You might remember the 2004 animal-rights attack on a University of Iowa animal laboratory, carried out by the terrorist Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Here’s the scene: 55-gallon drums filled with acid-soaked research documents, 401 “liberated” laboratory animals, the continuous harassment of researchers, and a warning to “stop or be stopped.” So what does a former PETA lawyer who works for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) have to do with this? That’s likely the question a prosecutor has for HSUS attorney Leana Stormont, who was subpoenaed Monday to testify before a federal grand jury about the raid.
Who exactly is Leana Stormont? The former animal control worker graduated from the University of Iowa Law School, and went on to become the Midwest Coordinator of Stop Animal Exploitation Now, a group that (according to the Los Angeles Times) provides research to the rest of the animal rights industry -- including HSUS and the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine -- with suggestions about who's ripe for targeting.
While enrolled at the U. of I., Stormont helped lead the Iowa Law Student Animal Defense Fund. She was a third-year law student when the ALF lab attack occurred. About two months afterward, Stormont’s group hosted animal rights radical Steven Best, who spoke in defense of the ALF terrorists, saying he’d sacrifice the life of a stranger to save his dog.
Best was a co-founder of the North American Animal Liberation Press Office and has been listed as a “press officer” for the ALF alongside the murder-endorsing Jerry Vlasak. Despite this shady résumé, Stormont writes that Best is “a courageous and provocative thinker.”
Full story ....
Friday, January 29, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
HSUS: Another Disaster, Another Payday
From the Center for Consumer Freedom January 18, 2010
The earthquake that left Haiti in ruins last week is an unspeakable tragedy that calls for the support of humanitarians around the world to rescue and rebuild. But some “charities” may not have the most honest of goals. Human rights journalist Anai Rhoads writes that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other groups are engaging in deceptive fundraising by overstating the number of animals in need:
HSUS also claimed that there are companion animals. “…a large stray dog population, an untold number of companion animals.” This is really tough sell, in an area so poor that scanning trash for food was the norm. It would be utter suicide for the more than 80 percent of those are poor in the country to house and feed a companion animal.
Rhoads also points out that also much of the livestock and pet populations in Haiti were ravaged following strong storms in 2008. Another observer in Haiti reports that he didn’t notice any stray cats just six days before the quake. As Rhoads puts it, HSUS is raising money to help “a mass number of animals, which don’t seem to exist.”
Not that such technicalities have historically mattered to HSUS. If a boatload of donations is left over when it leaves Haiti, the money can be commingled with the other tens of millions in assets HSUS already has in the bank. From there, it can be spent on anything HSUS wants, from PETA-inspired lobbying to putting farmers out of business. Just don’t expect too much of it to go to hands-on dog and cat shhelters.
This latest situation is another chapter in HSUS’s history of questionable fundraising ploys.
Full story ....
The earthquake that left Haiti in ruins last week is an unspeakable tragedy that calls for the support of humanitarians around the world to rescue and rebuild. But some “charities” may not have the most honest of goals. Human rights journalist Anai Rhoads writes that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other groups are engaging in deceptive fundraising by overstating the number of animals in need:
HSUS also claimed that there are companion animals. “…a large stray dog population, an untold number of companion animals.” This is really tough sell, in an area so poor that scanning trash for food was the norm. It would be utter suicide for the more than 80 percent of those are poor in the country to house and feed a companion animal.
Rhoads also points out that also much of the livestock and pet populations in Haiti were ravaged following strong storms in 2008. Another observer in Haiti reports that he didn’t notice any stray cats just six days before the quake. As Rhoads puts it, HSUS is raising money to help “a mass number of animals, which don’t seem to exist.”
Not that such technicalities have historically mattered to HSUS. If a boatload of donations is left over when it leaves Haiti, the money can be commingled with the other tens of millions in assets HSUS already has in the bank. From there, it can be spent on anything HSUS wants, from PETA-inspired lobbying to putting farmers out of business. Just don’t expect too much of it to go to hands-on dog and cat shhelters.
This latest situation is another chapter in HSUS’s history of questionable fundraising ploys.
Full story ....
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Activist Notes: OFB urges other states to set up livestock boards
(1/14/2010) Rod Smith
Representatives of the Ohio Farm Bureau (OFB), addressing the 91st annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) this week, related their experience last year in winning Ohio voters' approval for the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board and urged other state farm bureaus to consider setting up similar standards boards in their states.
OFB president Brent Porteus said Ohio's farmers and ranchers moved quickly last year to establish the Ohio board after the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) indicated its plans to compel producers to change animal handling practices the way it has via ballot initiatives or legislation in other states.
"In our opinion, HSUS did not have (the best interests of) Ohio farmers, Ohio consumers and even Ohio animals . . . at heart," he said.
