animalrights@cockerspaniel.ws

Feb 28 2010

Rats, Pigs, and Dogs: Oh Boy!

UPDATE: On Monday at 5pm EST, I’ll be giving away two copies of this book. To be eligible for the drawing, leave a comment on this post and tell me how you’re spreading the word about HSUS.

When Wesley J. Smith first told me he was thinking of writing a book about the animal rights movement, my initial reaction was one of very cautious optimism. He already knew a great deal about animal rights activists’ attacks on biomedical researchers (see the excellent sixth chapter of Wesley’s 2002 Culture of Death for a primer that taught me a great deal). But I was concerned that the rest of the animal rights world (pets, food, fiber, entertainment, and such) might pose too broad a subject for any one writer to cover adequately.

Happily, my worries were misplaced. A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy is a winner. (I hope he doesn’t have to pay Ingrid Newkirk a royalty for that book title.) It’s meticulously footnoted, full of thoughtfully told stories, and uncompromising in defense of the premise that the “boy” in its title is exceptional—that is, unlike those other three species in the ways that matter most. This book also makes a compelling case—the best I have read anywhere— for the idea that “animal rights” is a system of ideological belief as rigid (and vulnerable to unreasoning abuse) as any religion.

Since this blog is principly concerned with the Humane Society of the United States, I’ll share (with his permission) some of what Wesley writes about that organization; but know that A Rat Is a Pig is a near-encyclopedic examination of the 95 percent or so of the animal rights movement industry that Americans encounter on a regular basis. It’s a must-own volume for farmers, ranchers, dairymen, chefs, sportsmen, pet breeders, reptile hobbyists, biomedical researchers, college students, and well-meaning donors to all kinds of animal charities.

A Rat Is a Pig explores HSUS’s tactics and positions on a number of different issues, but three stand out.

First, HSUS has been quite vocal in promoting itself as a group dedicated to “nonviolence.” (See its policy statement to that effect.) Here’s Wesley’s take on how this plays out in practice:

Peter Singer has opposed violence, as has Wayne Pacelle, the head of HSUS. For example, when a medical researcher’s house was bombed in Santa Cruz, HSUS offered a token reward, a mere $2,500 from an organization with more than $200 million in assets, for the capture and conviction of the culprits—which infuriated other animal rights activists. Steven Best [the terrorism-supporting UTEP philosophy professor] blew his stack for this “treachery,” castigating Pacelle and HSUS both for publicly opposing animal rights terrorism and for the small reward it offered in the Santa Cruz bombing case. [pp. 138-139]

To this, I’ll add the observation that HSUS currently employs a senior staffer who has been outspoken in his support of animal rights terrorism in the past. And that in 2003, when an animal rights fugitive—a criminal still listed among the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists”—fled to escape capture, the FBI found bomb-making materials in his car. They also found a check written to him by Ariana M. Huemer (an HSUS employee), under the driver’s-side visor. (Make of that whatever you will.)

So it’s only fair that HSUS’s indignant condemnation of violence gets mixed reviews. At a minimum, you’d think HSUS’s leaders would offer a bigger reward if they were serious. They can certainly afford it.

And then there’s the hunting issue. HumaneWatch readers have already seen how, as the leader of the Fund For Animals, HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle was one of the late 20th century’s most uncompromising opponents of hunting in every form. Wesley believes that Pacelle has softened this stance in his role with the less-radical HSUS:

[M]ost states have outlawed the harassment of hunters, to the chagrin of Wayne Pacelle, who when he worked for the Fund for Animals (now merged with HSUS) told the New York Times, “We believe we have the same right to protect wildlife as they do to shoot wildlife. These laws make it a crime to shout at an animal but it is legal to shoot an animal. This is a strange priority.” Pacelle once called for the total outlawing of hunting, telling an animal rights publication, “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.” But as the head of HSUS, Pacelle has lowered his sights to argue more reasonably for the legal ban of certain types of hunts that would be found objectionable by many who do not oppose hunting in principle. For example, HSUS supports the Sportsmanship in Hunting Act, which would prohibit closed-range ranches from importing “exotic” animals not indigenous to the United States to be hunted by paying customers (a practice called “canned hunting”). HSUS also seeks to outlaw bear baiting, pheasant stocking, and hunting contests that involve killing as many animals as possible. [pp. 226-227]

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Pacelle went soft on his anti-hunting strategy as a consequence of assuming the reins at the more high-profile HSUS. It’s far more likely that he merely lengthened his timeline and changed his plan of attack. Instead of wiping out all hunting in California as a precursor to a nationwide ban, Pacelle aims to outlaw (nationally) a handful of less-easily defensible hunting practices as a precursor to clamping down on ordinary weekend sportsmen.

Last—and perhaps most telling—is the way HSUS has contorted the American legal system, exploiting every opportunity it can conjure to choke-hold its targets toward extinction. In A Rat Is a Pig, we have an excellent summary of HSUS’s courtroom battles against a tiny New York company best known for producing the delicacy foie gras:

[I]n 2006 the Humane Society of the United States filed a Federal lawsuit against Hudson Valley Foie Gras, described in the HSUS publicity release about the case as a “notorious  factory  farm.” Foie gras is considered by some to be an especially delicious delicacy, but animal rights/liberationists detest the manufacturing of foie gras because it is made from the livers of ducks and geese that have been fattened through forced overfeeding so that their livers swell to three times the normal size.

