I definitely was unaware of all of this! Is there an organization that you would suggest? Somewhere that you, as an involved & dedicated vet, see dollars really being put to good use. I've contemplated donating to the ASPCA many times, mostly in part due to the overly heart wrenching commercials if I'm being honest. :/ Do vets take donations? (Since they are SURE to be taking on the occasional charity case.) Any recommendations would be appreciated!

Donate locally. Locally you may donate funds, or supplies (usually), and you know it will go to animal care.

You might want to make those donations to your local no-kill shelter. They get zero funding from any AR organization, (HSUS, PeTA or ASPCA), and in fact, those organizations actively oppose no-kill sheltering.

In any case, make your donations local.

>>e an organization that you would suggest?

Check out your local animal shelter. Many accept donations and you can see exactly where your money is being spent.

Beware of local "rescues". While some do good work, others are poorly organized fronts for borderline animal collectors, sadly.

My favorite animal charities are the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation and the Standardbred Retirement Foundation. Both are well-run organizations. The SRF was founded by a racetrack veterinarian.

Known this for a while now; leave it to these 'nut cases' and you'll not even have a pet...!! Go with the SPCA.

Know, though, that your local SPCA is not affiliated with the ASPCA, any more than your local humane society is affiliated with HSUS.

ASPCA runs (1) shelter in NYC, and it is a kill shelter. ASPCA is no different now from HSUS or PeTA; they oppose no-kill and have embraced the AR position. That is, they oppose all animal use by humans, including pet ownership.

So .. make your donations locally, in cash or in kind. Most shelters accept supplies, and are glad of them.

It's true that rescues vary very widely as to the quality of their operations, and also true that the AR organizations mentioned above are now targeting rescues as they target breeders. Good or bad, they are being raided at will, and the animals disposed of as is convenient, some being killed, many dispersed over the country. At the least, this is very stressful for animals who have already been displaced, at worst, it amounts to callous brutality on the part of the raiding authority, usually accompanied by a local AR group.

I stopped my donations to HSUS a few years ago when I discovered how much of their donations went to administrative costs rather than toward animal welfare. Since then, I have donated my money and hundreds of hours of my time, as well as pet food and supplies to my local Humane Society (which is not supported in any way by the HSUS, as they are quick to point out). The local Humane Society has a budget dependent on contributions and volunteers, and they use their resources wisely; unlike the HSUS, which spends tons of cash on enticements to donate like tote bags, blankets, coffee mugs, etc.; not to mention their voluminous mailings. I like seeing where my donations go, and knowing that they actually are used locally for the shelter and care of homeless pets. PLEASE check out your local shelter and give wisely of your money (and time if you can)!

HSUS' largest expenditures, and worst from the point of view of animal lovers is their constant pressure for more 'animal protection' laws which aren't anything of the sort. The laws they lobby for, and often succeed in passing are animal ownership limitation laws, which result in ever more animals in shelters. They also lobby for laws which cripple livestock agriculture, which impacts both your diet (how much, exactly, can you afford to pay for a dozen eggs or a pound of hamburger?) and your pet's diet.

As an example, my daughter recently moved to another state, and discovered that she could not keep all three of her cats in the new place. Apart from the cost of licensing them, she couldn't find a place which would accept three cats at any price. Fortunately, her cats know us as we have looked after them when she travels, and we are not (yet) restricted as to how many cats we own, so we now have another cat.

This option is not always readily available to people who must move and are forced to rehome some or all of their pets. In my observation, people in this situation work very hard to rehome them, but it is not always possible.

AR laws are not written to protect animals from anything but being owned. To the AR activists, animal ownership IS animal abuse, and they are working hard to end that.

HSUS not only lobbies for these laws, but frequently writes them, all or in part. They have at least thirty attorneys on staff, whose primary task is the prduction of boiler plate law at all levels from local ordinances to Federal regulation.

I wouldn't grudge them their perks, if they were truly working on behalf of animal welfare, but they are not. The real insult is that they are using funds donated by animal lovers to outlaw animal use and ownership.

There are plenty of local shelters and organizations that need your money. I'm sure that somewhere there is a list of local charities that we all could access but I don't know how to find it. There is a pot-bellied pig shelter near Tucson that I donate to and a wolf hybrid shelter in Ramah, NM. Other than that, it's mostly local for me.

Thank you for highlighting this widespread misunderstanding about the HSUS. If it is left up the the HSUS, no one will be able to own a domesticated pet. HSUS is no more than a front for radicals.

LIke so many others, I give directly to a small shelter, Missaukee Humane Society, that I KNOW does a good job. They are in a poor area and do a lot with a little. Their annual budget is probably less than some shelter's monthly budget...

Shelters across the country are wrestling with changing their names from Humane Society to Humane Shelter. Some already have. It is an expense that they don't need, but they realize they must distance themselves from the national organization. HSUS WANTS people to think they are helping local organizations.

One TV station did an expose about them and called them scammers.

Thanks for covering this, Dr. K!

When this issue first came to my attention, I had a "light bulb moment" It struck me that in all the times I've seen advertisements for local shelter affairs and adoption drives, I've never seen anything to indicate that the Humane Society was involved in any way. It's sad. I stopped giving to the Humane Society and reserve my donations to the local shelter and to rescuing when I can. When anyone asks me if I'd like to make a donation, I smile and say "No, thanks. I have my own."

I found out about a year ago the truth behind where all the donations I made were going. In defending themselves I have read Mr. Pacelle state they do not state they are associated with local Humane Society shelters, however they don't exactly go out of their way to tell you they are not. It's only when you actually start asking why your local HS shelter is constantly in need of money that you realize your money goes to the big corporate machine. It's beyond sneaky on their part.

Where do I donate my pet-dedicated dollars? My local shelter gets my time four times a year for feral cat spay/neuter days. My alma mater gets money for its shelter medicine program. I give to Environment Florida for wildlife advocacy. And I buy "goats" every year to give as holiday presents through Heifer International.

What you have stated is true of most national organizations. Last I checked, one of the few that's not like this is the Girl Scouts with their cookies, with the majority of the dollars made staying local.

So yes, before I donate, I always ask how the money will be used LOCALLY. From Govt to charities, when the umbrella gets bigger, efficiency is decreased and bureaucracy is increased. That's the reality of any charity or organization. Wife and I give quite a bit to charity but I can say with confidence that over 95% of it is LOCAL! The reason has been demonstrated in this blog post.

It's good that you bring this information to everyone's attention. This is the same situation with the American Heart Association and the Red Cross (and so many others out there). People feel they are helping a good cause, when really their monies are going to pad someone's pockets and everywhere else but where they think the money is going.

Donate to your local shelter with pet food, blankets, cleaning supplies, etc. This way you'll know your donation is truly helping the pets that really need it.

Does anyone have thoughts about Best Friends Animal Sanctuary (No More Homeless Pets) in Utah? www.bestfriends.org. I've donated to them in the past but have not researched to know where their monies are applied. Seems legit.

Best Friends is also on the AR bandwagon. A lot of much smaller organizations are riding on HSUS coattails, and support their agenda.

Whether all these smaller organizations understand what they are supporting is an interesting question; at least some of them are almost certainly being duped by the facade of 'kindness' broadcast by the ARA organizations, but support is support.

I wouldn't give them a nickel.

The HSUS has taken over 5 animal rescue centers - 2 horse rescues and 3 wildlife rescues, including the Wildlife Care Center in Ft. Lauderdale where I used to work. I wonder if the HSUS took over these shelters just to say that they really do good works for the animals.

