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

SPECIAL REPORT-HSUS TAKING ACTION FOR ANIMALS 2014

SAOVA Friends,

The HSUS annual conference Taking Action for Animals (TAFA) was held June 27-30, 2014 in Washington DC.  HSUS describes the conference as one that promotes “mainstream solutions” and provides attendees education to become a better advocate for animals.   In other words, TAFA serves as a huge pep rally for animal rightists to connect, bolster their morale, and in the words of HSUS: “recharge their batteries.”  In his conference speech Wayne Pacelle told the audience, “TAFA is an attempt to attract the elite in the animal protection movement to help train you and educate you so then you can fan out all over the country and spread these messages and heighten your own level of effectiveness as an advocate.”

The various conference speakers included many of the old guard from the animal rights industry:  Gene Bauer and Bruce Friedrich (Farm Sanctuary); Carole Baskin (Big Cat Rescue); Sara Amundson (Humane Society Legislative Fund); Keith Dane (HSUS Equine Protection); Jonathan Lovvorn (HSUS VP Animal Protection and Litigation); Nancy Perry (Sr. VP Government Relations, ASPCA).

Nick Cooney and Nathan Runkle from Mercy for Animals (MFA) were also among the speakers.  MFA is probably best known for their undercover videos of animal agriculture which Runkle calls the “lifeblood” of the organization. MFA considers itself part of a “social justice” movement where portraying production agriculture as harsh and cruel will move people toward a vegan diet. 

Although not her first appearance, a newer face at TAFA was Lisa Fletcher, host of “The Stream” on Al Jazeera America and wife of Wayne Pacelle, who describes herself as a friend to all animals and vegan food maniac.  You may remember reading recently that Fletcher provided a platform for longtime radical activist Paul Shapiro, HSUS VP on Farm Animal Protection, on a segment of her show covering new USDA regulations.

Other TAFA scheduled speakers included, State Rep. Eddie Lucio III (TX); Jill Kline (Education and Advocacy Manager, Wisconsin Humane Society); Christine Coughlin (Pres. Minnesota Voters for Animal Protection); and Nicole Paquette (VP, HSUS Wildlife Protection/former Texas State Director).

TAFA also offered a series of workshops for the attendees.

“Becoming a Political Animal” workshop was moderated by HSUS director and former member of Animal Liberation Front, John Goodwin. Presenters included former state senator Roy Afflerbach (PA); Matt Dominguez, HSUS Public Policy Manager Farm Animal Protection; and Wayne Pacelle. Workshop attendees were instructed on effective lobbying at all levels of government from city council to Congress.

“Giving Farm Animals a Voice” workshop presenters included Erica Meier, Executive Director, Compassion Over Killing, and Kristie Middleton, Corporate Outreach Manager, HSUS Farm Animal Protection who shared strategies for effectively waging initiatives against farm animal cruelty.

Kelly Peterson, HSUS Senior Vice President for State Affairs moderated a workshop with former and current legislators to teach activists what “humane legislators” need to hear in order to pass animal protection laws.  The discussion panel included Delegate Eric Luedtke (MD); Representative Diana Urban (CT); and former Tennessee state Representative Eric Swafford, now HSUS Director for Rural Outreach and Development. We will cover this portion of the conference in more detail in a later article.

THE HSUS PLAN AND PROGRAMS

When Pacelle addressed the audience his speech centered on the four policy sections that HSUS uses to break down the animal protection movement. They are: Public Education and Awareness; Hands on Caring; Corporate Reform and Corporate Policy; and Public Policy and Enforcement.

Pacelle noted it is now a universal value in our society to oppose cruelty to animals.  With anti-cruelty statutes in every state carrying felony penalties it reinforces the fact that people who are cruel to animals are going to pay a price to society, either with incarceration or fines.  Pacelle continued, “That is the meaningful sort of legal framework for us to build upon.” 

As part of the HSUS “hands-on” programs, teams of staff and volunteers are assembled for disaster response, animal rescue, and for animal fighting and puppy mill cases.  According to Pacelle, HSUS can leverage images from these programs to raise public awareness that animals are in crisis situations every day across the country.

Pacelle then covered the third portion which is Corporate Reform.  Pacelle stated, “We live in a capitalist society where corporations produce the products that so many of us consume. They employ millions and millions of people. We want them as part of their broader mission of social responsibility to include animal welfare. We ask them to try to reach a higher standard. So this is where the anti-animal testing policies come in and the no gestation crate policies. This is vital work for us and we in HSUS spend a tremendous amount of time on it.”’

The final segment of Pacelle’s speech, which focused on Public Policy and Enforcement, should be a major wakeup call for everyone on how far the HSUS tentacles continue to invade our communities pretending to dispense mainstream values.