HSUS’s lawsuit, however, technically had nothing to do with the treatment of Hudson Valley’s birds, Rather, HSUS—which is not an environmental protection organization—charged the company with violating the federal Clean Water Act, contending that the farm permitted bird feces to pollute the Hudson River.

The pollution case was not the first time HSUS had filed suit against Hudson Valley Foie Gras. In another case, the animal rights group claimed that the company was delivering tainted food to the marketplace. And just months before filing the pollution suit against the farm, HSUS had lost a suit that sought to prevent New York’s Empire State Development Corporation from awarding the farm a $400,000 grant intended to help it upgrade and expand its water treatment facilities. In other words, HSUS first tried to prevent Hudson Valley Foie Gras from receiving state money that would help it run a cleaner operation with regard to water pollution, and then turned right around and charged the company with polluting water. [pp. 64-65, emphasis added]

As Wesley points out, HSUS doesn’t really care about water pollution. (That is, this is not a creative way for HSUS to protect fish or waterfowl.) Rather, water pollution was merely the most convenient pretext on which HSUS could attack a duck farmer who had the temerity to resist his prescribed role in the vegan revolution.

The next logical step in this discussion, of course, is the animal rights movement’s current fascination with turning animals into legal plaintiffs. Again, Wesley is right on target:

[W]hat if instead of HSUS suing Hudson Valley for pollution violations, the company’s geese could sue the company directly for abuse? What if animal liberationists could provide lawyers so that animals could bring legal cases? They could easily use their considerable budgets to pay lawyers to flood the courts with lawsuits fair and foul—and thereby tie animal industries into hopeless knots, raising their cost of doing business, and perhaps making insurance companies unwilling to provide coverage for fear of financial losses.

Animals bringing lawsuits? Don’t laugh. Granting animals the right to sue—known as “legal standing”—is a major long-term goal of the animal rights movement. (Of course, it would be the liberationists who would bring the cases on behalf of the oblivious animals as their “guardians.”) Moreover, there is a dedicated cadre of lawyers and law students eagerly working toward achieving this and other legal goals of animal rights through the courts.

Observers looking for evidence of the animal rights industry moving into America’s courtrooms need only look to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, where President Barack Obama’s top “regulatory czar” (the Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein) openly advocates giving barnyard creatures the same legal standing we routinely extend to children, ships, buildings, and corporations.

Of course, this whole kind of activism—the strategic kind practiced from 36,000 feet up in the air—is precisely what HSUS’s growing legal department excels at.

If A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy has a conscious theme, it is that animal rights strategists like HSUS’s have stealthily woven their agenda tightly among the more ordinary threads of our society. It’s everywhere around us, devious and malevolent, at once both recklessly boastful and carefully concealed. And as the book’s subtitle announces confidently, this carries with it an unacceptable human cost.

I emphatically recommend this book for anyone who cares about the future of animal protection and fears that a once well-meaning cultural movement has gone completely off its rails. Wesley J. Smith is a studied voice of common sense whose thoughtful volume could not have come at a better time.

A RAT IS A PIG IS A DOG IS A BOY
By Wesley J. Smith
Encounter Books, 312 pp.
$17.13 at Amazon.com

1) According to government documents, PETA employees have killed more than 21,00 (updated information) dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens since 1998. This behavior continues despite PETA’s moralizing about the “unethical” treatment of animals by farmers, scientists, restaurant owners, circuses, hunters, fishermen, zookeepers, and countless other Americans. PETA puts to death over 90 percent of the animals it accepts from members of the public who expect the group to make a reasonable attempt to find them adoptive homes. PETA holds absolutely no open-adoption shelter hours at its Norfolk, VA headquarters, choosing instead to spend part of its $32 million annual income on a contract with a crematory service to periodically empty hundreds of animal bodies from its large walk-in freezer.

2) PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group’s overall goal as “total animal liberation.” This means the complete abolition of meat, milk, cheese, eggs, honey, zoos, aquariums, circuses, wool, leather, fur, silk, hunting, fishing, and pet ownership. In a 2003 profile of Newkirk in The New Yorker, author Michael Specter wrote that Newkirk has had at least one seeing-eye dog taken away from its blind owner. PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of animals, including research aimed at curing AIDS and cancer.

3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to Rodney Coronado, an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) serial arsonist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing memorandum, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime. PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich has also told an animal rights convention that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation,” adding, “Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.”

4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, even waiting outside their schools to intercept them without notifying their parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” PETA brags that its messages reach over 1.2 million minor children, including 30,000 kids between the ages of 6 and 12, all contacted by e-mail without parental supervision. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”

5) PETA’s president has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.” And PETA has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, solely because they support animal-based research aimed at curing life-threatening diseases and birth defects. And PETA helped to start and manage a quasi-medical front group, the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, to attack medical research head-on.