Even if your local shelters seem to be serving the community, it may not be what you think. I used to volunteer for a privately run shelter. They consistently take dogs from out-of-state, while turning away local people who want to surrender their pets. The reasoning for this practice is that the shelter wants to accept only those animals with a record of vaccinations. I understand the practice, especially since there have been devastating outbreaks of distemper in the past. My problem is that most people donating to this shelter believe they are helping local animals in need.

You hit the nail on the head there, I think. When people started protesting that HSUS was NOT financing animal care, I suspect it worried them. For a while, their employees whose job it is to troll the forums and 'correct' our perceptions of being duped were adamantly insisting that these sanctuaries 'proved' their commitment to animal care. It does not; the Black Beauty Horse Sanctuary willed to them by an animal lover misled by their marketing was mothballed for years; the animals their maintained but no new ones accepted.

However, notice that these are not rehoming facilities. When an animal is consigned to a sanctuary, it will never again have a home with an individual, committed, loving owner. For some animals this is appropriate and necessary, but not for the majority.I would hope that they are releasing animals from the wildlife sanctuaries they own, but their goal is to eliminate domestic animals, and when those animals are in a sanctuary controlled by them, they will never leave them alive.

You may not have noticed that they demand the destruction of *all* pit bulls confiscated in raids. Often their demand is met, but the pitbull rescues which managed to liberate the Vick dogs was able to rehabilitate and place many, if not most of them. However, this was an exception, the dogs are generally killed immediately.

This is HSUS 'humane' way of treating animals.

Give locally. Or to breed rescue, if that's your thing. Dr. K, thank you for spreading the word. There's so much more than even what you wrote. But don't be surprised - when the HSUS droids get wind of this column, you'll be plastered with comments about how Humane Watch is run by terrible people. That's their MO - attack the messenger. And I concede that the people behind Humane Watch may not have the same agenda we do. Still, their FACTS are verifiable, and FACTS are the issue, not the people who publish them. I have quite a few stories that did not come from Humane Watch that by themselves would stop me from ever sending a dime to HSUS.

Also, I'll wager that you get a nasty letter from the HSUS legal department. That's also their MO. Stick to your guns.

GIVE LOCALLY.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!!!!!! I have been a member of HumaneWatch from almost its inception and the truth needs to get out to the general public, so those who want their money to go to a PAC and not to animals can donate to them and let those who really want to help animal shelters can donate to local shelters. Anything that you can do to help this is greatly appreciated by many people.

I had sort of known this about the HSUS but wondered about the part from which I get separate letters "The Legislative fund". I have donated more so specifically to the eradication of puppy mills. Am I making a mistake? Our local humane society had a major donater (Wayne Huzenga in Broward County, Fla.) I know they can always use more and I do donate to them, but wondered if my money would be more well spent donating to a local more privately run rescue like Cats Exclusive.

I had an inconceivable conversation with a recently-retired animal cruelty investigator last year.

In which she insisted that her state humane society (or a large one in the state's largest city that bears the state's name, in any event) was a "chapter" of the HSUS -- "It's the national group."

No, no, I kept insisting, but she kept trying to make me prove a negative.

Her evidence that the HSUS was the mothership was that they seemed to sponsor classes from time to time. On things like how to conduct a dogfighting raid.

"Did they charge you a lot for those classes?"

"Oh, yes." Of course, her employer (local law enforcement, aka the taxpayers) paid.

I still don't think she believes me.

On their "about us" page I just found the following sentence up top:

"We are not affiliated with any other humane society and we rely entirely on private donations for everything we do."

I can see why they have to say that.

Same trip, members of a local humane society told me they were seriously pondering a name change to SPCA or something to avoid the taint of "humane society."

I'm not down with the ASPCA's fundraising tactics either.

They run ONE shelter, in New York City, that serves New York City.

And they advertise on cable teevee everywhere, and relentlessly. They do not mention that their jurisdiction is rather limited.

So the local underfunded animal shelter once again gets hosed while donor dollars go to the perceived mothership

Did you know HSUS now runs training classes (at carriage trade rates, no doubt) for ACOs?

And of course, they wrote the most widely used kill manual, together with their shelter policies manuals.

http://bermanexposed.org/

Might want to check on HumaneWatch... from what I understand it was founded and is run by a D.C. lobbyist who is hired to form organizations like this to protect his corporate interests. Corporate interests like big beef/chicken industry who stand to lose big by the kinds of pro animal welfare legislation that the HSUS works so hard to achieve.

I've been involved in animal rescue for a long time, and have worked with HSUS, and admire their work. Shelters are a bandaid for a huge problem, legislation fixes these problems at their source.

Don't kill the messenger.


If you want to continuing to rescue animals, to own pets, to eat a vegetarian or omniverous diet, you don't want to support HSUS.

HSUS is an extremist *vegan* organization, which would have us all eat nothing but vegetable foods - no animal protein of any kind whatever, not even dairy, eggs or honey. They are committed to eliminate livestock farming altogether, as well as pet ownership. Their position is that the sooner domestic animals are extinct, the better. "One generation and out ..." Pacelle (CEO, HSUS) has said. He meant it then, in the 90s, and he means it now.

If they said any of this half as loudly and publicly as they proclaim their commitment to 'end animal suffering', they would get no support whatever. The truth is that their goal to 'end animal suffering' is to be met by ending all animal ownership and use.

So far as corporate farming is concerned, I don't like it either, though for better and different reasons than most people, but despite HSUS' claims, it is the medium and small traditional operations they are targeting, not BigAg. When there are no knowledgable livestock farmers left to pick up the pieces of their very destructive agenda, then, and only then, will they take on BigAg.

This is exactly what they have been doing to dog breeders in this country, and their bid through APHIS to force the rest of the sound, conscientious hobby breeders into USDA licensing and the regulations thus required is proof of that. They have been pounding the 'puppy mill' issue for decades, a term which to most people originally meant the high volume commercial breeders licensed and overseen by the USDA. However, they have successfully taught the naive public to believe that all breeders are 'puppy mills', and now they are going to make sure that the public sees them that way by forcing them to use the high volume commercial breeding model or quit breeding altogether. Most of them can neither afford nor will be willing to stop raising their dogs underfoot in favor of concrete and stainless steel, which is what is essentially being demanded. Once they force the remaining breeders out (most will opt out) and the rest under USDA oversight, APHIS will eliminate them all, one by one, under the happy auspices of Sarah Conant - an attorney hired by APHIS straight from the HSUS platoon of lawyers to head up the *new* enforcement division. This hire was both illegal and a conflict of interest, but the government is no less misled than its constituents, and they don't pay much attention to their own regulations where USDA and FDA hires are concerned anyway. But that is a different consideration.

Ms. Conant's goons have already started decimating small stock owners, and unless people start paying attention, not only rabbits but cows, chickens, pigs, cows and steers will be designated as 'pets', where they can be 'protected' from being raised for wool, eggs, dairy and meat.

CCF is not only working for BigAg, they are also working for the small, diversified, traditional farmer. Yes, no doubt they are being financed by BigAg, but the money has to come from somewhere, and it's nice to see them using it on our behalf for a change, instead of squirreling it away in the Caymens.

Humane Watch offers facts and documentation.

rosiew, "The legislative fund" is a separate PAC set up so that the HSUS can circumvent the rules governing 501(c)3 charitable non-profits.

Your donations to it are NOT tax-deductible, so be careful with your taxes, because YOU will get in trouble for taking a deduction, even if you were completely sincere in your belief that you were donating to a charity.

As for what the money goes to "fighting puppy mills" sounds good, but is not the robust reality.

If you love animals and like having them as your companions, you probably would not like the actual legislation that your donations went to sponsor.