Pacelle introduced this segment saying that laws in a civil society are not only designed to keep order but to reflect the values which are basic to society.  The laws are not designed to change everybody; they are designed to deal with those who are increasingly viewed as (moral) outliers in society. The law addresses these outlier cases of people who are engaging in conduct that is no longer acceptable. The conduct may have been acceptable at one point, but it is no longer acceptable today.  Pacelle reminded listeners that it is up to them to advance social progress for animals just like the other great causes of civil rights, anti-slavery, and women's rights.

He then announced that HSUS now had State Councils in place in half the states in order to expand the HSUS reach and support HSUS state directors.  The councils cover equine and farm animal protection, law enforcement, faith, and park animal protection and HSUS plans to have these councils in all 50 states.  Pacelle informed the audience that these structures were being created to empower those committed to the animal rights industry and to advance the ideals of social reform.  He reminded listeners that social reform is not perfectly linear with consistent forward progress.  Felony and increased animal cruelty penalties, ending use of gestation crates, corporations enacting animal welfare policies sometimes move a step or two forward toward progress and then a step back.  To quote Pacelle, “That's the nature of a social movement -- especially when you've got big adversaries.”

We may be used to the animal rights rhetoric and vegan agenda; however the really disturbing part of this new “structure” plan is the HSUS District Leader Program now in place.  This program is designed to engage people in all 435 Congressional Districts and have those District Leaders lead political efforts to advance federal legislation by concentrating on influencing members of Congress.

Below is the ambitious position description for a District Leader as posted on the HSUS website.

The purpose is to help HSUS advance and accelerate animal protection priorities for companion animals, farm animals, and wildlife with legislation at the local, state, and federal levels.  Under the guidance of HSUS staff, the Leader is to develop an action plan for successful completion of one goal related to Legislative Advocacy; one goal for protection of Companion Animals, Eating with a Conscience, or Wildlife Protection; and one goal related to growing the “movement.”  The Leader is also expected to participate in the state Humane Lobby Day.  The Leaders are expected to organize grassroots activities, attend community events and meetings, and will be given a 'Toolkit' with program ideas.

Qualifications for District Leader positions include a commitment to the mission of HSUS; willingness to cultivate strong relationships with elected officials and lawmakers; and willingness to recruit new members, among other requirements and abilities.  It should be noted that these are volunteer positions and HSUS membership or greater philanthropic commitment is required.

Pacelle explained to listeners that this new structure being developed for the District Leader program was very important.  It is not just political.  The Leaders will work with school districts to establish Meatless Mondays; connect with small farmers to unite them against “factory farms;” work with animal shelters on spay/neuter initiatives in the community.  The program is designed to build an army in every community in the United States and it is well underway.

In addition to the District Leaders, HSUS plans to include within this framework County Leaders in all 3,100 counties across the U.S.  Quoting Pacelle, “Our ambition is to have thousands and thousands of people involved.  If we get this done, we’re going to be hell on wheels.”

PLEASE CROSS POST WIDELY

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

Legislation Updates February 16, 2014

SAOVA Friends,

Most legislatures are now in session for 2014 and there is no shortage of bills being introduced targeting dog breeders and sportsmen.  We have a short list of bills below that require your attention now.  Additional bills are being tracked at the SAOVA website http://saova.org/news.html Please check weekly for updates.  Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators

saova@earthlink.net

ARIZONA

Wayne Pacelle made a personal appearance at this month’s Humane Lobby Day to push HSUS priority bills. Among them HB 2022 prohibiting convicted animal abusers from owning or otherwise caring for any animal and HB 2215/SB 1036 adding cockfighting or other animal-fighting crimes to the list of racketeering crimes.

HB 2242 Commercial Dog Breeders and Pet Dealers is another HSUS priority bill. Sponsors: Representatives Kavanagh, Sherwood, Ugenti, Coleman, Forese, Lovas, Pratt, Shope; Senators Reagan, McComish, Melvin, Meza. HB 2242 adds definition of commercial dog breeder to Pet Lemon Law Statute 44-1799. Commercial dog breeder defined as a person that sells twenty or more dogs in a calendar year but does not include commercial livestock operations. The bill adds commercial breeder to the definition of pet dealer and also requires a veterinary examination of all female dogs owned before breeding. Commercial breeders would then be subject to provisions of the Pet Lemon Law including record keeping, purchaser remedies, and civil penalties. STATUS: Passed House Agriculture and Water Committee 8-0; passed House second read 1/23/14. Placed on Consent Calendar 2/10/14. Calls in opposition are urgently needed now.

HB 2302 Public Sale of Animals Sponsors: Representatives Frank Pratt (R, 8), T J Shope (R, 8).

Revises statutes making public sale of animals unlawful on any public highway, street or park or any public property adjacent to a public highway, street or park, or any commercial private property without the express consent of the owner or lessee of the property. Status: 1/22/14 PASSED Agriculture and Water 8-0. Placed on Consent Calendar 2/10/14. It is common practice for dog breeders and sportsmen to meet at mutually convenient locations in order to buy or sell a dog. HB 2302 would make this illegal. Now that the APHIS pet rule demands sales for most breeders be transacted in person, it is more important than ever to stop bills that place prohibitions on where sales can take place.   