6) PETA has compared Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust to farm animals and Jesus Christ to pigs. PETA’s religious campaigns include a website that claims—despite ample evidence to the contrary—that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs “died for their sins.” PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn’t be allowed. And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign crassly compared the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide to farm animals.

7) PETA frequently looks the other way when its celebrity spokespersons don’t practice what it preaches. As gossip bloggers and Hollywood journalists have noted, Pamela Anderson’s Dodge Viper (auctioned to benefit PETA) had a “luxurious leather interior”; Jenna Jameson was photographed fishing, slurping oysters, and wearing a leather jacket just weeks after launching an anti-leather campaign for PETA; Morrissey got an official “okay” from PETA after eating at a steakhouse; Dita von Teese has written about her love of furs and foie gras; Steve-O built a career out of abusing small animals on film; the officially “anti-fur” Eva Mendes often wears fur anyway; and Charlize Theron’s celebrated October 2007 Vogue cover shoot featured several suede garments. In 2008, “Baby Phat” designer Kimora Lee Simmons became a PETA spokesmodel despite working with fur and leather, after making a $20,000 donation to the animal rights group.

Find more information at www.petakillsanimals.com

It’s War!
Time To Go To The Mat

By

Dr. Al Grossman

For those of you who remember Mario Puzzo’s THE GODFATHER, “time to go to the mat” meant that a gangster war was brewing and that all members of a gang were called into one base (house) where mats were spread on the floor for sleeping conditions for all members. They ate and slept there only going out on forays to attack their rivals. They did this so their members would not get picked off individually.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are at war! It is a war declared by the animal rights fanatics and their ilk. PETA and the Humane Society of the US have grievously attacked and seriously wounded the Pure Bred Dog community. Until the advent of AB1634 in California we have stood by and cursed the plague that hit us but have taken little action. The National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA*) has been the only full time organization that has incessantly fought these terrorists. Yes, there have been a number of voices raised by hastily formed organizations to fight AB 1634 but will they be effective as splintered groups in the long run. It reminds me of the militias in Iraq, each of who is fighting for their own way of life and religion. Effective in their own region and for their own sect but having an overall negative effect for the good of their country.

PETA and their ilk have become more emboldened by their series of legislative successes. They have stepped up their PR campaigns with billboard ads and TV commercials. Recently they have flaunted authority in California by defacing the car of the sister of the mayor of Los Angeles and have aggressively picketed and verbally attacked two UCLA professors engaged in vital research

The time for idle talk is over! We must strike back and strike back vigorously with a planned and coordinated campaign. There has to be a meeting of all the organizations now trying to raise funds and combat the terrorists on their own. We need to call a summit meting to begin to lay out our strategy, our budgets and the task forces that will be needed to once and for all slay the multi headed dragon which is the animal rights fanatics.

Where will the money come from win this war? I will be a heretic and say that most of the money should come directly from the AKC. When at war many things done in peacetime need to be delayed until the war in won and then we can resume our efforts in many charitable activities. AKC has just rescued the Health foundation with a very hefty infusion of cash and credit. They have just launched a drive to collect monies for a new humane organization. I applaud them for their efforts but their timing is all wrong. This is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If the ship founders the arrangement of the chairs is meaningless. For now, the monies should be diverted to strengthening the hull so all aboard may survive.

For now, a major portion of the requests for health grants for research should be diverted to Colleges of Veterinary Medicine and to other research organizations until our battle is won. Hard decisions like this have to be made if we are to survive this onslaught. Discovering cures for diseases for breeds that may not survive this titanic struggle serves no purpose at this time. A few years postponement may be necessary. AKC also has a reserve fund of over 30 million dollars. Certainly, a share of this can be made available for this battle.

There are those who may claim that I am a voice in the wilderness, an alarmist and I suppose, even a charlatan. However I have been calling attention to the clashing of arms ever since, as the publisher of Doral Publishing, I wrote the preface to Rod and Patti Strand’s book THE HIJACKING OF THE HUMANE MOVEMENT. I was also on the founding board of NAIA. And over the years I have written many articles under my From The Skeptic Tank syndicated column about the insidious progression of the animal rights fanatics.

by George J. Eigenhauser Jr.

(he is an attorney at law licensed in the State of California since 1979 and practices in the areas of civil litigation and estate planning)

ANTI-DOG ENFORCEMENT - What Every Dog Owner Needs to Know

Dog owners and ethical breeders are increasingly being targeted. Disgruntled neighbors may retaliate against dog owners and may other reasons drive complaints, and anti-dog enforcement action, which many times may be conducted illegally.

The following text outlines methods of inquiry and enforcement which may be used by local officials in attempts to enforce ordinances in your community and suggested techniques of response. These techniques are entirely legal and based upon the rights of citizens as stated by the U.S. Constitution.

No breeder wants to have Animal Control come knocking on the door…but if they do, it will help if you know what your options are.

