Published: Tuesday, September 28, 2010
By Art Aisner, Special Writer, Ann Arbor Journal News
The University of Michigan took a strong stance last week defending its use of animals in critical-care training amid scrutiny from animal rights activists.
"We are fully in compliance of all state and federal laws and have a program that is fully accredited, funded, and I think, one of the best in the country," said Howard Rush, associate professor and the director of U of M's Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine.
The comments were in response to a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture by The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals earlier this month. The global nonprofit organization asked for a federal probe into potential violations of the 1966 Animal Welfare Act for what they called cruel and deadly training exercises performed by participants of the Survival Flight course.
PETA argued that the university's use of cats and pigs to train intubation and other trauma-response techniques resulted in injury and even death to many of the animals.
Rush and other U of M officials said the program that uses cats and pigs to train medical professionals is in full compliance with federal law and that they would welcome regulators to take a closer look.
They also criticized PETA's use of inflammatory language, and not presenting their members and supporters with all the facts.
"They are leaving out a lot of details to the general public in a campaign to discredit the university, but in reality there is nothing to be ashamed of," Rush said. FULL STORY
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
HSUS Counts (like Enron)
Humanewatch, September 27, 2010
HSUS’s claim that it is “backed by” 11 million “members and constituents” continues to appear on just about everything the group sends out the door: fundraising materials, press releases, letters, you name it. We keep tripping over that word—“constituents.” What's a constituent? It's a nebulous catch-all term that could mean just about anything.
Hey—we can do that too! HumaneWatch spends all its money on “advocacy, website expenses, advertising, curing cancer, and fighting poverty.” Isn't that a neat little stunt?
As we've explained in the past, it's likely that HSUS has somewhere around 420,000 actual dues-paying members, which is less than 4% of what it reports to the media. Puffing up your grassroots numbers to an unreasonable level is an old Washington, DC parlor trick, one that has come back to bite advocacy groups before. Sometimes their sin is counting cumulatively instead of year-to-year. In other cases, it's a national group counting local affiliates' members as its own.
HSUS seems to be engaging in both dishonest strategies. FULL STORY
HSUS’s claim that it is “backed by” 11 million “members and constituents” continues to appear on just about everything the group sends out the door: fundraising materials, press releases, letters, you name it. We keep tripping over that word—“constituents.” What's a constituent? It's a nebulous catch-all term that could mean just about anything.
Hey—we can do that too! HumaneWatch spends all its money on “advocacy, website expenses, advertising, curing cancer, and fighting poverty.” Isn't that a neat little stunt?
As we've explained in the past, it's likely that HSUS has somewhere around 420,000 actual dues-paying members, which is less than 4% of what it reports to the media. Puffing up your grassroots numbers to an unreasonable level is an old Washington, DC parlor trick, one that has come back to bite advocacy groups before. Sometimes their sin is counting cumulatively instead of year-to-year. In other cases, it's a national group counting local affiliates' members as its own.
HSUS seems to be engaging in both dishonest strategies. FULL STORY
HSUS to Address ConAgra Executives
At the annual shareholder meeting of ConAgra Foods (NYSE: CAG) on Friday, September 24th, a representative of The Humane Society of the United States was scheduled to ask the company to decrease animal cruelty in its supply chain by switching to cage-free eggs, as other food manufacturers have done.
The HSUS purchased stock in ConAgra as part of its efforts to move the Omaha-based company away from using eggs from hens in confined in battery cages.
In August, MacDonald's shareholders voted down a similar proposal.
The HSUS purchased stock in ConAgra as part of its efforts to move the Omaha-based company away from using eggs from hens in confined in battery cages.
In August, MacDonald's shareholders voted down a similar proposal.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Study determines the carbon footprint of milk
Brownfield Ag News September 23, 2010 by Bob Meyer
USDA has released the results of a comprehensive study to determine the carbon footprint of milk. The Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy commissioned the University of Arkansas’ Applied Sustainability Center to conduct a life cycle assessment (LCA) that measured the greenhouse gas emissions created from when crops are grown to feed cows all the way to the disposal of the milk carton by the consumer.
Together with data from additional studies, the carbon footprint study indicates that total U.S. dairy greenhouse gas emissions are approximately 2 percent of total U.S. emissions.
One of its key findings is that the increased adoption of best management practices along the entire fluid milk supply chain can increase profitability while improving environmental sustainability.
According to Cornell University, the carbon footprint of milk production dropped by 63% between 1944 – 2007 as a result of production efficiencies, nutrition management and other on-farm improvements.
Read the full study here:
USDA has released the results of a comprehensive study to determine the carbon footprint of milk. The Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy commissioned the University of Arkansas’ Applied Sustainability Center to conduct a life cycle assessment (LCA) that measured the greenhouse gas emissions created from when crops are grown to feed cows all the way to the disposal of the milk carton by the consumer.