I'll bogart this thread with a link to a post of my own about HSUS and actual animal rescue:

http://cynography.blogspot.com/2009/12/seized-and-saved.html

Thank you for a most excellent and balanced representation of the facts.

And, bourbonred and the HSUS paid apologists notwithstanding, the facts speak for themselves, no matter where you get them (and I had obtained the facts separately years before HumaneWatch was a twinkle in anyone's eye - it's not like they're hard to get, even before the days that the internet was everywhere - if you don't want to listen to HumaneWatch, and that's perfectly understandable, do the research yourself).

It's when someone can't argue with the facts that they start in with the arguments ad hominem, hoping that that will distract from the facts that you can't deny are true. That's been very clearly HSUS's main response to the facts being brought to light, and that very behavior speaks volumes in and of itself.

Thanks for posting this. I did not realize they were not associated with local shelters. With that said, my friend volunteers for them when they aid in disasters and raids. She was at Katrina where they rescued and found the owners of numerous animals. She's also been at several puppy mill raids as a volunteer for HSUS. (http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/animal_rescue/)

I know these organizations, while they may have their benefits, do sometimes tend to become bloated bureaucratic lobby machines. But, just so everyone knows, not everyone who works or volunteers for HSUS are "nutjobs who don't want anyone to have pets." There is a segment of HSUS that does a lot of good at the local level.

I understand the points made against the HSUS, but isn't legislation a good thing? Are you saying it isn't truly in the interest of the animals? I thought the HSUS was about education and awareness and ASPCA the people on the front line, conducting the actual rescues, raids, gathering evidence for court cases. What are the merits of HSUS and ASPCA? I have given to both as well as local rescues.

Their legislation is all aimed at limiting (and ultimately eliminating) anmal ownership. You might want to read my other posts, one of which offers an example of how this is BAD for pets.

They also seek to end livestock agriculture with their 'protective' legislation.

Do you support those things?

Bear in mind, they don't have to outright outlaw pet keeping or livestock farming or any other animal activity. All they have to do is make it impossible in practical terms to do it.

How much can you afford to pay for a dozen eggs? A pound of hamburger? A can (or bag) of dog food? A bale of hay?

Consider the effect of unintended consequences. On your part, probably, but certainly not on theirs. They know perfectly well what they are doing, they stated their intention to use the system to impose their mandate on the rest of us decades ago.

The committed, extremist vegans who run the AR organizations understand that they are only 2% of the population, and that to meet their goals, they need the support of the rest. To that end, they are willing to do whatever is necessary. To them, the end justifies the means.

Here is a comment to APHIS, in support of their new regulations (still nearly two weeks to comment):

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-3677

This lays out the program pretty explicitly. It's unlikely in the extreme that HSUS approved it - note that she freely admits to being one of that 2%.

In general, I support your thesis. BUT, organizations that lobby or use other means to influence public policy at all levels of government are vital. EVERY industry you can name -- including those which profit from animal cruelty -- lobbies to get laws and policies that favor them. EarthJustice has a great slogan: "Because the earth needs a good lawyer." Animals do, too. The question is, is HSUS effective in securing laws and policies we like? If so, they deserve your money because the law and policy changes eventually filter down to the local shelter level. If not, if they are as Dr. Khuly suggests, a "PETA in sheep's clothing," then give that money to your local shelter. I live in DC, not far from HSUS lobby shop on Capitol Hill. And my money goes to the local humane society and the Washington Animal Rescue League. BTW, I work for a major green group (you would know the name) so I understand public policy and why orgs must engage it.

BTW, the Wall Street Journal reported a few years ago that Wayne Purcell who runs HSUS, worked with loathsome former Senator Rick Santorum (PA) on one issue. Santorum may have been on the correct side of that issue but in general, he was so retrograde (including anti-gay) that the HSUS involvment with him ended any chance that I would give them money again.

He did, but his name is Wayne Pacelle :-)

Good work, though!

I am appauled! This has been a charity I have been donating to for years. This a PETA. I have been duped. Thank you for letting the "cat out of the bag"
Kathy Bohs

ps: what exactly does the HSUS and PETA do? Do they do anything to help all our animals?

Don't trust Humane Watch, check out this link which includes a video from a news organization.

http://ar-hr.com/hsus-expose-wsb-tv/wsb-tv-had-it-right-about-the-hsus/

As to all the "legislation is good!" comments, there's a few issues with that stance.

First you need to look at just what has been lobbied by HSUS including the end of horse slaughterhouses, mandatory spay/neuter, breed profiling, anti-breeder laws and pet limits. Not only are none of these beneficial to animals, they actually cause harm.

Second, keep in mind that the HSUS is a registered CHARITY and therefore has NO BUSINESS lobbying.

Here's a list of "in the works" legislation:

http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/legislation/111th-congress-humane-agenda-1.pdf

How does the HSUS keep it's 501(c)3 status? Good question. Here's the IRS link re: lobbying charities.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

@ Equine DVM;
I'd ammend your second point; You're painting with an overly-broad brush, and one not supported by any cited evidence. Instead, I'd suggest the following sentence:

"Investigate your local rescues before donating. While most do good work, some are poorly organized fronts for borderline animal collectors."



@ happypetmom and mharding01;
Legistlation, in and of itself, is NOT a good thing. Legislative mandates needs to be specific, effective, enforcable, funded, and fair before they become "Good." The OBJECTIVE of the legislation needs to be examined, too.

Onerous, unfunded, unenforcable or ill-conceived legislation is NOT good. The HSUS has sponsored Breed-Specific Legislation like the anti-Pit Bull legistation in Miami-Dade that our good host was lamenting in her last post. HSUS has even weighed in in favor of extremist anti-breeding legislation aimed at ending ALL breeding - Not just puppy mills, but also of reputable, responsible breeders.

Cite: http://www.lovedoesnotdiscriminate.com/2007/02/which_groups_su.html

I made a donation to HSUS when they were working with Katrina dogs, because my company would match the donation. I got their materials in the mail and I don't think they were particularly deceptive - they seem to be mostly working on advocacy for protection of animals, not sheltering and rescue. But I think they waste a lot of money on marketing, especially sending me junk I don't want or need like mugs, pens and note pads.

I mostly support local rescue organizations, those I know through their volunteers or through people who have adopted pets from them. Without these organizations thousands of pets would never be adopted, as our shelters are overcrowded and high-kill. I give my time as a volunteer to the municipal shelter.

I will also put in a good word for Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Utah. I know people who have been there in person and seen the positive work they're doing, AND, they have a local organization here in LA which does a lot to support the shelter and rescue community, including taking some of the hard-to-place pets into their rescue. They have been involved in other important efforts including rescuing pets stranded after Hurricane Katrina, rehabilitating some of the Michael Vick dogs, sponsoring spay/neuter campaigns and other educational efforts.

Wow, had no idea about all of this! Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention.

This Humane Watch is nothing more than a front for agriculture and other interests counter to the HSUS. Don't get me wrong, the HSUS sure does leave a lot of ammo out there for Humane watch to use, but still, the point is Humane Watch's objective isn't to expose HSUS so as to help humane animal causes. Rather it is mud slinging so they can drive HSUS off of their objective.

I'm not going to say that the HSUS is perfect. Pacelle has said some pretty wacky things, and they have made some pretty horrendous mistakes in the past.

However, quoting Rick "I'll say anything for money" Berman's websites is not going to win you any points in terms of respectable journalism. It's not too far from quoting the Tobacco Institute in an article about second hand smoke.