Remember, Animal Control is law enforcement. They are bound by the same Constitution as any other government agency. To protect yourself, you need to know your rights. These vary slightly one jurisdiction to another, but some general principles apply. One rule applies everywhere: never physically resist an officer.

When Animal Control is At Your Door:

1. Do not let them in, no matter how much they ask. Animal Control generally cannot enter your home without a warrant, or your permission. While regular police can enter in emergency situations when human life is at risk (i.e. they hear gunshots and a scream inside), there are few, if any, situations in which Animal Control can enter your home without a warrant. Simply tell them they may not come in.

2. If you let them in, anything they find in “plain sight” can be used against you. In some circumstances Animal Control officers, unable to find a legitimate reason to make an arrest, have reported building or zoning violations. This may include caging you attached to a wall without a building permit, that extra outlet in the puppy room, having more pets than allowed by zoning, even extension cords in violation of fire codes! No matter how clean your kennel, if they want to find a violation, they will.

3. Do not talk to them from an open doorway. Step outside an close (and lock if possible) the door behind you. This is necessary because:

A) Anything they see through the open door is “plain sight” and may be the basis for an arrest, or probable cause for a search warrant.

B) If they make an arrest or even feel threatened they are usually permitted to search for weapons in your immediate area. Do you keep a baseball bat inside the door for your protection? Even if you don’t, once they step inside to look, they are in your home and may continue to search.

C) It is hard not to be intimidated by someone in authority. Some animal control is even done by local police, who carry guns. It is easy for them to get “in your face”, causing you to back up into the home. Once you go in, it will be interpreted as an invitation to follow.

4. If they claim to have a warrant, demand to see it. In general, a search warrant must be signed by a judge. A warrant to search your home for dogs does not include an inventory of your jewelry box. A warrant to search your kennel in the garage or in the barn does not include a search of your home.

5. In some locations dog owners may have obtained special “breeder permits” that stipulate that Animal Control has your permission to enter at any time. If you have signed such a permit they still cannot enter against your wishes, since you can revoke the permission at any time. However, if you refuse permission it may allow them to cancel your breeder permit, so you have to weigh the consequences.

6. Warning - anyone in lawful possession of the premises may be able to give permission for a search. Make sure your roommate, babysitter, dog-sitter, housekeeper and other know that they should not let animal control into your home or on your property (i.e. backyard, garage, etc.).

How to Handle Questions:

1. Don’t answer any questions beyond identifying yourself for the officer. Anything you say to the officer in your defense cannot be used in court (hearsay). Anything you say that is harmful to you will be used in court (confessions are not considered hearsay). You cannot win, except by remaining silent.

2. Be polite but firm. Do not argue, bad-mouth, curse, threaten or try to intimidate the officer.

3. Do not lie to an officer, ever. However, it is NOT a lie to exercise your right to remain silent.

4. Keep your hands in plain sight. People have been shot by police when common objects, such as a wallet, were mistaken for a gun.

5. Do not touch the officer in any way. Do not physically resist an officer, no matter how unlawful his or her actions.

6. Don’t try to tell your side of the story, it cannot help.

7. Do not threaten the officer that you plan to file a complaint for their actions.

8. If the questioning persists, demand to speak to a lawyer first. Repeat as necessary.

Gathering the Facts:

1. Get the name and badge number of each officer involved. If he/she does not volunteer this information, ask.

2. Ask the name of the agency they represent. Different agencies have different enforcement responsibilities.

3. Ask why they are there. Request the factual basis of the complaint and the identity of the complainant.

4. If they have other people with them (Humane Society, press, etc.) get the names and organizations for all present.

5. Note the names (and addresses) of any witnesses to the encounter.

6. If you are physically injured by an officer, you should take photographs of the injuries immediately, but do not forego proper medical treatment first.

7. Write down all of the information, as well as the date and time of the incident immediately, while details are fresh in your mind.

8. If you rights are violated, file a complaint with the appropriate body.

If You Are Arrested:

1. Remain silent. Answer no questions until you have consulted with a lawyer.

2. Don’t “explain” anything. You will have time for explanations after you have talked to a lawyer.

3. Within a reasonable time they must allow you to make a phone call to get a lawyer or arrange bail. They are not allowed to listen to your phone call to your attorney, but they may “monitor” the rooms for “your protection”. Do not say anything you do not want them to overhear; save that until after you are out on bail.

Telephone Inquiries or Threats:

You may receive telephone inquiries concerning the number of dogs you own and whether any dogs or puppies are for sale. Other questions may also be asked.

Your response should be to inquire “Are you interested in a puppy?”. If the answer is “yes”, ask that person for his/her name, address and phone number. Suggest that you or a responsible breeder will contact that person at a more convenient time for you.

If the answer is friendly and genuinely inquisitive, invite the person to look at your puppies.

If the question asked is “What is the price of each puppy?”, simply say that puppies of this type are being sold for between “X” and “Y” dollars. Never say that you are selling them.

If the question asked is “Are these your puppies?”, you should ask, “Why do you want to know?”.