Contact info for Arizona House Members: http://tinyurl.com/y746ffv

ILLINOIS

HB 4188 Animal Abuse Registry. Sponsor Maria Antonia Berrios (D-39) creates the Animal Abuse Registry Fund; amends the Humane Care for Animals Act. Provides that the Department of Agriculture shall create and maintain an animal abuse registry. Failure to register is a Class B misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class 4 felony for a subsequent violation. Prohibits a registered person from owning a companion animal or being employed at an animal shelter, pound, pet shop, zoo, or other business where companion animals are present. See SAOVA page opposing Animal Abuser Registry Campaign http://saova.org/ALDF_AbuserRegistry.html 

Animal abuse cases comprise less than 1% of all convictions in the State of Illinois. At this time, the small percentage of convictions does not warrant the large expenditure of funds required to set up and maintain a registry.  See SAOVA’s opposition letter http://tinyurl.com/q4lp27n

HEARING SCHEDULED. Agriculture & Conservation Committee Feb 18 2014 2:00PM Stratton Building Room D-1 Springfield, IL. 

Call committee members and OPPOSE the registry.

Patrick J. Verschoore (217) 782-5970

Jerry F. Costello, II  (217) 782-1018

Donald L. Moffitt  (217) 782-8032

Kelly Burke  (217) 782-0515

John D. Cavaletto  (217) 782-0066

Katherine Cloonen  (217) 782-5981

Marcus C. Evans, Jr.  (217) 782-8272

Brad E. Halbrook  (217) 558-1040

Josh Harms  (217) 558-1039

Stephanie A. Kifowit  (217) 782-8028

Frank J. Mautino  (217) 782-0140

Charles E. Meier  (217) 782-6401

Christian L. Mitchell  (217) 782-2023

Raymond Poe  (217) 782-0044

Wayne Rosenthal  (217) 782-8071

Sue Scherer  (217) 524-0353

Brian W. Stewart  (217) 782-8186

VIRGINIA

SB42 Penning of fox or coyote; penalty. Summary as passed by Senate: Makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person to erect or maintain an enclosure for the purpose of pursuing, hunting, or killing or attempting to pursue, hunt, or kill a fox or coyote with dogs. The bill exempts from the prohibition any enclosure operated by a person holding a permit initially issued prior to January 1, 2014. The bill has been assigned to House Subcommittee on Natural Resources http://tinyurl.com/mmh8eg9

There are nearly 40 pens in rural parts of Virginia. Penning is NOT a blood sport as HSUS claims; the pens are a good way to train dogs while keeping them out of roads and off property of others.  Sportsmen should continue to oppose SB42.

WEST VIRGINIA

HB 4218 Permitting counties to adopt certain ordinances relating to dogs and cats; introduced and referred to House Political Subdivisions 01/17/14.  Sponsor Rep. Marty Gearheart (R-27); Cosponsors  Shott, Ellington, Border, Sponaugle, Fleischauer, Manypenny, Evans, A., Westfall, Campbell, Romine. Bill summary: the Legislature finds that it may be in the best interest of the public to protect the health and safety of the individuals as well as the health and safety of animals owned by residents of a county by reducing the number of dogs and cats that are stray or abandoned. HB 4218 confers authority to counties to enact ordinances requiring various restraints and control of dogs owned or in the custody and control of persons in the county. The bill allows county commissions to adopt an ordinance upon approval by referendum.

An ordinance may:

Prohibit persons from keeping a dog on a leash and tied to the ground or structure;

Prohibit persons from confining a dog to a pen, run or cage or leave a dog in a vehicle without adequate protection;

Prohibit persons from leaving a dog confined without providing adequate food or water to safely sustain the dog at all times.

Limit the number of animals owned that are not spayed or neutered;
Provide penalties for violations and authorize humane officers to take possession of any dog or cat that is not properly spayed or neutered or adequately restrained or controlled as required by the ordinance.

HB 4218 is a roadmap for bad local legislation and ownership restrictions.  Contact information for House Political Subdivisions Committee: http://tinyurl.com/mchketq

  

Supreme Court skeptical of California's slaughterhouse law

By MICHAEL DOYLE. McClatchy Newspapers

Supreme Court justices carved into California's ban on the commercial slaughter of lame livestock Wednesday, leaving the state law's future in doubt.


In a case that pits state vs. federal power, justices repeatedly suggested that California went too far with protecting animals already regulated by federal law and overseen by the U.S. Agriculture Department.

"California should butt out," Justice Antonin Scalia said at one point.

Although more bluntly phrased than most, Scalia's seeming skepticism toward California's livestock-protection law appeared to be widely shared during the hourlong oral argument. No justice seemed sympathetic to the state's case, and some at times sounded downright impatient.

"I don't see how you can argue that you're not trenching on the scope of the (federal) statute," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told California's deputy attorney general, Susan K. Smith.

Sounding dubious, Sotomayor later suggested that Smith was "not seriously arguing" a particular point, while Scalia said of one of Smith's arguments, "That can't be right."