Together with data from additional studies, the carbon footprint study indicates that total U.S. dairy greenhouse gas emissions are approximately 2 percent of total U.S. emissions.
One of its key findings is that the increased adoption of best management practices along the entire fluid milk supply chain can increase profitability while improving environmental sustainability.
According to Cornell University, the carbon footprint of milk production dropped by 63% between 1944 – 2007 as a result of production efficiencies, nutrition management and other on-farm improvements.
Read the full study here:
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Voices: Vote NO to Prop B
By Ruthie Snodgrass
Special to The Globe Thu Sep 23, 2010, 07:38 AM CDT
LAMAR, Mo. — Missouri voters will find Proposition B on the ballot when they go to their polling places on Nov. 2. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has contributed more than $1.2 million in support of Proposition B.
Missouri Farm Bureau opposes Proposition B, Missouri Farmers Association opposes Proposition B, the Missouri Department of Agriculture believes its current program will do more for animal welfare than Proposition B. The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association opposes Proposition B. For more information, go to www.mofb.org.
Several state organizations have joined together to form Missourians for Animal Care Coalition.
Its purpose is to inform the public about Proposition B. The American Veterinary Medical Association opposes HSUS and Proposition B. Go to www.humanewatch.org and www.thealliancefortruth.com.
Millions of dollars worth of income and revenue will be gone from the state of Missouri.
Hundreds of thousands of tax dollars a year will be wasted enforcing needless regulations on Missouri’s respected, licensed breeders, while the unlicensed problem breeders remain unchecked.
HSUS is the richest and most powerful animal rights organization in the world.
Do not confuse animal rights organizations with animal welfare organizations.
For those folks who have been duped by HSUS into sending $240 annually in $19.99 monthly payments, less than $1.03 goes to feed a dog or cat.
Conscientious people concerned with the welfare of animals should support their local shelter. Every voter must not let themselves be fooled by wording on the ballot.
Vote “no” on Proposition B.
Special to The Globe Thu Sep 23, 2010, 07:38 AM CDT
LAMAR, Mo. — Missouri voters will find Proposition B on the ballot when they go to their polling places on Nov. 2. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has contributed more than $1.2 million in support of Proposition B.
Missouri Farm Bureau opposes Proposition B, Missouri Farmers Association opposes Proposition B, the Missouri Department of Agriculture believes its current program will do more for animal welfare than Proposition B. The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association opposes Proposition B. For more information, go to www.mofb.org.
Several state organizations have joined together to form Missourians for Animal Care Coalition.
Its purpose is to inform the public about Proposition B. The American Veterinary Medical Association opposes HSUS and Proposition B. Go to www.humanewatch.org and www.thealliancefortruth.com.
Millions of dollars worth of income and revenue will be gone from the state of Missouri.
Hundreds of thousands of tax dollars a year will be wasted enforcing needless regulations on Missouri’s respected, licensed breeders, while the unlicensed problem breeders remain unchecked.
HSUS is the richest and most powerful animal rights organization in the world.
Do not confuse animal rights organizations with animal welfare organizations.
For those folks who have been duped by HSUS into sending $240 annually in $19.99 monthly payments, less than $1.03 goes to feed a dog or cat.
Conscientious people concerned with the welfare of animals should support their local shelter. Every voter must not let themselves be fooled by wording on the ballot.
Vote “no” on Proposition B.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Viewpoint: Humane Society is about animal rights, not animal welfare
An excellent message that cannot be stated often enough.
Published: Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 8:00 AM Updated: Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 7:26 PM
By Sara Chisnell-Voigt
I’d like to preface my diatribe by saying I am a true animal lover. I’ve been involved in dogs and horses my whole life, have a bachelor’s degree in equine science, and am an attorney in the animal field. I am pro-animal welfare (as opposed to rights), and think animal cruelty and neglect laws should be strictly enforced.
I strongly support shelters and rescues, own a rescue dog, but I also support responsible dog breeding. However, I in no way, shape, or form support the Humane Society of the United States. Quite the opposite: I feel the HSUS is a fraudulent organization that misrepresents and hides its true agenda.
You know all those sad, heartbreaking commercials you see on TV with the neglected, abused dogs and cats, and big brown eyes that just pull at your heartstrings? I personally can’t even stand watching them, they’re so painful.
Some of those are HSUS commercials asking for a $19 per month donation to “help the animals.” Here’s where HSUS is, in my opinion, a big, fat fraud. HSUS misleads consumers by making them believe their money will go toward actually helping these animals or supporting shelters.