Take a look at what else the CCF says in their other websites. For example, the obesity problem in America is apparently a hoax perpetrated by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Also, thanks to funding from the American Beverage Council, we can finally find out that ignition interlocks for DUI offenders are not a good idea after all. How about the "fact" that there really isn't all that much mercury in fish (paid for by Gortmans and Red Lobster), or that there is NOTHING wrong with High Fructose Corn Syrup (Coca Cola, Monsanto, and a few others in the Corn biz).

It is NOT illegal for 501c3 not for profit (NPO) organizations to lobby to achieve public policy ends or get legislation passed though there are IRS limitations on that activity. Some big NPOs start separate 501c4 organizations to lobby as they have much more latitude; accordingly, contributions to such organizations are NOT tax-exempt. (BTW, 501c3 and 501c4 refer to sections of IRS regulations.)

MaskMan: I do not require an explanation that not all laws are good. I never said that every piece of legislation supported by HSUS is good. Try reading what I wrote and not filtering it it through what you "think" (using that term loosely).

Yep, quite true.

However, HSUS lobbies well in excess of the limits of it's charter and is under IRS investigation for same.

And it also runs an outright lobbying 501c4 organization too.

Dr. Khuly, I agree that people need to make informed choices about where their donations go. However, you have been deceived by HumaneWatch misrepresentations, and have done a grave disservice to animals in the process.

HumaneWatch is a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an appalling organization founded with money from Phillip Morris. It later expanded to attack MADD, CSPI, and any public interest organization that corporations find inconvenient.

HumaneWatch and CCF are scams masquerading as charities. They funnel more than a million dollars of their $1.5 million in corporate donations into the pockets of Rick Berman. They lobby aggressively for unrestricted use of animals as entertainment, for removal of government restrictions on the use of diseased animals in slaughterhouses, and for wider use of animal in medical experiments... and this is who you have chosen to side with?

This year's target for CCF is HSUS, because HSUS has been tremendously effective in promoting change nationwide. They have helped to shut down disgusting puppy mills, slaughterhouses that put terminally ill "downer" cows into the meat served to schools, and similar abuses.

Donations to HSUS are used to promote legislation, education, and long-term goals in addition to the short-term goal of shelters. HSUS establishes standards for shelters, provides training programs, and provides millions in support for spay and neuter programs, veterinary services for low-income communities, and much more.

I'm not affiliated with HSUS, by the way, but I strongly support what they do. I've done my homework, and Dr. Khuly, I wish you had done yours more carefully.

I urge everyone reading this to do their homework. Learn what HSUS actually *does* and not what corporate-funded smear campaigns say they should be doing. When you see past the disinformation parroted by puppy mill owners and CCF sock puppets, and see all of the good HSUS has accomplished over the years and continues to accomplish, you will understand why HSUS is deserving of your ongoing support.

-- John Doppler Schiff

John, we know what they do.

They dump all their 'rescues' into underfunded overcroowded public kill shelters and abandon them there. After the cameras stop rolling, of course.

They adamantly OPPOSE no-kill sheltering.

They lobby incessantly for animal ownership limitation laws and ordinances, which is where the largest portion of their income goes.

As well as the other things I, and many others have observed just on this blog.

Remind us .. how do any of these things help or protect animals?

Perhaps you missed the link I provided... the IRS... stating that "In addition, it (501c exempted organization) may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

It's a FACT that the HSUS spent far more of its resources lobbying than actually helping animals.

It's also a FACT that the HSUS has a documented history of using fundraising tactics that could be described as unethical at best. The use of the Vick dogs, and Fay are just a few examples.

The HSUS has become an indefensible organization, and doesn't deserve a dime unless you agree with mandatory spay/neuter and breed specific legislation (and arguably the end of dog breeding). In that case, carry on.

...that legislation is fundamental and that HSUS serves a purpose. The point of this post is not even about Humane Watch (which may well deserve some––if not all––of the barbs that have been aimed at it in this thread). Rather, this post is about the basic misperception that exists on what it is HSUS does. Period. I buy it based on my experience. Evidence: At least five comments from previously unaware potential donors. 'Nuff said.

>>I'd ammend your second point; You're painting with an overly-broad brush and one not supported by any cited evidence.>>

Sorry, but over ten years' experience dealing with local "rescues" (vs. local animal shelters) has made me wary. I've seen "rescues" repeatedly take money from caring donors and use it to support their own animal habits. This is an especially common problem with large animal rescues. I know of three in my region alone that have been closed down by local animal control because the "rescued" animals were neglected and in two cases, actually starved.

I would not donate to any "rescue" that is not an established registered 501c3 charity - and even so, I'd still check it out before sending money.

That's why I tend to support the two charities I mentioned (Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation and Standardbred Retirement Foundation), on a local and national level.

One more point: please support your local shelter even if it's not "no kill". Shelters generally prefer NOT to euthanize and have more success placing animals when they have funding for socializing animals, better facilities to show adoptable pets, etc.

Well, you may not be dealing with these things much longer. HSUS and ASPCA are turning on their own; they are now raiding almost as many rescues as breeders, and if they haven't got to the horse rescues on your patch yet, they will soon.

It's only a matter of time.

BTW - What do you plan to do when there are no horses to doctor?

@ Equine DVM;
"...over ten years' experience dealing with local "rescues"..."

And I can cite opposite and opposing personal experience.

Whilst I certainly won't dispute your LOCAL eperience, I'm plugged into a vast network of Rescues and rescue resources - We *talk* to each - and while there *are* bad eggs out there, we quickly learn whom they are. Then again, some "legitimate" shelters also are known to have horror stories associated with them. And yes, I can provide *anecdotes* backing that observation - But I certainly wouldn't use those horror stories to slander an entire category of operations, no matter how appalled I am by the individual cases.

The uncited, unqualified assertion that rescue operations are fronts for hoarders is seriously damaging to the majority whom are there to to serve their particular species or breed of animal and are doing so in good faith. I hear it repeatedly, but never once with any kind of cited analysis - Only *anecdotal* statements. As a medical professional, I'd think you'd understand the necessity of citation - not anecdotes - for broad-brush assertions where public reputation is at question.



That said, the rest of your points in your recent post are extremely well taken. No legitimate rescue should object to investigation, and should be able to show their 501c3 certification. In fact, I'd say that in general one should *never* donate to a charity until it's been investigated carefully. Especially in this day and age, with money so tight, it's crucial to make sure charity funds are spent carefully.

Local shelters - even "kill" shelters - most CERTAINLY deserve support. Times are hard, and as I've said many times in my blog, volunteer hours and donations are WAY down. Even if all you can donate are a pair of willing hands, there are always things that need doing, from simple scrubbing of facilities, to doing laundry, to inventorying supplies, to processing paperwork - The more you can volunteer, the more likely there'll be resources available; resources that might even reduce the kill-rate.

Just to clarify my last post - 501cs are not immune to being raided.

Raids are conducted against the vulnerable, without regard to their quality. Even good rescues can hit rough spots.

@ treefinder;

The Missaukee County Humane Society is a great no kill shelter close to where I live. Thank you for helping support our local animals in need.

I have recommended your blog to many and this is certainly making me second think that. How much research did you do on HumaneWatch and its statistics? Are you aware of what type of organization HumaneWatch is? Are you aware it is a front for industrialized farming and puppy mills. I have seen you come down on pet stores and puppy mills too many times to believe you condone that type of thinking, so I'm forced to believe you did no research. Please tell me that is the case, otherwise I won't be reading your blog anymore. Do you know Rick Berman? Have you watched the Rachel Maddow clip regarding him and "confused facts?" Have you read postings to HumaneWatch. It is interesting to see how many people join this very non-credible group on Facebook believing it is an organization that favors humane treatment, only to find out otherwise. Those of us who have stayed on it trying to get some facts in occasionally have been banned from posting comments -- that's a good example of the open-mindedness and belief in free speech this group has. I am so, so sorry to think you will now be associated with this group. If it's what you want, please let us know so I can quietly go away.