If you conversation indicates that the person is representing the county clerk’s office or allegedly representing an official body, ask the caller for:

-Full name, title and phone number
-Agency’s full name and full address
-Their supervisor’s full name and phone number
-Nature of the inquiry (what it is about)
-Why the inquiry is being made
-How your name and phone number were obtained
-Ask that all future questions from that agency be submitted in writing

Preventative Measures:

1. Always keep you kennel clean and take good care of your animals.

2. Consider a P.O. Box or other address for business cards and advertisements. Keep descriptions of your location general (i.e. Southern California, rather than the name of the city where you live). The internet can provide anonymity for initial contacts. You can even buy a “remote prefix” to get a number from a nearby community forwarded to your phone or to a voice mail. Avoid local newspaper classifieds, they are often monitored.

3. Screen any potential puppy buyers carefully. Always be alert that they may be Animal Control or even Animal Rights working under cover.

4. Don’t allow strangers into your home until you have screened them.

5. Be fair and honest in all of your dealings, and be on good terms with your neighbors. Most animal control contacts are complaint-driven. Some complaints may arise as harassment by people with unrelated grievances against you. It may be a disgruntled dog buyer or a cranky neighbor who doesn’t like you parking in front of his house.

6. Anything about you that can be observed in “plain sight” from the street or sidewalk can become probably cause for a warrant. Even areas on your property open to visitors can be dangerous. Be aware of which areas of your home are visible from the outside and plan accordingly.

7. If you are confronted by Animal Control and turn them away, assume they will be back. Use the time available to make sure everything is clean and presentable. If you are over the limit on the number of pets, find friends who can provide temporary shelter for your dogs.

Whatever you do, stay calm and keep your wits about you.

Just say “no”, no matter what threats or promises of leniency they make.

When in doubt, say nothing and speak to a lawyer afterwards.

?1. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a “humane society” in name only since it doesn’t operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility anywhere in the United States. During 2007, HSUS contributed 3.64 percent of its budget to organizations  that operate hands-on dog and cat shelters. In reality, HSUS is a wealthy animal-rights lobbying organization (the largest and richest on earth) that agitates for the same goals as PETA and other radical groups.
2. Beginning on the day of NFL quarterback Michael Vick’S 2007 dogfighting indictment, HSUS raised money online with The false promise that it would “care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case.” The New York Times later reported that  HSUS wasn’t caring for Vick’s dogs at all. And HSUS president Wayne Pacelle told the Times that his group recommended that government officials “put down” (that is, kill) the dogs rather than adopt them out to suitable homes. HSUS later quietly altered its Internet fundraising pitch.
3. HSUS Senior management includet a former spokesman for The Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a criminal group designated as “Terrorists” by the FBI. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle hired John “J.P.” Goodwin in 1997, the same year Goodwin described himself as “spokesperson for the ALF” while he fielded media calls in the wake of an ALF arson attack at a California veal processing plant. In 1997, when asked by reporters for a reaction to an ALF arson fire at a farmer’s feed co-op in Utah (which nearly killed a family sleeping on the  premises), Goodwin replied, “We’re ecstatic.” That same year, Goodwin was arrested at a UC Davis protest celebrating the 10-year anniversary of an ALF arson at the university that caused $5 million  in damage. And in 1998, Goodwin described himself publicly as a “former member of ALF.”

4. HSUS raised a reported $34 million in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, supposedly to help reunite lost pets with their owners. But comparatively little of that money was spent for its intended purpose. Louisiana’s Attorney General shuttered his 18-month-long investigation into where most of these millions went, shortly after HSUS announced its plan to contribute $600,000 toward the construction of an animal shelter on the grounds of a state prison. Public disclosures of the disposition of the $34 million in Katrina-related donations add up to less than $7 million.

5. After gathering undercover video footage of improper animal handling at a Chino, CA slaughterhouse during November of 2007, HSUS sat on its video evidence for three months, even refusing to share it with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. HSUS’s Dr. Michael Greger testified before Congress that the San Bernardino County (CA) District Attorney’s office asked the group “to hold on to the information while they completed their investigation.” But the District Attorney’s office quickly denied that account, evendeclaring that HSUS refused to make its undercover spy available to investigators if the USDA were present at those meetings. Ultimately, HSUS chose to release its video footage at a more politically opportune time, as it prepared to launch a livestock-related ballot campaign in California. Meanwhile, meat from the slaughterhouse continued to flow into the U.S. food supply for months. Revised October 2008. Complete sources and documentation available upon request.

6. According to a 2008 Los Angeles Times investigation, less than 12 percent of money raised for HSUS by California telemarketers actually ends up in HSUS’s bank account. The rest is kept by professional fundraisers. And if you exclude two campaigns run for HSUS by the “Build-a-Bear Workshop” retail chain, which consisted of the sale of surplus stuffed animals (not really “fundraising”), HSUS’s yield number shrinks to just 3 percent. Sadly, this appears typical. In 2004, HSUS ran a telemarketing campaign in Connecticut with fundraisers who promised to return a minimum of zero percent of the proceeds. The campaign raised over $1.4 million. Not only did absolutely none of that money go to HSUS, but the group paid $175,000 for the telemarketing work.