The name itself is misleading, or could be viewed as pure marketing genius, because much of the public believes that HSUS is an organization that oversees or supports local humane societies across the country. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
HSUS operates not one single shelter. In reality, very little funding from HSUS goes to shelters. According to a report from HumaneWatch.org, a review of the organization’s IRS forms from 2008 showed that HSUS raised nearly $100 million. Guess how much of that went to shelters? Only one half percent. That’s less than $500,000 to be spread around to shelters all over the country. Not only that, but HSUS charges shelters to “evaluate” them. One shelter in South Carolina was charged nearly $20,000 for a three-day evaluation from HSUS!
So, if HSUS gives so very little to shelters, where are these millions going? I’ll let you in on the truth: HSUS is an animal rights organization that pours money into animal rights lobbying.
I’d say a great deal of their millions go to the 30 attorneys they have on staff. If HSUS had their perfect world, no one would hunt, wear leather, breed any animals and we’d all be vegans.
Don’t believe me? Check out the following quotes:
•“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding,” said Wayne Pacelle, president of Humane Society of the United States, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, in Animal People, May, 1993.
•When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born,” said Pacelle in “Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt,” by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266.
•“My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture,” said J.P. Goodwin, manager of animal fighting issues, HSUS, formerly at the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, as quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group in 1996.
What disgusts me the most is when HSUS becomes “involved” in so-called puppy mill raids, disaster relief or other rescue situations. They’ll sweep in with all their volunteers plastered in the HSUS logo, “saving” dogs and cats, making sure they perpetuate the myth that they help shelters by getting as much media coverage as possible. When the cameras are off, they dump the animals on local shelters, overburdening them and often giving little or no financial assistance. What abhorrent, sickening, and despicable behavior.
HSUS is, quite simply, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in a suit. They wear a “suit” of animal welfare in order to raise their millions, and use that to pursue their animal rights agenda, like lobbying against the livestock industry (as seen in Ohio this year).
At least PETA is up front and honest about who they are and what they’re about. If you really want to help animals, turn the channel when you see the sad HSUS commercials. Donate to or volunteer at your local shelter or rescue — your dollar will go a lot further and have the impact you intend.
Sara Chisnell-Voigt resides in Otsego.
Related story
HSUS Members Resign over Shady Tactics. Podcast, October 2009
Published: Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 8:00 AM Updated: Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 7:26 PM
By Sara Chisnell-Voigt
I’d like to preface my diatribe by saying I am a true animal lover. I’ve been involved in dogs and horses my whole life, have a bachelor’s degree in equine science, and am an attorney in the animal field. I am pro-animal welfare (as opposed to rights), and think animal cruelty and neglect laws should be strictly enforced.
I strongly support shelters and rescues, own a rescue dog, but I also support responsible dog breeding. However, I in no way, shape, or form support the Humane Society of the United States. Quite the opposite: I feel the HSUS is a fraudulent organization that misrepresents and hides its true agenda.
You know all those sad, heartbreaking commercials you see on TV with the neglected, abused dogs and cats, and big brown eyes that just pull at your heartstrings? I personally can’t even stand watching them, they’re so painful.
Some of those are HSUS commercials asking for a $19 per month donation to “help the animals.” Here’s where HSUS is, in my opinion, a big, fat fraud. HSUS misleads consumers by making them believe their money will go toward actually helping these animals or supporting shelters.
The name itself is misleading, or could be viewed as pure marketing genius, because much of the public believes that HSUS is an organization that oversees or supports local humane societies across the country. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
HSUS operates not one single shelter. In reality, very little funding from HSUS goes to shelters. According to a report from HumaneWatch.org, a review of the organization’s IRS forms from 2008 showed that HSUS raised nearly $100 million. Guess how much of that went to shelters? Only one half percent. That’s less than $500,000 to be spread around to shelters all over the country. Not only that, but HSUS charges shelters to “evaluate” them. One shelter in South Carolina was charged nearly $20,000 for a three-day evaluation from HSUS!
So, if HSUS gives so very little to shelters, where are these millions going? I’ll let you in on the truth: HSUS is an animal rights organization that pours money into animal rights lobbying.
I’d say a great deal of their millions go to the 30 attorneys they have on staff. If HSUS had their perfect world, no one would hunt, wear leather, breed any animals and we’d all be vegans.
Don’t believe me? Check out the following quotes:
•“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding,” said Wayne Pacelle, president of Humane Society of the United States, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, in Animal People, May, 1993.
•When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born,” said Pacelle in “Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt,” by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266.
•“My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture,” said J.P. Goodwin, manager of animal fighting issues, HSUS, formerly at the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, as quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group in 1996.
What disgusts me the most is when HSUS becomes “involved” in so-called puppy mill raids, disaster relief or other rescue situations. They’ll sweep in with all their volunteers plastered in the HSUS logo, “saving” dogs and cats, making sure they perpetuate the myth that they help shelters by getting as much media coverage as possible. When the cameras are off, they dump the animals on local shelters, overburdening them and often giving little or no financial assistance. What abhorrent, sickening, and despicable behavior.