OFB executive vice president Jack Fisher and senior director of legislative and regulatory policy Adam Sharp said OFB worked with all farmers in the state and a number of consumer, business and political interests organized as Ohioans for Livestock Care to pass legislation proposing the board as a constitutional amendment and then win voter approval. The board was approved by 64% of voters (Feedstuffs, July 13 and Nov. 9, 2008).
Voters "took to the message" that Ohio producers follow humane practices and produce high-quality, safe food and that it's important to keep Ohioans in charge of Ohio agriculture, Fisher and Sharp said. "Ohio consumers didn't want someone from Washington, D.C. (like HSUS), telling them what to do," Sharp said.
Fisher and Sharp said the Ohio group is now working to get implementation legislation passed by the Ohio General Assembly, after which the board members will be appointed and put to work codifying humane animal handling practices for Ohio livestock and poultry producers.
At least two other states, Idaho and Missouri, are considering state livestock care standards boards.
More ...
Representatives of the Ohio Farm Bureau (OFB), addressing the 91st annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) this week, related their experience last year in winning Ohio voters' approval for the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board and urged other state farm bureaus to consider setting up similar standards boards in their states.
OFB president Brent Porteus said Ohio's farmers and ranchers moved quickly last year to establish the Ohio board after the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) indicated its plans to compel producers to change animal handling practices the way it has via ballot initiatives or legislation in other states.
"In our opinion, HSUS did not have (the best interests of) Ohio farmers, Ohio consumers and even Ohio animals . . . at heart," he said.
OFB executive vice president Jack Fisher and senior director of legislative and regulatory policy Adam Sharp said OFB worked with all farmers in the state and a number of consumer, business and political interests organized as Ohioans for Livestock Care to pass legislation proposing the board as a constitutional amendment and then win voter approval. The board was approved by 64% of voters (Feedstuffs, July 13 and Nov. 9, 2008).
Voters "took to the message" that Ohio producers follow humane practices and produce high-quality, safe food and that it's important to keep Ohioans in charge of Ohio agriculture, Fisher and Sharp said. "Ohio consumers didn't want someone from Washington, D.C. (like HSUS), telling them what to do," Sharp said.
Fisher and Sharp said the Ohio group is now working to get implementation legislation passed by the Ohio General Assembly, after which the board members will be appointed and put to work codifying humane animal handling practices for Ohio livestock and poultry producers.
At least two other states, Idaho and Missouri, are considering state livestock care standards boards.
More ...
Monday, January 11, 2010
Farmers fight back against animal rights groups
The Humane Society of the U.S. has shepherded laws in at least six states to ban cramped cages for farm animals and persuaded some of the country's largest fast-food restaurants and retailers to make at least a gradual switch to cage-free eggs. The group last year championed a ban on tail docking at California dairies.
Jack Fisher of the Ohio Farm Bureau implored farmers in other states to be proactive and take similar steps of their own. He noted that the Human Society has turned its efforts toward regulating so-called "puppy mills" and dog breeding operations and urged farmers to join forces with that industry in educating consumers.
Posted: Jan 11, 2010 7:31 AM EST
Updated: Jan 11, 2010 8:51 AM EST
By SHANNON DININNY
Associated Press Writer
SEATTLE (AP) - It's little wonder that farmers fret about the future of the livestock industry. In the past two years, feed costs skyrocketed, pork and dairy prices plummeted, and animal rights groups stepped up efforts to improve living conditions for farm animals.
Some farmers are hoping to strike back with proactive efforts to ward off unwanted legislation and boost the struggling industry.
"A line must be drawn between our polite and respectful engagement with consumers and how we must aggressively respond to extremists who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule," said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
"The time has come for us to face our opponents with a new attitude," he told some 5,000 members gathered in Seattle for the group's annual convention Sunday. "The days of their elitist power grabs are over."
Several segments of the livestock industry found 2009 to be a rough year. Everyone suffered with higher feed and energy costs. Pig farmers endured slow pork sales that were triggered in part by the H1N1 flu virus, also known as swine flu, even though the U.S. Department of Agriculture has said swine flu cannot be transmitted by eating pork products.
Full story ...
Jack Fisher of the Ohio Farm Bureau implored farmers in other states to be proactive and take similar steps of their own. He noted that the Human Society has turned its efforts toward regulating so-called "puppy mills" and dog breeding operations and urged farmers to join forces with that industry in educating consumers.
Posted: Jan 11, 2010 7:31 AM EST
Updated: Jan 11, 2010 8:51 AM EST
By SHANNON DININNY
Associated Press Writer
SEATTLE (AP) - It's little wonder that farmers fret about the future of the livestock industry. In the past two years, feed costs skyrocketed, pork and dairy prices plummeted, and animal rights groups stepped up efforts to improve living conditions for farm animals.
Some farmers are hoping to strike back with proactive efforts to ward off unwanted legislation and boost the struggling industry.