Anybody wonder WHY this organization called "humanewatch" just recently popped up? Why this smear campaign against the HSUS is happening? Who's paying for those expensive newspaper ads and all of the viral marketing, including some slick, professionally produced youtube videos, aimed at denigrating the HSUS?
When you think about the business reasons -- MONEY -- behind why somebody would want to hurt the HSUS, the light bulb goes off. Whatever the HSUS is doing is hurting somebody's bottom line. One reason for the recent onslaught against the HSUS is because of their exposure of the puppy mills. There was the show on Oprah to raise public awareness about mills, the source of most pet store puppies (and profits) with the HSUS involved. Almost weekly there's a huge puppy mill raid, with the HSUS often there to manage the rescued and farm them out to local rescues. The HSUS also publicizes these raids nationally -- to increase awareness of the dogs suffering for years on end. There are HUGE legislative battles being fought, state by state, to crack down on puppy mills, to increase inspections, to limit the # of dogs a mill can operate with. In fact, Missouri has a ballot initiative for the fall to do just that. We all know Missouri is the puppy mill capitol of the US. It's no coincidence that this anti-HSUS propoganda machine is happening at the same time. Who makes $$ off these puppy mills? Petland. The AKC. Vets. The Hunte Corp. I'd be curious to see who's funding humanewatch and all of the other viral websites the "center for consumer freedom" lobbying organization spits out. We may never see who pays the center for consumer freedom, but it sure doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Slick professionally edited videos? Don't make me laugh - PeTA and HSUS used them first.

Do you consider shooting video for *months* to get a 5 minute - or less - clip to be legitimate? That's how it's done by HSUS and PeTA. When they can't find legitimate abuse, they not only have no qualms about committing it themselves, in at least one documented case HSUS *held* evidence of abuse for nearly three months to release it not to the authorities, but to the media just before a legislative session where one of their B.A.D. laws was being presented.

Do you seriously support this?

PeTA, HSUS and ASPCA *all* target grade schools with their propaganda. Is that ethical in your book?

Humane Watch is based on hard documentation, public records being the base for their archives.

You don't like their funding? I'd say it's time BigAG chipped in to protect not only themselves but US, OUR diets and OUR choice to own animals.

HSUS on the other hand uses funds it solicits from animal lovers to lobby for laws that work against them. Isn't that great? They take money intended for the care of animals to legislate against animal care and ownership.

Intentional or not, that's what you are supporting when you support the AR organizations.

Dr K, you should've cited your good friends over at petconnection, they've been exposing the questionable tactics of HSUS for some time.

And yes, humanewatch is a front group for big ag lobbying, however, they seem to be the only ones making big waves in pointing out some truths about HSUS. I'm sorry that I do pay even the slightest bit of attention to humanewatch especially with all the farm propaganda (they probably give $ to produce) I have to hear on the local radio everyday. I admit I do hold my nose when i read their stuff posted on facebook.

And I'm not anti-farmer, I'm from western KS, and now live in a small town in IL. I have relatives and know people that farm. No "factory farming" with them. Modern farming has serious issues and consequences, but instead of admitting there are problems, they propagandize everything as against the "small farmer".

But the truth about HSUS does need to come out. People need to know what their money is being used for when giving to any charity. Do they do some good, yes. As a national charity they have resources a local group could never have. But the grunt work of rescue and sheltering is being locally. The big dog bust in MO, HSUS helped some, but it was the locally shelter that had to take care of those dogs. Big rabbit bust in MO, a St. Louis area shelter took care of it. A MO dog had mutilated face from dogfighting, HSUS used that dogs picture & story even though they had no involvement in her care. They only offered to send $ when they were outed. The misrepresented their involvement with the Vick dogs so they could use the opportunity to fundraise. Now they've partnered with Vick, who bankrolled the criminal dogfighting operation and participated in the fighting and killing.

Please, please, please Dr. K, a little more research and depth next time.

Wait - when has Humane watch critized small farmers?? I missed that one.

In exposing HSUS and its minions, it is actually *protecting* small and medium sized farms, because HSUS can scream about CAFO and industrialized farming all it likes, but their targets (at this stage) are the smaller, traditional farms.

This is what they've done to dog breeders. They've used the USDA licensed and overseen high volume commercial breeders to demonize all breeding, and successfully decimated the small conscientious *hobby* breeders by that tactic.

The reality is that the state laws they most often have used against 'CAFO' and 'puppy mills' have no control over USDA licensed and overseen operations. The very few exceptions have little impact.

Of course, now HSUS has successfully infiltrated the Federal government, and true to form, are starting with the small stock operators - they are actively persecuting rabbit producers and hobby farmers with small, diverse stock. BigAg is happy to support this in pursuit of their monopoly, probably because they believe they have the resources to successfully fight them. At the moment that's no doubt true, but whether it will be true when the small operations are gone is another question. By then the probability is that people will be as convinced that the only possible livestock production management is cruel and abusive as they are that dog breeding is cruel and abusive, and they will support the end of meat, dairy and egg production.

The Animal Rights movement has been working to this end, and using these tactics for forty years or more. They are now seeing the seeds of their deceitful labours coming to fruition.

They are nothing if not patient.

Just have to say, in regards to the american heart association, the day they put lucky charms in their database as a heart healthy cereal, was the day I completely stopped listening to them.

Whether or not Berman and HumanWatch are scurrilous and slimy, the info they give about where and how HSUS spends its money is fact-based (unlike the heartstring-tugging, emotion-based tripe on the HSUS' web site). Don't believe me? Download the HSUS' tax forms and take a look.

HSUS Hillary (one of the HSUS' paid spokesmodels) likes to pop in on any and all discussions like this and say things like what has been posted above and like this (paraphrased):

* The HSUS does not claim to be affiliated with local shelters.

To which I reply: Maybe not, but they do not go out of their way to correct this misunderstanding, and they use their "muscle" to try to keep smaller groups from clarifying the point. Don't believe me? See: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=2318 which also has stuff about some of HSUS' most egregious deceptive fund-raising practices.

* This is clear from our website. You should take the time to research any charity before donating.

Here's a better idea: how about if HSUS starts to advertise itself for what it actually IS? What would be wrong with that? Instead, the general public of animal lovers gets bombarded with heart-wrenching television commercials that provide a URL, NOT for the organization's general web site or home page. No, the would-be donor gets sent directly to a web form to fill in to donate. Ka-ching.

I warned you there would be a bunch of attacks on the messenger when you cited HumaneWatch. However, I am not affiliated with them in any way, but was thrilled to see that they have been educating the public with FACTS about HSUS.

HSUS would not need to attack the messenger if it could attack the facts.

HSUS would not need to bring motives into the discussion if it could refute the facts.

Facts refute facts. 'Nuff said.

Don't listen to the HSUS on Humanewatch - listen to the
National Federation of Humane Societies on what they say about Humanewatch:

Dixon is president of the 60-member National Federation of Humane Societies, an umbrella group for the individual shelters. Last month, the federation sent a letter to the Center for Consumer Freedom urging it to cease its "smear campaign."

Dixon said the group's campaign is trying to undermine the Humane Society's work to outlaw cruel treatment of animals, especially farm animals

The campaign distracts from the real work of humane societies across the country, Dixon said, and casts doubt about everyone's work.

http://www.startribune.com/local/96226034.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUss

Uh .. most humane societies have bought in to HSUS' rhetoric, and believe everything negative the activists say about animal owners and pet breeders. They got on the bandwagon early; what abuse and neglect there is the see, because they are squarely in it's path.