The California law in question prohibits the slaughter of non-ambulatory pigs, sheep, goats or cattle. These are animals that can't walk, because of disease, injury or other causes. The state law further requires that the downed animals be euthanized.

Federal law bans the slaughter of downed cattle, and the challenge heard Wednesday was to the state provision that covers swine.

Full story at link.

Related articles

National Hog Farmer. Supreme Court to Hear Downer Hog Case

Hogs on the menu at Supreme Court

HSUS’s Wayne Pacelle Endorses Human Exceptionalism

The "father" of the animal rights movement, Peter Singer, said "Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition." Pacelle, it seems, is determined to use the Bible and Christianity as yet another platform for preaching the hypocritical animal rights agenda. Well done, as usual, commentary by Wesley J. Smith on the disingenuous evangelist Pacelle.

Thursday, September 1, 2011, 2:05 PM
Wesley J. Smith
Wayne Pacelle is the head of the Humane Society of the United States. He is very slick, sophisticated, and runs HSUS as if it is only about animal welfare. I don’t believe it for a second. HSUS works diligently to make meat raising more expensive and morally marginalized, without vocally pitching the animal rights dogma. It’s a tactic, not a true belief in the principle of animal welfare.

Toward that ultimate end, Pacelle has explicitly embraced human exceptionalism. From an article in Prism, an evangelical magazine, “A Call to Compassion From Our Brothers the Animals:”

Wayne Pacelle, CEO and president of the HSUS, explains why it encourages animal welfare instead of animal rights: “I think it’s a recognition that we are special and exceptional,” he says. “All these creatures are at our mercy…The rights language suggests that that there’s something inherent in them, and I think it’s more about us.”

Well, I can agree wholeheartedly with that. Human exceptionalism is why we have duties to animals. That is what I preach here every day and indeed is the core thesis of my book A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy. (Funny, I missed that rave review from Pacelle.) Indeed, that is the core animal welfare principle. We have a right to use animals instrumentally, so long as we balance the human benefit with the best and proper methods for attaining humane care.

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t for a second believe Pacelle means what he said. He’s an old animal rights radical, a belief system predicated on the concept of “speciesism,” which explicitly holds that HE is unwarranted discrimination against animals. Moreover, while HSUS implicitly endorse humane meat, I perceive it as obfuscation. Read on .......

The HumaneWatch Veterinary Student Interview

The HumaneWatch Interview: Jake Geis December 7, 2010

The Humane Society of the United States has put many Americans in uncomfortable positions during the current decade, but few have found themselves in a box quite like veterinarians.

Just last week the American Veterinary Medical Association (whose chief executive we interviewed back in September) made significant changes to The Veterinarian's Oath, which had only been amended once since its creation in 1969. It now refers to "animal health and welfare," along with "the prevention and relief of animal suffering." (New words are in italics.) The first reaction of many observers was that the move was taken in reaction to HSUS—and specifically to its threat to capture the hearts and minds of young vets, and of vets-to-be.

Many vets—especially the youngest ones who are most comfortable questioning authority—recognize that they’re caught between the proverbial “rock” and the corresponding “hard place.” On one hand, many of them are visibly uncomfortable with seeing the animal rights movement gather steam. But on the other, they recognize the need to maintain the dignity of the veterinary profession by refusing to return fire when HSUS slings mud. In short, playing dirty is supposed to be beneath them. And for good reason.

With everything going on in the veterinary world, it's fitting that we're talking with Jake Geis. He’s a second-year veterinary student at Iowa State University. (That school’s cooperative agreement with the University of Nebraska has put him in Lincoln for the first half of his training.) Geis first pinged our radar screen on November 19 when The Daily Nebraskan published his passionate essay titled “National Humane Society has Backward Priorities.”

Full interview at link ...

Related article:

Veterinarian's Oath revised to emphasize animal welfare commitment

Missouri Ballot Initiative cleared by judge

The Missouri ballot initiative filed by HSUS, approved for the ballot just 10 days ago by Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, cleared perhaps its final hurdle and is now almost certain to appear on the Nov. 2 ballot.

Karen Strange, a lobbyist for the commercial dog breeding industry, challenged the language of the petition summary that voters will read. The lawsuit held that the use of the term “puppy mill” or “puppy mill cruelty” is inherently prejudicial and misleading. “Puppy mill” is a derogatory term for dog breeders and is likely to incite prejudice in favor of the measure. While these terms appear in the Initiative Petitions, creative drafting on the part of the proponents does not alleviate Defendant Carnahan of her duty to write a fair and impartial summary statement.

Late this afternoon, a Cole County judge upheld the ballot title for the measure, ruling that the ballot summary drafted by Secretary Carnahan was "neither insufficient nor unfair."

The dog breeding industry is already regulated in Missouri; however the HSUS ballot initiative will place excessive regulation and limit the size of kennels. HSUS has a long history of opposing purposeful breeding of dogs.