"A line must be drawn between our polite and respectful engagement with consumers and how we must aggressively respond to extremists who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule," said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
"The time has come for us to face our opponents with a new attitude," he told some 5,000 members gathered in Seattle for the group's annual convention Sunday. "The days of their elitist power grabs are over."
Several segments of the livestock industry found 2009 to be a rough year. Everyone suffered with higher feed and energy costs. Pig farmers endured slow pork sales that were triggered in part by the H1N1 flu virus, also known as swine flu, even though the U.S. Department of Agriculture has said swine flu cannot be transmitted by eating pork products.
Full story ...
Thursday, December 31, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Attorney: PETA worker neglected snakes in his care
KansasCity.com Posted on Wed, Dec. 30, 2009 06:44 AM
Attorneys for an exotic animal dealer have accused an employee of intentionally neglecting animals to further his work as an undercover investigator for an animal rights group.
Howard Goldman could have done more to provide food, water and care for the animals that he said were being mistreated, said Lance Evans, an attorney for Jasen and Vanessa Shaw, the owners of U.S. Global Exotics.
Instead, Goldman secretly took photos and made daily reports to send to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Evans said.
"He was more concerned about helping PETA achieve its goal of putting U.S. Global out of business than actually aiding any animals that he felt were in distress," Evans said. Goldman worked at the Arlington facility for seven months.
Full story ....
Attorneys for an exotic animal dealer have accused an employee of intentionally neglecting animals to further his work as an undercover investigator for an animal rights group.
Howard Goldman could have done more to provide food, water and care for the animals that he said were being mistreated, said Lance Evans, an attorney for Jasen and Vanessa Shaw, the owners of U.S. Global Exotics.
Instead, Goldman secretly took photos and made daily reports to send to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Evans said.
"He was more concerned about helping PETA achieve its goal of putting U.S. Global out of business than actually aiding any animals that he felt were in distress," Evans said. Goldman worked at the Arlington facility for seven months.
Full story ....
Monday, December 28, 2009
HSUS loses 4-year battle against USDA
Turkey slaughter lawsuit won't fly, judges rule ...
A federal appeals panel says the Humane Society did not have the standing to sue the USDA for asserting that a 1958 congressional act mandating humane slaughter does not extend to poultry.
LA Times: By Victoria Kim November 26, 2009
Ruling on a four-year legal battle over the regulation of poultry slaughter, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week threw out a lawsuit challenging the government's position that a half-century-old congressional act on humane slaughter does not extend to animals of the feathered kind.
The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco three days before Thanksgiving 2005 by the Humane Society of the United States, contended that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's position leads to shoddy slaughter practices and jeopardizes food safety. It was sparked by a 2005 USDA notice that "there is no specific federal humane handling and slaughter statute for poultry."
The plaintiffs contended that the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 -- which requires that "cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine and other livestock" be rendered insensible to pain before slaughter -- should be read to include poultry.
Attorneys for the USDA accused the plaintiffs of attempting "revisionist history," saying that without taking into account Congress' intent, the phrase "other livestock" could be read to include "fish, ants, guinea pigs, cats or dogs bred for sale, bees."
After hearing oral arguments the week of Thanksgiving 2007, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the USDA, saying lawmakers' intent to leave poultry out was clear.
In the decision entered Friday, a three-judge panel decided that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue in the first place. Judge George H. Wu wrote that a legal ruling on the meaning of the act would not have any effect on poultry slaughter practices because it is dependent on "a number of political and legal factors quite independent from this court's determination." Full story ....
A federal appeals panel says the Humane Society did not have the standing to sue the USDA for asserting that a 1958 congressional act mandating humane slaughter does not extend to poultry.
LA Times: By Victoria Kim November 26, 2009
Ruling on a four-year legal battle over the regulation of poultry slaughter, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week threw out a lawsuit challenging the government's position that a half-century-old congressional act on humane slaughter does not extend to animals of the feathered kind.
The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco three days before Thanksgiving 2005 by the Humane Society of the United States, contended that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's position leads to shoddy slaughter practices and jeopardizes food safety. It was sparked by a 2005 USDA notice that "there is no specific federal humane handling and slaughter statute for poultry."
The plaintiffs contended that the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 -- which requires that "cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine and other livestock" be rendered insensible to pain before slaughter -- should be read to include poultry.
Attorneys for the USDA accused the plaintiffs of attempting "revisionist history," saying that without taking into account Congress' intent, the phrase "other livestock" could be read to include "fish, ants, guinea pigs, cats or dogs bred for sale, bees."
After hearing oral arguments the week of Thanksgiving 2007, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the USDA, saying lawmakers' intent to leave poultry out was clear.
In the decision entered Friday, a three-judge panel decided that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue in the first place. Judge George H. Wu wrote that a legal ruling on the meaning of the act would not have any effect on poultry slaughter practices because it is dependent on "a number of political and legal factors quite independent from this court's determination." Full story ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