They are not objective.

The CCF doesn't provide facts - They claim donors are confused but their study is of the general public. Using this logic of survey methods, if I did a survey of the general public and 90% couldn't define Brachycephalic, I could say vets couldn't define the concept because they are part of the general public

But the CCF isn't Humane Watch. Yes, they fund it, but they are not it.

Again: The point of this post is not about Humane Watch (which may well deserve some––if not all––of the barbs that have been aimed at it in this thread). Rather, this post is about the basic misperception that exists on what it is HSUS does. Period.

But yes, y'all have a point on the Humane Watch thing. I've been reading more of the umbrella organization's message points on other subjects. Stinks.

So a big mea culpa for dragging Humane Watch into it. But I will qualify: It does seem to me that these stats have little to do with the org funding it if the poll was undertaken by an independent body and the questions were written as quoted above.

We cite Humane Watch because they provide facts and documentation, not because we support everything CCF supports.

Those of us who have been watching HSUS for thirty years or more have been trying to expose them, with little effect because they are widely considered to be the 'experts' (self styled), so our criticisms have gone unheard. That doesn't make them invalid.

Humane Watch has been a godsend, in that it has the size and funding to do what no individual could - and coupled with facebook, they have been able to reach many more people than any individual could hope to.

They are a new factor in the fight, and one that has been desperately needed for a long time - if we want to keep our animals and our diets. This issue is much bigger than whether or not we get to keep one, small, sterile dog - it's also about whether we can continue to choose a diet which supports our health as individuals.

You know, I really wish that the HSUS apologists would simply address the FACTS (that have been facts long before Berman or CCF or HumaneWatch ever hit the internet).

Instead, they seem to feel compelled to make it all about HumaneWatch rather than about the FACTS about HSUS. Does anybody wonder why that is? I mean, yes, granted, it's an old, established tactic when you've lost the argument or have no way to deny the facts, but it's also really, really, really obvious.

There's a really easy way for HSUS to address the problem of people thinking that their donations are going to care for the animals in their commercials. First, stop using animals in their advertising that they did not actively support with funds and work for the duration of the rehabilitation and rehoming period, or pay ALL of the expenses necessary for such rehabilitation and rehoming on any animals that they claim to have been involved in the rescue, making sure that ALL FUNDS raised due to solicitations based on such advertising go to that purpose, period - and let an independent (meaning, having ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HSUS) party determine if euthanasia is appropriate in a very few cases.

Or, more reasonably, leave those photos and those animals out of their advertising and instead have photos of lobbyists in Washington and other places working to support legislation and specify exactly what that legislation is.

Either one would go a long way towards regaining credibility (though it's going to be a very long row to hoe to do that, it seems).

Plus, get rid of anyone in HSUS who has prior involvement at an administrative level or above with PETA. That would actually seem to be the first step towards regaining credibility. Of course, I suspect the halls of HSUS would be echoingly empty if that were done, based on following the personnel and the money (and the agendas) back and forth between the two.

But, remember, NONE of this is about HumaneWatch. It's all about HSUS, and the facts, and that's where the focus should be. Every time someone tries to defend HSUS by talking about nothing but HumaneWatch, they've just proved that HSUS has no real defense against the facts.

Their administration includes not only ex PeTA members, but also members of more violent and extremist parts of the movement. Pacelle himself was involved with one of them.

To reform the organization would mean pretty much replacing ALL their personnel; their management and administration is comprised almost wholly of purist vegans. Pacelle made the entire home office a vegan institution when he took over as CEO, apparently with little protest.

It seems unlikely that a reform approach would be a waste of resources better directed at exposing and discrediting them.

HSUS' "response" to dogfighting busts here in NC has been to insist to the judicial system and local authorities that all dogs regardless of age be euthanized as too agressive. My rescue was one of many who volunteered to both evaluate and take possession of young dogs and pups (at a minimum) from a bust west of us. Knowing the success of Best Friends with the Vick dogs we were stoked to be helping a breed most of us love.

Imagine our amazement when HSUS not only insisted even new pups be euth'd but they filed briefs stating that NO other groups would take them! Even more telling, the local authorities who had looked to HSUS for guidance arranged for the judge's ruling to be done with less than 1 hour's notice so groups who wished to file (directly or as friend of the court) did not make the deadline. Few of us were able with our out of pocket funding to have lawyers on the ground on site in the small town 24/7; HSUS did and they won. Every single dog euthanized. They were so proud, they crow it was a victory!

Moreso, read about the fight Best Friends itself had keeping the Vick dogs alive. NOW HSUS claims that as a win, but THEY were the ones trying to kill the dogs!

http://network.bestfriends.org/10099/news.aspx

From the link:

Coalition Urges HSUS To Revise Fighting-dog Policy

February 19, 2009, 4:22PM MT
By Cheri Moon

Current policy states dogs should automatically be destroyed if seized from dog-fighting bust

By Best Friends Staff

The court-ordered destruction Monday of 145 dogs, including about 75 puppies, which were seized from a fighting dog breeding operation in December, was based on the faulty assumption that all dogs seized in dog-fighting related busts should arbitrarily be deemed dangerous and euthanized.

Current HSUS Policy is 20 years old
The decision to kill the dogs was supported by the largest animal welfare organization in the country, the Humane Society of the United States. Representatives of HSUS testified in Wilkes County Superior Court that the dogs had to be destroyed because they had been “bred for generations to be aggressive.” HSUS reasserted its outdated policy, written more than 20 years ago: “Any dog who has been specifically bred or conditioned for fighting, or for which there is evidence that the dog has been used for fighting should not be placed for adoption by an animal shelter but humanely euthanized as soon as legally possible.”

A Best Friends Animals Society-led coalition offered resources to the county for evaluation, spay/neuter, and support in finding homes for qualified dogs. These animal welfare organizations, which have extensive experience with rescued fighting dogs, urged Wilkes County to accept their offer of support for an alternative approach, such as was used in the Michael Vick case. The coalition includes BAD RAP (Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls), Animal Farm Foundation, Villa Lobos Rescue Center, Downtown Dog Rescue, The Sula Foundation and Our Pack.

Michael Vick Dogs Prove HSUS Policy Antiquated
“We are disheartened and shocked that HSUS, a leader in the animal welfare community, would testify in court for the automatic destruction of puppies and dogs, who had not been given the opportunity to be evaluated as individuals, based on this policy. The Michael Vick dogs have proven how antiquated this approach is,” said Ledy VanKavage, an attorney with Best Friends Animal Society.

In 2006, HSUS advocated that all of the dogs from the Michael Vick dog fighting case be put down for the same reasons they used when recommending the killing of the Wilkes County pit bulls. In that case a federal court appointed a Special Master to oversee the evaluation of Vick’s dogs, all of which were adults. Many of the Vick dogs are now in adoptive homes, and at least two of the so-called “aggressive fighting dogs” are therapy dogs that visit hospitals to cheer up ailing patients.

“The coalition members and their supporters are urging HSUS to revaluate this policy and apply a more progressive approach that reflects the lessons learned by the animal welfare groups in the coalition, as well as other organizations that work directly with dogs,” VanKavage said.