7. Research shows that HSUS’s heavily promoted U.S. “boycott” of Canadian seafood—announced in 2005 as a protest against Canada’s annual seal hunt—is a phony exercise in media manipulation. A 2006 investigation found that 78 percent of the restaurants and seafood distributors described by HSUS as “boycotters” weren’t participating at all.  Nearly two-thirds of them told surveyors they were completely unaware HSUS was using their names in connection with an international boycott campaign. Canada’s federal government is on record about this deception, saying: “Some animal rights groups have been misleading the public for years … it’s no surprise at all that the richest of them would mislead the public with a phony seafood boycott.”

Want evidence?

Visit www.AnimalScam.com • www.ActivistCas h.com • www.consumerfreedom.com

Atlanta Investigation Uncovers Deceptive ‘Humane Society’ Agenda

ABC News in Atlanta is taking a cue from us and following the money donated to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). And the results aren’t pretty. The animal rights industry leader with the misleading name gives less than 4 cents of every dollar of its budget to support local animal shelters. The rest of the money, as WSB-TV Channel 2 News confirmed? It funds the group’s activist projects and lobbying for vegetarian-minded legislation.

Reporter Amanda Rosseter spoke with staff members from Atlanta-area animal shelters. She discovered that while HSUS talks a big game about stopping puppy mills, the heavy lifting required to care for rescued puppies falls on the shoulders of local humane societies – most of whom see nary a cent from HSUS to support their work.

Rosseter also attended a meeting of the local HSUS chapter to see for herself what was discussed. The agenda was just as we’d expect:

The two hour discussion was about activist plans and lobbying. The Georgia director for the HSUS agrees that’s mostly what she does.

“I think that in all of our literature, it is very explicit as to what our campaigns are and what we are doing,” said Cheryl McAuliffe, Georgia Director for HSUS. “We help where we can and focus on our programs, which are national and international.”

McAuliffe said there are just too many local shelters to help.

“I always tell people, contribute to your local shelter first,” said McAuliffe.

When asked how much her budget is for the state of Georgia, McAuliffe said she didn’t have a budget and neither did other states. McAuliffe said all money is controlled from headquarters in Washington, D.C.

(Click here to watch the whole TV segment.)

McAuliffe says donors should give directly to their local shelters first – and we totally agree. In fact, our own polling shows that many donors who give money to a national group with “Humane Society” in its name think their gifts are directly helping rescued pets. But with HSUS, that isn’t the case.

HSUS has a lengthy track record of raising money for one cause and spending it on unrelated programs. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, HSUS used the high-profile disaster to raise a reported $34 million to reunite lost pets with their owners. Yet WSB-TV reported last night that less than $7 million of that money was actually spent on Katrina-related activities.

The sad truth for needy pets is that HSUS is far more interested in using its bloated budget to go after meat and dairy producers; ban the use of animals in biomedical research labs; blast pet breeding, zoos, and circus acts that involve animals; and denigrate hunters as bloodthirsty lunatics. Every year HSUS spends more than $20 million on salaries and $2 million on travel expenses, just to keep its agenda fed.

Want to learn more about the deceptive HSUS? Contact us directly or visit HumaneWatch.org.

4/22/2009 Yesterday the FBI listed its first domestic terrorist on its most wanted international terrorist list. The same list includes Osama Bin Laden.

Daniel Andereas San Diego is wanted for allegedly bombing two San Francisco biotech office buildings in 2003. San Diego is known to the FBI as an “animal rights extremist” and involved with the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty group, an animal rights group rallied against Huntingdon Life Sciences, a company that conducts animal experimentation for the medical and pharmaceutical industries.

The 31-year-old man is considered armed and dangerous. A $250,000 reward is being offered for any information that leads to his arrest.

“We have added San Diego to the Most Wanted Terrorists list to increase public awareness about this domestic terrorist fugitive and to aid in his arrest,” Michael J. Heimbach, assistant director of the Counterterrorism Division, said during a press conference at FBI Headquarters in Washington on Tuesday. “We will not relent until San Diego is apprehended and his potential for future acts of violence and destruction is eliminated.”

How does HSUS Work Against Pets+Owners?

HSUS passes laws (HSUS has almost 200 laws for this year) then uses those laws for cases it plans to bring forward, then uses those cases in their incremental process to bring down both interstate commerce and pet ownership, kennels, pet stores, dog breeders, along with difficulties for agriculture and other animals.

We can guarantee that the CA Prop 2 (battery cages) will come back to haunt us in pet ownership, or farming. HSUS will probably find some other ways to outlaw farm animals or make a huge problem for farming–after all HSUS right NOW is trying to outlaw all “non-native” species including birds, herps,guineas,ferrets, turtles and many other common species in the USA that have been owned for 50-100 years.

Ownership in the law, is of the highest legal nature, and as a concept, usually means the ultimate control over the item owned. It also usually refers to having the control legally over such item (property) and also the right to use it for as long as is allowed in the law, and in many instances, to bring a lawsuit where the owner’s rights are affected. Guardianship does NOT necessarily mean any of the same things, which is why animal rights prefers it over “owner.”