Missouri voters should not be taken in by HSUS claims for the need to stop "puppy mills". In HSUS language, all dog breeders are puppy mills and no amount of regulation is ever sufficient.

HSUS Clucks About Future Politicking

Center for Consumer Freedom. August 12, 2010.

In today’s New York Times, Humane Society of the United States CEO Wayne Pacelle adds two new states to his animal rights group’s hit list: Washington and Oregon. Add that to existing speculation about Nebraska and Minnesota also being in HSUS’s sights, and 2012 could be a big year for the group’s campaigns against America’s farmers. Pacelle has been forcing animal rights into the voting booth for most of his professional career, so this comes as no surprise. Also of note were Pacelle’s comments about a brewing fight over the interpretation of California’s “Proposition 2” requirements:

The breakthrough 2008 law said that animals could be confined only in ways that allowed them “to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.” Egg producers and even some animal advocates say this may permit housing hens in larger “enriched cages,” with perches and nesting spots.

Mr. Pacelle asserts that no form of caging can meet a chicken’s needs for “running, flying and wing flapping” and that denying these impulses can cause a rise in stress hormones.

“There’s going to be a legal wrangle over this,” Mr. Pacelle predicted.

Pacelle is right about that last part: A legal tussle is surely forthcoming over enriched chicken cages that allow more space than conventional ones. They also permit the expression of some natural animal behaviors. But HSUS, with its fleet of in-house lawyers, is looking to muscle farmers around until they submit to 100 percent “cage free” production—or a slow death by lawsuit. (See Hudson Valley Foie Gras’ situation.)

Why? Because HSUS has a losing argument on animal welfare, and any legal setback would significantly slow down its march toward veganizing America. (What HSUS really wants is people eating fewer eggs—or no eggs at all. Forcing egg farmers to go “cage-free” is just one tiny step in that direction.) The regulations HSUS is currently pushing would impose high production costs as farmers change their facilities, and the resulting higher costs to consumers would drive down demand.

If HSUS were really interested in the welfare of hens, as opposed to the bankruptcy of egg farmers, it could start by fully recognizing that animal welfare relies on many different measures. It’s not a black-and-white measure. In fact, the American Humane Certified program (run by the American Humane Association) and animal welfare legend Temple Grandin both favor labeling “enriched” cage systems as “humane.”

But none of this matters to HSUS’s ideological hacks. When animal welfare science gets in their way, the odd lawyer (or 30) can come in handy. Will the activists beat the experts and farmers? Let’s hope not.

In Wayne's own words: Put farmers out of business

4/21/2010 7:49:00 PM ANDY VANCE, Agri Broadcasting Network

Sun-Tsu, the legendary military strategist so often co-opted into '80s business reading material, built his strategy around the basic premise that you must know your enemy to truly defeat him. For that reason, and to keep my blood pressure from ever dipping into the "normal" range, I read Wayne Pacelle's blog. Wayne is the CEO/Chief Lobbyist/Spokesmodel for the Humane Society (in name only) of the United States. This $200 million activist lobbying group works to raise funds by working the long con that they are some how engaged in helping animals. In so doing, they raise hundreds of millions of dollars annually that they in turn spend on lobbying and political activities to force Americans into a radicalized vegan lifestyle devoid of any animal-derived proteins or products. While they typically deny this fanatical end-goal, if you read Wayne's blog regularly, he frequently slips up and says what he actually means.

HSUS first ventured into the arena of ballot-initiative political campaigns in Florida in 2002. Their effort, to end the use of gestation stalls on hog farms, was for this "sophisticated political organization" (Wayne's self-description of HSUS) sticking their toe in the shallow end of the pool. In a multi-state, multi-year strategy, the organization has worked to step-by-step, and state-by-state drive modern agriculture and farm families out of business to drive up the cost of meat, milk, and eggs in the hopes of lowering demand for those products.

But, don't just take my word for it: "When voters approved it, it was the first restriction on a severe confinement practice in the U.S. Now, eight year later, it has achieved its principal purpose: it kept giant hog factory farms from colonizing Florida, as they did three decades ago in North Carolina."

So, in Wayne's own words, the purpose wasn't to save the pigs. HSUS' "principle purpose" was to keep hog farms out of Florida in the first place.

Some will jump to Wayne's defense and point out that he specified "giant factory farms." The problem with that faulty logic is twofold: first, that there is no plausible or meaningful definition of "giant factory farm," and second, that it assumes that factories are bad in the first place.

To understand what I mean, you have to first reject the premise of Wayne's statement: that factories are bad. After all, Wayne is telling you that "factory farms" are bad. But let's consider this: if a major manufacturer like Honda, General Motors, or Proctor & Gamble wanted to build a plant near your town, what would happen? Community leaders would roll out the red carpet, local or state development officers would work on tax abatements and incentives, and folks would jump up and down at the opportunity for more jobs! Factories produce goods and services that we as consumers need or want while generating economic activity and creating wealth for workers and shareholders. But in Wayne's invective-filled context, we are supposed to believe that if a farm is large enough to earn the "factory" smear, they no longer produce food, but instead produce evil filth and pollution.