Coalition Contacts:

? Best Friends Animal Society bestfriends.org
Barbara Williamson (435) 689-0200 (cell) (or) barbara@bestfriends.org

John Polis (435) 644-2001, ext. 4858 or johnp@bestfriends.org

? Animal Farm Foundation animalfarmfoundation.org
Stacey Coleman (845) 868-7559 (or) scoleman@animalfarmfoundation.org

? BAD RAP badrap.org
Donna Reynolds (510) 441-6461 (or) donna@badrap.org

? Downtown Dog Rescue downtowndogrescue.org
Lori Weise (213) 448-9961 (or) lori@modernica.net

? Our Pack www.ourpack.org
Marthina McClay (408) 460-4244 (or) marthina@ourpack.org

? The Sula Foundation sulafoundation.org
Ken Foster (504) 613-7370 (or) kenfoster@gmail.com

? Villa Lobos Rescue Center vrcpitbull.com/home.htm
Tia Maria Torres (661) 268-0555 (or) tiamaria@vrcpitbull.com

For More Information:
Read more about the dog fighting bust in North Carolina.

How You Can Help
Residents of North Carolina are urged to contact your state Senator, Representatives, and Senator Stan Bingham to request a redraft of North Carolina Statute NC 67-1 - 4.1 (a)(1).

Ask that the law be made stronger; however, insist on striking "b" from the definition of “Dangerous Dog” (remove “Any dog owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting, or any dog trained for dog fighting”).

Remember, all dogs are individuals and should be evaluated as such, not lumped together by group or breed.

Senator Stan Bingham
16 W. Jones Street, Room 2117
Raleigh, NC 27601-2808
Phone: 919-733-5665
E-mail: Stan.Bingham@ncleg.net

Find out who your state legislators are here, by inputting your zip code + 4 (scroll down page, right hand column).

Stock Photo by Clay Myers, Best Friends Staff
Posted by Cheri Moon, Best Friends Staff

You say we should listen to National Federation of Humane Societies, a group which represents 60 humane societies out of THOUSANDS of humane societies in our county. Nope. Given the ridiculous viewpoint espoused in the MN Star Tribune story, that group has zero credibility in my eyes.

I prefer to pay attention to the viewpoint of my LOCAL humane societies, and none of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit ones have any liking whatsoever for the HSUS. Time and time again, they get told at their adoption fairs and fund-raisers, "I already gave." Then it turns out that the person *really* donated money to HSUS, thinking it was going to filter down. One little old lady, living on a pension but donating monthly, literally started crying when she learned the truth.

And I couldn't help but notice that you did NOT quote from the third page of Star Trib story, namely this:

"We often hear, 'We gave to the national organization,'" said Lynae Gieseke, executive director of the Minnesota Valley Humane Society. "It's frustrating. I'd appreciate it if they didn't do direct-mail [fundraising] pieces here."

I think the point here (which i believe Dr. Khuly was trying to make) is to know where you give your money.

I work for a shelter- we educate people all the time that we're not affiliated with HSUS. Does that mean i think they don't do good work- no. I stand by most of their lobbying efforts (contrary to babysweet's assertation- abolishing horse slaughter does not hurt horses. it's just the first step towards valuing horses more in our society to give them a dignified death)

Sure HSUS could be more OBVIOUS about what they're raising funds for- but i don't think they should stop using animals in their advertising- but their wording should be changed - 'your money will help change laws that will prevent other animals from suffering in the same manner that this one has'

Again, how do ownership limitation laws help animals in any way?

That is what their laws at all levels do.

Ah, think again!

"it's just the first step towards valuing horses more in our society to give them a dignified death"

Nope, it's the first step to unlawful destruction of horse remains and slow starvation of old, sick horses. Old, sick horses who previously would have been sent to slaughter - who now simply rot in the field because their owners can't afford the insane costs that come with destroying and disposing of a horse.

See, once again, the FACTS are the opposite of your assertions.

"Sure HSUS could be more OBVIOUS about what they're raising funds for- but i don't think they should stop using animals in their advertising"

REALLY. That's what you think? So you think it's ok that the HSUS sucked money out of people who were horrified by the Vick dogs and wanted to help them to live normal lives - all the while not only having NOTHING TO DO with their rehab, but actually petitioning to have them all KILLED without even a behaviour assessment.

So you think it's ok that the HSUS sucked money out of people who were horrified by the state of Fay, a pitbull whose owner cut off her lips and who wanted to help her live a normal life... by sending out mailings with her picture and the line "She's alive because of you" - even though the HSUS had NOTHING AT ALL to do with her care, and only sent her money once the news went viral.

http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/12/04/hsus-fund-raising-pitch-raises-hackles/

This is not "not being more obvious", this is full out FRAUD. And the worst kind of fraud, because it's taking advantage of people who want nothing more than to help animals in need.

Animals in need? They only warranted .5% of the HSUS budget. That's not help, that's a token gesture by an organization that claims YOUR donation goes to HELPING ANIMALS.

The HSUS has used fundraising tactics that are downright unethical. In that arena, they are indefensible.

You know, as a vet, you know the difference between good sources and bad sources. As a blogger, I imagine you try to use good sources. You just flunked 4th grade sourcing. Humanewatch has declared war on the Humane Society of the U.S.
Here are the answers to your first three questions:
1. The HSUS does not claim to be an umbrella group that represents animal shelters across the country, nor does it do so.
2. My local animal shelters are not supported monetarily by the HSUS, but they do get practical help from them as needed. We, the people in the community donate time and money to help out, as it should be everywhere in the U.S. where shelters are underfunded and misunderstood.
3. HSUS does not provide financial support to animal shelters. They do however, run several animal sanctuaries, and are currently working in the Gulf of Mexico.

I donate to national organizations for better laws to protect all animals from harm. I donate time, money and softgoods, food, whatever I can think of, to my local shelters. I do not patronize shops that sell animals, and all five of my companion animals are rescues.

As a lawyer, I would take this space down until I had my facts straight, doc.

The fact is, HSUS runs legal seminars to teach young lawyers how to use the very B.A.D. laws they have successfully passed; another misuse of animal lovers' donations to help animals.

Dr. Khuly:

What about the other things that the Humane Society does for animals?

http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2010/06/ftc-rose-acre-farms.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Fhsus%2Fwayne+%28Wayne+Pacelle%3A+A+Humane+Nation%29

Hey Christa - take a look at what the HSUS has actually DONE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1Xh-tZrzwk&feature=PlayList&p=2CB8A1D170D23BD8&playnext_from=PL&index=1&playnext=1

You're telling me this ad doesn't seem like a plea for money to "help these animals" - even though it's far more likely that these animals were used as part of a public raid and then dumped at the local shelter - which generally can't handle the sudden influx - and then proceed to supply exactly $0.00 for their care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N-3yDjRUzc&feature=channel

How about this one? Fay, the pitbull whose care fell on her adopter, NOT THE HSUS. Fay, who is lucky to be alive, considering the HSUS recently considered pitbulls, even puppies as to dangerous to live.

Notice most of the dogs shown in their videos are pit bulls? I wonder how many donors knew their money was going to fundraising costs and pink solution for dogs whose only crime was to be born a pitbull.

You can NOT watch these two videos, understand how the humane society spends its money, and NOT come to the conclusions that the videos are seriously misleading - at best.

I'm not arguing this anymore. Anyone with any sense who has taken the time to really learn what HSUS donor dollars are spent on knows what the real deal is here. And that is that, like PeTA, the majority of HSUS donors have no idea what they're really supporting. They think that their money goes to "help these animals."

We should all be outraged.

Full-Page Proof of Our Impact

Rick Berman criticizing the operations of a charity is like Jack Abramoff criticizing an organization for reckless lobbying. Berman’s the worst of the worst. You can read Ian Shearn’s exposé of him and his group here.