CA law has statutes that show one of the main incidents of ownership in property, is the right to TRANSFER it (Bias v Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 14,16). Or, “A common characteristic of a property right, is that it may be disposed of, transferred to another.” (Douglas Aircraft Co. v Byram (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 311, 317)

Thefore we can see why Peta wanted to take possession/ownership of different animals because after they owned them, they could just dispose of them in the garbage dump (after killing them via lethal injection)—and they suffered no consequences. [Actually it appeared there was fraud in the procurement of the animals but we don't know if they were hit for that.]

And, we can see why HSUS doesn’t want animals TRANSFERRED to others because that’s an element of OWNERSHIP.

The obvious next step for HSUS is to claim if animals can’t be sold or transferred, then that means THEY ARE NOT PROPERTY.

HSUS is currently trying to outlaw the use (import, export, transport, breeding) or movement in interstate commerce of any non native species via HR669 in Congress by using the Lacey Act. See the PIJAC website for details, or see the post on this site with the link to PIJAC.

This would encompass virtually every bird, reptile, amphibian, fish and some mammals kept as pets. In general only a small number of species have caused environmental issues (in FL and HI.)

This nonsense by HSUS subterfuge has not been lost on us.

We are VERY aware of what HSUS and Animal Rights are trying to do. Clearly the agenda is to chip away at the ownership of animals until we miss the fact that the WORDS USED FOR OWNERSHIP have been eliminated, then next thing you know—-HSUS has eliminated the ownership of animals. No transfers, no selling, no bartering, no trading, etc. This has already been attempted in HSUS anti pet laws where a dog with cropped ears couldn’t be transferred/owned by a rescue because the rescue didn’t have the documents proving how the ears were done.

It would be easier to make “owning” something next to impossible, or exorbitantly too expensive or far too much red tape, than to outright say “you can’t own that”–which is Animal Rights done the HSUS way–as can be seen by the multidue of 180 Anti pet laws HSUS is pushing just this year…..

HSUS has a habit of purposely drafting bad laws, then getting them passed, then taking cases, and using the laws that HSUS has HELPED PASS—as proof that such ideas have already been cemented IN THE LAW. In other words, HSUS makes the very laws it fully intends to use as part of a case it has already planned, then if they win that case, it will set some precedent in the law. THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE HSUS GOAL—TO SET ANIMAL RIGHTS LAW PRECEDENT……………………

If you value your ownership over your pets and animals, and the fact that pet-related businesses are allowed to profit over the selling, buying, trading, owning, or otherwise pet-related legal businesse ownership; if you want CHOICE in what dog or cat or bird or fish that you can BUY, own, or trade or sell; if you want the ability to eat the foods you like (milk, eggs, cheese, meat) then you do NOT want to support ANY HSUS LAWS.

As has been stated on this blog ever since it started—you don’t join the KKK if you’re Black, you don’t push Hitler if you’re Jewish, and you don’t help HSUS if you value ownership of animals.

And because the Pet connection blog online, is one that keeps saying (especially author Gina Spadafori) that HSUS can be trusted to do the right thing—where HSUS cannot be trusted at all…………….it is our opinion that Pet connection lacks the ability to discern Animal Rights in disguise—-and we do not recommend anyone following the opinions of much of the blog—mostly because Spadafori only harps on Peta–but not HSUS.

Just because one authors books, doesn’t mean that one knows Animal Rights. Further, Spadifori harped on Petland claiming that they should be OUT of business if they didn’t ADOPT out dogs, rather than SELL them? That is a very very dangerous proposition, and one that we surely don’t want to push as owners. NOT if you understand the HSUS concept of animal rights–which we don’t believe Spadafori understands [unless she is animal rights herself---]

HSUS is the FAR more dangerous group—if you understand Animal Rights. Spadifori also commended HSUS on filing the lawsuit against Hunte and Petland—that is a mistake, because it indicates that one does NOT understand what HSUS is doing strategy wise.

For example, HSUS pushed the Stevens free speech case, so that Stevens would be prosecuted for selling videos which showed dog fighting (he didn’t make the videos)—BUT the Appeals court held that the statute used (which was likely pushed by HSUS)— which was set up for “crush films”, could cause LEGAL acts to become illegal if the law was upheld, and might even cause the Disney film (Bambi) to be illegal. [See the Stevens case on the Front Page on this blogsite]

Another case is Amazon, where after HSUS pushed the Stevens case (Stevens convicted under the statute ) HSUS sued Amazon to stop the sale of chicken videos or dog video sales, claiming they were violating the law. Another case is the PA commercial kennel laws pushed by HSUS and ASPCA, where after the law was passed, HSUS then sued Petland and Hunte, no doubt so they could use their own law that passed (PA) as proof of concern over the commercial kennel issues. All of this is just a part of the pattern and practice of getting incremental steps in place, passing laws, filing lawsuits, and using the laws to set up precedence for HSUS Animal Rights. We don’t doubt for a second that their entire 16 attorney team or 160 member team or whatever, just goes to the conference room and has a session on strategy for the next 5 years.