The problem, of course, is that the United States needs all farmers to produce enough food to feed the additional 100 million Americans expected to arrive on the planet in the next forty years.

Livestock care or environmental stewardship is size-neutral. Some of the largest farmers I know are the best at both, and some of the smallest I know are among the worst. Likewise, undercover activists looking for a fight can find isolated examples of the obverse. The problem lies in the generalization needed to smear an enemy. By branding all "factory farms" as animal abusers or polluters, Wayne sets up a straw man to earn your disgust, so he can con you into giving him your donation, or your vote.

Make no mistake, however, on what Wayne actually believes: HSUS works to achieve its "principle purpose," to run livestock farmers of all stripes out of business.

Andy Vance, a native of Hillsboro, owns and operates the Agri Broadcasting Network (ABN), Ohio's Voice for Agriculture.

4-H The Latest Battleground Over Animal Care

04/11/2010 by By Gary Truitt, Hoosier Ag Today

The 4-H program is one of the best youth leadership development organizations in the world. Now I admit I am biased, being a 4H leader and having two of my children go through the program. So I guess that is why my green clover turned red when I learned that the National 4-H organization had climbed in bed with one of the most radical and insidious animal rights organizations in the country. Furthermore, when this issue came to light and the farm community expressed outrage, the National leadership refused to back down. This continued association has allowed the Humane Society of the United States to use the name and reputation of 4-H to advance its radical agenda. Despite demands from local and state 4-H leaders, the national organization has turned a deaf ear to the interests and concerns of agriculture.

During the National 4-H Congress in Washington last month, a breakout session was held on animal care. That is not unusual, but the sponsoring organization certainly was. HSUS and American agriculture are locked in a pitched battle on the local, state, and national levels over the future of animal agriculture. So, to have them involved with an organization like 4-H, with deep roots in farming, does not smell right. At the end of the session, the 25 youth that participated in the workshop were provided with resource material that included HSUS propaganda. The 35-page HSUS Mission Humane Action Guide, which encourages youth to set up animal protection clubs and devotes pages to researching animal issues, “making your voice heard,” and raising funds. If you throw a party, the material suggests showing videos from the HSUS Web site and serving vegan refreshments. And just about every page plugs information available on the HSUS Web site. “You’ll also learn about lobbying, one of the most effective ways of making change for animals,” says the guide’s message from CEO Wayne Pacelle.

When word of this event began to leak out in the ag media, the reaction was quick and virulent. Instead of admitting they had made a seriously bad mistake, the National 4-H organization defended their association with HSUS, “The workshop was approved by the planning committee because the proposal aligned with the goals of the 4-H conference and did not present any indication of anti-animal agriculture views or positions.” Leaders on the state and local levels took strong exception with the position of the national office. OSU Extension Director Keith Smith issued a statement April 2 saying Ohio’s 4-H program was “very distressed that this happened at a national 4-H event,” and that the Ohio 4-H organization had expressed that dismay to the 4-H National Headquarters and USDA-NIFA, “The primary concern about this distribution is that HSUS is well known for its anti-animal agriculture views and positions, and 4-H has a long tradition of providing education in the animal sciences, which includes the dimension of positive animal welfare.” Individuals blasted the National 4-H Facebook fan page with even stronger statements. One poster called it an “irresponsible decision.”
Full story ...

Animal rights lawyers: A three-ring circus

By DAVID MARTOSKO - Special to The Telegraph Sunday, Marcy 14, 2010

What do Ponzi schemes, corrupt cops and organized-crime families have in common? They’ve all been taken down under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. This is a law that can result in enhanced criminal and civil penalties for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

But the latest RICO defendants aren’t wiseguys from a real-life Club Ba-Da-Bing. They’re a handful of animal rights groups, their lawyers and a pay-for-play federal court witness.

Last month the owners of the popular Ringling Brothers circus filed a federal RICO lawsuit against the Humane Society of the United States, two of its lawyers, a Washington, D.C. law firm, and several other animal rights groups. The defendants are accused of committing bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice and money laundering, all in a nine-year scheme to prosecute a bogus elephant-abuse lawsuit against the circus.

These are pachyderm-sized charges. But the evidence is compelling. In December, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan dismissed the activists’ 2000 elephant suit, ruling that the plaintiffs paid more than $190,000 to a former Ringling elephant “barn helper” in exchange for his completely unreliable testimony.

The judge wrote that the animal rights groups, including the anti-circus Fund for Animals (which is now part of HSUS), cleverly disguised their payola through a nonprofit “wildlife advocacy” charity founded and operated by their lawyers. (These lawyers now have to find their own defense attorneys to deal with the RICO lawsuit.)

The primary purpose of these payments, says Judge Sullivan, was “to keep [the witness] involved with the litigation.” Judges tend to frown on paying witnesses what amounts to a secret retainer.

