat. California’s egg farmers have long advocated the use of an enriched colony system as a superior living area for hens.

“At the same time, we are very disappointed that California is not being treated equally as the other 49 states. While the rest of the nation’s egg producers have until 2029 to spend an estimated five billion dollars necessary to comply with this agreement, California egg farmers must comply by 2015.”

Philip Brasher, writing yesterday at his new FoodWatch Blog, reported that, “The egg industry has known for some time that the so-called battery cages that are now the standard industry practice would have to be replaced with something more acceptable to the public. But producers didn’t want to go cage-free, as HSUS had been pushing, in part because cage-free operations require more and better trained workers. Cage-free hens also need more feed, further increasing production costs. The industry preferred instead to switch to a larger style of cages, known as ‘enriched colony’ housing, that give the birds more room to move around and also include perches and nesting areas. (See photo) The deal announced today between HSUS and the United Egg Producers allows the industry to do just that and gives farms a decade and a half to phase in the new housing.

“There’s a big catch, however. The two groups agreed to jointly ask Congress for a federal law that set standards and a timeline for the changes, and that legislation will have to pass for the deal to go through. If the bill doesn’t pass, ‘then the agreement would be off and we’d be likely to see more ballot measures, litigation, etc. Both sides want to work together to enact,’ HSUS’ Paul Shapiro told me.”

And the AP reported yesterday that, “Threatened with a series of state laws cracking down on cramped cages, the egg industry on Thursday said it would agree to seek federal regulation to improve conditions for egg-laying hens.

RELATED ARTICLES:
Statement Of National Pork Producers Council
Feedstuffs. HSUS, UEP reach agreement to transition to colonies
Brownfield. HSUS, United Egg agree on federal standards
Brownfield. NPPC president says federal standard bad idea
Better housing for hens may mean higher prices for eggs

Six members of Congress join the call for IRS action investigating HSUS

From Lobbyist, Frank Losey:
THE SPEED OF THE IRS INVESTIGATION OF THE HSUS MAY BEGIN TO MOVE MORE QUICKLY!

A “Congressional Cavalry” of Six Members of Congress has now formally asked the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury (IG) to “re-evaluate the tax-exempt status of the HSUS under the applicable legal standard” and to “investigate IRS’s potential failure to conduct a proper investigation.” These requests were included in the signed Joint Letter that was dated April 18, 2011.

The Six Members of Congress who signed the Joint Letter included Congresswomen Vicky Hartzler and Jo Ann Emerson from Missouri, Congressmen Blaine Luetkemeyer, Sam Graves and Billy Long from Missouri, and Congressman Don Young from Alaska. Significantly, Congressman Young issued a Press Release dated March 30, 2011 in which he refused to accept an Award from the HSUS, and went on to say: “HSUS are hypocrites, plain and simple, and I will not join them by accepting this award.”

In addition to attaching to the Joint Letter illustrative examples of documentation that showed the magnitude of the excessive lobbying by the HSUS, the Joint Letter also contained the two following, riveting quotes: “We believe that HSUS’s own public documents show beyond question that lobbying is a ‘substantial part’ of its activities, and feel that IRS’s failure to act is attributable to the politically sensitive nature of HSUS’s activities. Due to this, we write to request investigations by the Inspector General into HSUS’s apparent improper activities and its tax exempt status.” . . . “If the HSUS is not complying with the law, it should be investigated and disciplined just like any other organization, as taxpayers would be effectively subsidizing a political organization.” Not only is this letter “HUGE,” but it could “breed” supplemental letters being sent to the Treasury’s IG from other Members of Congress. The pressure on the IRS to investigate the HSUS has never been greater!!

When the Treasury’s IG is briefed by his Senior Staff about the April 18th Congressional Joint Letter - - SUCH BRIEFINGS OCCUR WHEN A JOINT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER IS RECEIVED - - and learns that several thousand concerned citizens have also contacted the OIG Hotline Office by email or Phone, the room temperature will rise in the Treasury’s IG Office!! And this BRIEFING is an additional reason for another wave of emails and Phone Calls to the OIG HOTLINE OFFICE to occur within the NEXT 30 DAYS. Even if you have already sent an email or Called, do it again. And encourage those who have not done so to email or Call. NUMBERS DO MATTER, especially when such a high level Senior Official in the Treasury Department begins asking hard questions and is briefed on the fact that the HSUS may have under-reported its revenue by over $500 Million; that over 6,000 tax-payers from all 50 States asked the IRS to investigate the HSUS; that a new wave of emails and Calls is being received by the OIG HOTLINE OFFICE; that the HSUS claims credit for the passage of over 550 Federal and State Statutes; and that the IRS assigned a Tax Fraud Case File Number (29-92012) to the HSUS in November 2008 -- 29 months ago!

EMAIL ADDRESS for OIG: Complaints@tigta.treas.gov (Subject: OIG Case File 55-1005-0025-C); OIG HOTLINE PHONE: 1-800-366-4484 (Press 5)

Suggested Short Message: “Would you please do what Six Members of Congress asked the Inspector General to do in their Joint Letter dated April 18th.”

Each Email or Call will make a difference!