Don’t think for a second that we haven’t noticed it, because we knew it a long time ago. Another example is the DNA testing and Breed Specific Legislation that HSUS “claims” it doesn’t support?

HSUS filed an amicus animal rights brief in the DENVER 2008 case re BSL, [yes, we did read it]—- claiming that the DNA companies claimed their DNA test “was 99% accurate.” Then on the animal law and historical society page (Michigan School of Law, Animal Rights Section)—the school has pages which show “how DNA proved” that a particular dog WAS NOT a pitbull subject to BSL. But the key really is, if they can prove it ISN’T a pitbull, and it’s actually 99% accurate, can it prove that IT IS A PITBULL?

And that’s why HSUS put that amicus brief in the Federal Court to Denver. So when that issue comes up down the line, HSUS will be the first to claim that DNA testing should be used [to have pitbull dogs killed], because it’s 99% accurate, despite the fact that the AKC and UKC don’t have the exact same breed name/types for American Pitbull Terriers, or American Stafforshire Terriers. AKC doesn’t recognize the APBT. But that won’t stop HSUS—you wait and see. They like to keep people fooled.

Any Animal Rights group like HSUS that has that much time and money into killing pitbull type dogs is definitely going to try and eliminate more of those dogs, use such dogs as a ploy to raise more funding, and then kill more of them. We have long ago figured out HSUS’ pattern and practice, and that’s why we keep telling everyone not to trust HSUS. They are just Animal Rights that think no one can figure out what they are doing.

WRONG.

You don’t have to be an attorney or have a legal education to figure that one out. And you don’t even have to be a pet owner. You just have to have some logic and common sense to see what is going on.

Not in our lifetime, never, never ever. The demise of HSUS will come first. Because too many people will see what they are REALLY doing. Help us spread the word! Tell everyone you know and make it a point to tell at least 10-50 other people. This is the only way that legislators are going to figure it out, and the only way the public will stop donating.

People that donate to HSUS Animal rights might as well donate to PETA. Because they are carrying out the Peta agenda.

The Tampa Tribune

Published: May 1, 2009

I grew up watching westerns. Hollywood seldom makes them anymore. But in my
youth; Tom Mix, Hoot Gibson, Gene Autry, the Lone Ranger and John Wayne were
staples. My favorite cowboy, however, was Roy Rogers. He rode, he could
shoot, and he always seemed to get the girl by the end of the movie. In
addition to Dale Evans, Gabby Hays and the Sons of the Pioneers, Roy had two
other trusted companions. Those four-legged companions were "Trigger," his
palomino horse that seems capable of any equestrian feat and "Bullet," his
faithful dog.

Much like the old westerns, dogs and horses are found aplenty in rural
counties such as Pasco County. Practicing in Pasco, I occasionally meet
people who have suffered a dog bite or are injured by a horse. The cases
fortunately aren't that frequent, but the injuries suffered can be horrific.

Dog bite cases are governed by Florida Statute. The law provides that the
owner of any dog that bites any person while such person is in a public
place - or lawfully on or in a private place such as the home in which the
dog resides - is responsible for the injuries caused by the dog. The owner
is strictly liable for injuries caused by the dog bite. Strict liability
means that the victim need not prove that the owner was negligent in the
care or keeping of the dog. There is no "free bite" as exists in some other
states. That is, the owner is responsible regardless of whether the dog
previously displayed any viciousness. The owner's lack of knowledge
regarding the dog's viciousness is irrelevant.

A person unlawfully on the property is not protected. Thus, a burglar bitten
by a dog will not be permitted to recover for any injuries suffered during
the commission of the crime. A law enforcement officer, fireman, postal
worker or other person on the property to perform a lawful duty imposed on
him or her is considered lawfully on the property and is covered under the
statute. The current statute eliminated the "Fireman's Rule," which had
previously precluded recovery by police officers and firemen entering a
dwelling. A person on the property with the owner's consent is lawfully on
the property, as is a business invitee who enters during the normal course
of business.

Two, and only two, defenses are available to the dog owner. First, the jury
may consider negligence on the part of the person who was bitten. For
example, if a person provokes the dog by snatching a treat from the dog's
mouth then the victim's provocation may be considered by the jury and any
award of money will be reduced by the amount of the victim's comparative
fault. Secondly, the dog owner is not liable if at the time of the bite the
owner displayed in a prominent place on his or her premises a sign easily
readable including the words "Bad Dog." Florida courts have held that if the
sign complies with the statute, it makes no difference whether the victim
was literate or only spoke a foreign language.

This second defense does not apply if the victim is younger than 6. This
second defense may also be unavailable if the owner caused the victim to
ignore the warning sign. In one leading Florida case, for example, the court
held that the sign did not protect the dog owner when the owner told the
victim that the dog would be secured and that it was safe to enter. In
another case, the sign did not relieve the dog owner of liability because
the owner told the victim that the dog was old and arthritic and that the
sign was posted merely to discourage intruders.

Tuesday, June 26th, 2007