Anyone who’s seen a PETA protest up close will find it utterly unremarkable that animal activists would knowingly fudge the truth. But it’s telling that these groups would do just about anything — including buying themselves a federal court witness — to get their way.

The Ringling case (and its swift-justice RICO fallout) is just one piece of a disturbing trend of animal rights groups replacing public persuasion with courtroom strong-arm tactics.

Since the vegan firebrand Wayne Pacelle took the reins at HSUS in 2004, for instance, that organization has beefed-up its legal department ten-fold, from three lawyers to 30.

Full story at the link

Ohioans have spoken about animal care

Kudos to Representative Zach Space (D, 18) for taking a stand to defend agriculture against the unwarranted measures of HSUS to force their opinions on others. We hope Representative Space will also write to the IRS and request that HSUS be investigated for these continuous and excessive lobbying practices.

Chillicothe Gazette March 1, 2010
Ohioans have spoken about animal care

Dear Mr. Pacelle,

I was disappointed and troubled to hear of the recent decision by the Humane Society of the United States to move forward with attempts to further their political agenda and force it on the people of Ohio. This news proves that clearly you and your organization have not been listening.

HSUS was obviously not listening when residents across the state of Ohio spoke in one voice -- overwhelmingly supporting Issue 2 and ensuring that Ohioans regulate our own standards for animal care. HSUS was obviously not listening when a majority of Ohio's federal and state delegation endorsed the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board -- overwhelmingly denouncing the HSUS' efforts to undermine it. And HSUS was obviously not listening when farmers across the state of Ohio weighed in on this disastrous policy -- overwhelmingly opposing it.

In addition to a majority of Ohioans, Issue 2 also had great support among Ohio's legislators, Governor Strickland and groups representing animal interests, including The American Humane Association and the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association. It is unconscionable to me that an outside group would come into our state and claim that they know better.

The OLCSB was created just four months ago with a strong mandate by the people of Ohio, and it would be wrong for it to be hijacked by overzealous special interests based out of Washington, D.C. Our board will ensure that livestock and animals in Ohio are treated humanely and that our agricultural producers -- a major sector of Ohio's economy -- are not unfairly penalized with unacceptable regulations.

The experts that will make up the OLCSB are the best sources for determining Ohio's minimum standards of care for our animals, and not a liberal group whose real intentions are less about animal care and more about control over what we in Ohio eat.

Your attempts to dictate our state policies regarding animal care are misguided, and I will not stand for them. Ohio's standards of animal care should be determined by those who know the issue best and have a vested interest in the outcome -- Ohioans.

I joined the farmers of my district to support the passage of Issue 2, which passed with almost 64 percent of the vote on Nov. 3. Ohioans statewide have spoken. It is clear exactly where they stand on this issue.

Mr. Pacelle, Ohio has spoken. Why haven't you been listening?

Legislation Introduced to Start Animal Welfare Commission

Commission would combat efforts by Humane Society of the United States
by Tim Thornberry February 16, 2010

LEXINGTON, KY - As animal rights organizations look to press a stronger anti-cruelty agenda with the state's legislators during the next session, pro-farm groups are hoping the formation of a new commission will allow the state to manage its own standards for animal care.

On a recent visit to Kentucky, Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) visited with supporters to rally the troops for the legislative session. The organization's agenda included shoring up existing anti-cruelty laws including those against cockfighting and the practice of soring as it pertains to walking horses.

When asked if his association was against animal agriculture, he said the HSUS is not against it by any means, adding that theirs is not an anti-meat campaign but an anti-abuse campaign.

But not everyone is convinced of that.

Even in a slow economy, the agriculture industry in Kentucky, and the animal agriculture sector in particular, has been a major contributor to economic development throughout the state. Last year, livestock production accounted for nearly $2.5 billion in cash receipts. Over the years, anti-cruelty groups have voiced concerns over the treatment of livestock — so much concern that they have worked to introduce legislation in many states to change laws governing how the animals are kept.

But pro-farming organizations are hopeful that a new piece of legislation recently introduced in the state Senate will keep such initiatives out of Kentucky.

Senate Bill 105 was brought before the Senate Agriculture Committee by Sen. David Givens with a full meeting room of supporters and non-supporters present.

The bill would create a 14-member Kentucky Livestock Care Standards Commission which would set rules for the treatment of animals on the farm, be administered by the Kentucky Department of Agriculture and chaired by the state's agriculture commissioner. The legislation would also prevent local governments from passing standards that are stricter than those set by the commission.
Full Story ..

Will California increase bear hunt limits?

State officials say the bear population, which stands at 38,000, would remain healthy with increased hunt limits. Wayne Pacelle (HSUS) immediately announced that if the California Fish and Game Commission widens the hunt, HSUS will put a measure on the California ballot by 2012 to ban hound hunting of bears. Pacelle continued by bragging they have won 5 ballot initiatives in a row and could win a hound hunting ban by a large margin.