HSUS is, quite simply, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in a suit. They wear a “suit” of animal welfare in order to raise their millions, and use that to pursue their animal rights agenda, like lobbying against the livestock industry (as seen in Ohio this year).
At least PETA is up front and honest about who they are and what they’re about. If you really want to help animals, turn the channel when you see the sad HSUS commercials. Donate to or volunteer at your local shelter or rescue — your dollar will go a lot further and have the impact you intend.
Sara Chisnell-Voigt resides in Otsego.
Related story
HSUS Members Resign over Shady Tactics. Podcast, October 2009
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Hunters Contribute Billions To Conservation Efforts – Animal Rights Groups Zero
Friday, September 10th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Hunters nationwide have contributed more than $6.4 billion dollars to wildlife conservation efforts.
SOCIAL CIRCLE, Ga. -- (Ammoland.com)- The largest, most successful wildlife conservation program in the world, the Federal Wildlife Restoration Program, is fueled by hunters.
Over the past 70 years, hunters nationwide have contributed more than $6.4 billion dollars to wildlife conservation efforts. In Georgia alone, since 1939, hunters have contributed more than $137 million for wildlife conservation in Georgia.
“The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program is the most successful wildlife conservation program in the world and serves as a financial cornerstone to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. It benefits all wildlife species, conserves and restores habitat and helps enhance wildlife conservation through research,” said John W. Bowers, Wildlife Resources Division Game Management assistant chief.
“Through this program, America’s hunters continue to provide the most substantial source of funding for wildlife conservation and management in the United States.”
The program was established through the Pittman-Robertson Act in 1937. Through lobbying efforts in Congress, America’s hunters created this act as a way to fund conservation and management of the nation’s wildlife. Wildlife Restoration funds are accumulated from excise taxes on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment. This excise tax is levied at the manufacturer’s level, collected by the Federal government, and distributed to state wildlife agencies to fund wildlife conservation and management programs. The amount of money each state agency annually receives is determined by the number of paid hunting licenses and the land area of the state.
The Wildlife Resources Division uses Wildlife Restoration funds for various types of programs, including restoring habitat and improving wildlife populations, conducting research, monitoring wildlife populations, operating more than one million acres of wildlife management areas that benefit a diversity of wildlife species and provide wildlife-related recreational opportunities, providing information to landowners on how to manage their property for various species, conducting hunter education classes and building and maintaining public shooting ranges.
For more information on the Federal Wildlife Restoration Program, visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website. For more information on wildlife management practices in Georgia, visit the Wildlife Resources Division website at www.georgiawildlife.com , contact a local Game Management office or call (770) 918-6416.
Distributed to you by - AmmoLand.com – The Shooting Sports News source.
Hunters nationwide have contributed more than $6.4 billion dollars to wildlife conservation efforts.
SOCIAL CIRCLE, Ga. -- (Ammoland.com)- The largest, most successful wildlife conservation program in the world, the Federal Wildlife Restoration Program, is fueled by hunters.
Over the past 70 years, hunters nationwide have contributed more than $6.4 billion dollars to wildlife conservation efforts. In Georgia alone, since 1939, hunters have contributed more than $137 million for wildlife conservation in Georgia.
“The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program is the most successful wildlife conservation program in the world and serves as a financial cornerstone to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. It benefits all wildlife species, conserves and restores habitat and helps enhance wildlife conservation through research,” said John W. Bowers, Wildlife Resources Division Game Management assistant chief.
“Through this program, America’s hunters continue to provide the most substantial source of funding for wildlife conservation and management in the United States.”
The program was established through the Pittman-Robertson Act in 1937. Through lobbying efforts in Congress, America’s hunters created this act as a way to fund conservation and management of the nation’s wildlife. Wildlife Restoration funds are accumulated from excise taxes on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment. This excise tax is levied at the manufacturer’s level, collected by the Federal government, and distributed to state wildlife agencies to fund wildlife conservation and management programs. The amount of money each state agency annually receives is determined by the number of paid hunting licenses and the land area of the state.
The Wildlife Resources Division uses Wildlife Restoration funds for various types of programs, including restoring habitat and improving wildlife populations, conducting research, monitoring wildlife populations, operating more than one million acres of wildlife management areas that benefit a diversity of wildlife species and provide wildlife-related recreational opportunities, providing information to landowners on how to manage their property for various species, conducting hunter education classes and building and maintaining public shooting ranges.
For more information on the Federal Wildlife Restoration Program, visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website. For more information on wildlife management practices in Georgia, visit the Wildlife Resources Division website at www.georgiawildlife.com , contact a local Game Management office or call (770) 918-6416.
Distributed to you by - AmmoLand.com – The Shooting Sports News source.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