California considers dramatically expanding the number of black bears hunters can kill
By Paul Rogers progers@mercurynews.com

Watch out, Smokey. Keep your head down, Yogi.

Saying that California's black bear population has quadrupled in the past 25 years, state Fish and Game Department officials are drafting new rules that could increase the number of black bears killed by hunters each year in the state by 50 percent or more.

The proposal also would allow hunters for the first time to use global positioning system devices on the collars of hounds that they use to track bears, along with automatic triggers that alert hunters when their dogs have treed a bear.

State hunting managers say the rules — which would increase the current limit of 1,700 killed annually — would offer more people the opportunity to hunt and wouldn't significantly affect the health or size of the overall black bear population in California, now at 38,000. The growing bear population also is increasingly causing problems, they note.

"There are more reported incidents of bears causing private property damage," said Doug Updike, a wildlife biologist with the state Department of Fish and Game. "People are moving into bear habitat, and we have more bears that are more widely distributed. We are having more interactions between bears and people."

But animal rights groups promise to fight the proposed new rules, starting Thursday when the state Fish and Game Commission holds a hearing in Sacramento. A final vote is expected April 21.

Full story ....

Unpacking the HSUS Gravy Train

Consumer Freedom December 30, 2009
There are only two things certain in life, as the saying goes, and a byproduct of one of them requires nonprofit organizations to file paperwork with the IRS. So now that the deceptively named “Humane Society” of the United States (HSUS) has submitted its "Form 990" for 2008, we thought it was time to take a close look. The tax filing itself is a bit more detailed than ones in the past, thanks to some new IRS rules. And more detail equals a clearer picture of exactly what HSUS is doing -- and what it's not doing -- with all its money. [Click here to view the full document.]

HSUS reported spending almost $20 million on “campaigns, legislation, and litigation”—enough to worry any livestock farmer or hunter looking to keep their chosen lifestyle alive. The group collected over $86 million in contributions, and spent more than $24 million on fundraising, including $4 million on professional fundraisers. Think about it: 28 cents of every dollar contributed to HSUS goes back out the door to raise more money. HSUS even paid a single “lockbox” company more than $4.2 million to count and process its cash hauls. We won’t comment on that company’s curious "ALF" initials (for Arizona Lockbox & Fulfillment).

The bottom line is the same as it ever was: HSUS rakes in millions from unsuspecting Americans who may confuse the animal rights group with an unaffiliated local humane society. And with all this cash flying around, it’s no surprise that 41 HSUS employees made at least $100,000 last year. All told, HSUS paid out over $30.9 million in salaries, wages, and other employee compensation.

HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle earned more than $250,000 in salary and benefits in 2008. We wouldn’t begrudge him a large salary, of course: He runs an animal-rights business “charity,” after all.

But the real trouble lies in where most HSUS money doesn’t go: to pet shelters. In contrast with the group’s extravagant spending on people, HSUS’s total grant allocation was less than $4.7 million. And of that, almost half went to a political campaign committee called “Californians for Humane Farms,” the main lobbying organization responsible for California’s “Proposition 2” ballot initiative.

For all the cute pictures of puppies and kitties on HSUS paraphernalia, you’d think it would operate a pet shelter, or at least give a substantial portion of its money to one. But HSUS has lobbying to do, a PETA-inspired agenda to push, meat eaters to stigmatize, and livestock farmers to put out to pasture. Lobbying? Oh, yes. HSUS takes four full pages to detail its lobbying activities on the state and federal levels.

With all the politicking going on, the animals—remember them?—seem to get lost in the shuffle. We added up the totals, and HSUS gave only a little more than $450,000—that’s just half of one percent of its total budget—in grants to organizations providing hands-on care to dogs and cats. That’s less than 11 percent of what it paid “ALF” (see above) just to count its money.

We’re musing today about HSUS’s next big self-marketing blitz, and some new slogans it might want to use. Our favorite? “HSUS: Feed the lawyers, save the fundraisers, screw the pets.” Link

Animal lovers should stop sending money to zealots

Spokane Review, November 12, 2009

By Rich Landers

I took a beating in the letters-to-the-editor pages a few weeks ago for pointing out the threat national-scale animal rights groups pose to the sports of hunting and fishing.

Now I’m turning the other cheek.

Readers shouldn’t assume that the published letters were the only reaction.

Nor should they think the threat these groups pose is limited to hunters and anglers.

The published letters came mostly from one group of Spokane-area animal rights activists and Wayne Pacelle, the national figurehead for the Humane Society of the United States.

But many phone calls and e-mails called for more scrutiny of these groups and the moral fascism they are trying to impose on society’s use and enjoyment of animals.

One veterinarian pointed out that these groups are clawing their way through legal and legislative channels toward giving pets individual rights rather than leaving them designated as the property of their owners.

The vet said that, among other problems, this would have huge repercussions in the costs of veterinary care and liability.

“Can you imagine the costs of routine pet procedures if we have to run unnecessary tests and insure ourselves for protection against possible multimillion-dollar lawsuits?” he said.

Full story ....