Berman obviously conducted a recent corporate pass-through of funds because his front group, the Center for Consumer Freedom, ran advertisements attacking The HSUS in today’s New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

Berman’s ads are historical flops—they don’t generate much public interest and virtually zero serious news media interest. They are just too far off base. Indeed, The HSUS’s greatest period of success and growth has coincided with Berman’s attacks on us. So what purpose do such ads serve? They simply allow Berman to show his shadowy funders that he’s doing something.
And that’s important, because Berman’s whole aim is to keep cashing in. According to the Center for Consumer Freedom’s 2008 tax return, the multimillionaire lobbyist Berman and his for-profit PR firm get 92 percent of all of the revenue taken in by the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is a so-called nonprofit charitable organization. You’ve got to give the guy credit for the boldness of this self-enrichment scheme and the abuse of the federal tax code. In terms of raw greed, Berman makes Abramoff look like a mere amateur.

There’s one reason that Berman and his funders are conducting this campaign: they fear The HSUS, and they know we have a track record of success.

They don’t attack us because we don’t do enough. They attack us because we do too much.

The HSUS celebrates the protection of all animals and confronts all forms of cruelty, such as dogfighting, puppy mills, and factory farming.

The HSUS attacks the root causes of problems, not just the symptoms. Our primary goal is to prevent cruelty to animals before it happens and prevent animals from ending up in distress.

Rescuing individual animals is not enough. The HSUS mitigates suffering for vast populations of domesticated and wild animals.

The HSUS changes laws and makes sure they are properly enforced, and changes corporate policies, so that wide-scale abuses can no longer occur.

The HSUS has the power to confront large-scale cruelty, and it has the experts and organizational muscle to make effective change.

The HSUS supports local shelters and provides direct care for animals—but also confronts the national and international problems facing animals, which local shelters don’t have the reach or the resources to take on.

The HSUS is the largest animal protection organization—with 11 million supporters, one in every 28 Americans. Our political opponents attack the organization precisely because we are a mainstream voice for animals and the greatest threat to animal abuse.

Every time Rick Berman runs an advertisement, it affirms that we’ve made the right decisions in taking on the biggest industries and confronting their abuse of animals, whether the abuse occurs on the factory farm, the back lot of some tawdry circus, or the ice floes of Atlantic Canada. There’s no relenting here—just resolve to keep on with the fight on every day.

"The HSUS attacks the root causes of problems, not just the symptoms. Our primary goal is to prevent cruelty to animals before it happens and prevent animals from ending up in distress."

Yep. If you can prevent them from being owned, they can't be abused. And dead animals can't be abused.

AR activists believe at bottom that animal ownership IS animal abuse. "Better dead than fed" says PeTA, the only AR organization that dirties their own hands with killing animals. HSUS delegates that unpleasant task to local authorities, but many sound, healthy animals are killed due to their policies and legislation.


"The HSUS supports local shelters and provides direct care for animals—but also confronts the national and international problems facing animals, which local shelters don’t have the reach or the resources to take on."

Check their tax returns. Less than .5% of their budget goes to shelters. Sure, they give grants of usually less than $5k here and there - so you can't say they give *nothing*, but most of their grants aren't enough to keep a shelter running for a week, sometimes not even a day.

And of course, they *sell* them policy and operating and kill manuals, too - oh, and training. We mustn't forget that.

He sounds good. Most pathological liars do. But he's lying.

Ask yourself why HSUS hasn't sued Humane Watch and CCF for slander, libel and defamation of character? They don't hesitate to sue animal owners.

I'll tell you why - because the defense against those things is that the facts cited by Humane watch are just that - irrefutable facts.

None of this is about Humane Watch; only HSUS and those who support them would drag that red herring into the discussion.

What this is about is HSUS.

http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2010/04/hsus-mission.html

"Yet, there are people within animal abuse industries and their allies who keep trotting out the canard that Americans think they are giving to animal shelters when they donate to The HSUS. We’ve never said we run animal shelters—just that we help them run better with our many programs. But we’ve always been more than that. For more than a half century, it’s been the mission of The HSUS to work for all animals."

Please do one tiny bit of research next time. Wow.

There is no such thing as an 'animal abuse industry', nor is there any such thing as a 'supporter of animal abuse', though HSUS has worked hard to convince us all that there is.

If we really had all those animal abusers and animal abuse supporters out there, HSUS would have died a natural death long ago. It's because people do NOT support animal abuse that they are so easily misled and induced to finance the AR agenda.

The people who donate to HSUS donate because they believe they are helping and protecting animals. Nothing could be farther from the truth, because HSUS doesn't care about animals, and in fact, knows just enough about animals to be dangerous. They are very far from the animal experts they claim to be.

The organization is run by people who are ideologically opposed to all animal ownership and use. They have never bred an animal. They have never raised an animal. They rarely own an animal. These days they are often claiming the opposite, again, because they've been called out, but the fact remains that they are overwhelmingly city people with little if any contact with pets, let alone livestock.

That is the reality of HSUS. Animal ownership = animal abuse; simple equation.

Well, I see that all the animal rights people have crawled out from under their rock.

What Susan said, if the facts were on their side, they wouldn't need to rely on ad hominem attacks. Logic 101, your argument is rendered invalid when it is based on attacking the other party.

To people who want their money to go directly to helping homeless and needy animals, donate to your local Humane Society, SPCA, county shelter, and reputable rescue groups. A good local breeder can refer you to good rescues. Contrary to what the AR crowd would have you believe, most breeders are also involved in rescue and the animal welfare movement. If a rescue is running an adoption event, chances are good that they are helping animals and doing good work. You can always Google their name and look for complaints as a means of validation. If you have a special place in your heart for a particular breed, or dogs with a particular condition (blind, deaf, three legged or otherwise handicapped), you can look for a rescue that specializes in taking in the dogs that no one else will.

This week, I had to explain to another volunteer with our local "humane society" (a rescue group) that we have no affiliation HSUS. This mattered particularly because we were preparing a presentation on a subject where HSUS's position is somewhat different from ours.

There is confusion. HSUS knows there is confusion. And they deliberately advertise in ways that promote that confusion without actually making factually false claims.

Ok, last post on this topic - I swear this time.

For those of you who have focused in on the involvement of Humane Watch in this article - here's everything Humane Watch has accused the HSUS of doing.

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=2318

Nathan Winograd takes the time to detail the HSUS's unethical actions over the last few years.

Everything on this page has been confirmed.

I have no great love of the HSUS after checking the best unaffiliated evaluator of charities, CharityNavigator.org and found out Wayne Pacelle's salary...BUT,
to be very fair Humane Watch is one of the organizations sponsored by Rick Bergman's Center for Consumer Freedom. An organization against MADD, doubters of childhood obesity issues and great, great friends with giant agribusiness (food & animals).

It's ok to be against something, but, please, be aware of the PR spin and bias happening on both sides.

Mariele, in this case, HumaneWatch is providing independently verifiable facts, from documents HSUS is legally required to file, and pointing out that Rick Berman is a pretty sleazy character doesn't change those facts in any way, or put them in a better light. This isn't HumaneWatch's information; it's HSUS's information, and if they don't like what people think about it, they have the power to change their behavior.

It's like PETA's hyperventilating and threats over publication and distribution of the information CCF pulls from the state of VA every year, about PETA's kill rate of animals surrendered to it for adoption. The numbers are PETA's own; for their sleazy commercial motives, CCF speeds up the process of getting that information easily accessible to the public. Their sleazy motives don't change the hard numbers, which come directly from PETA. If PETA doesn't like the public reaction to that information, they can start using some of their millions in revenue to get those animals adopted instead of killing them.

In order to undermine this information about HSUS, you have to undermine THE INFORMATION, not Rick Berman.

I only donate locally. I want to know that the majority of my money is going to directly benefit the animals, and I want to know that my money isn't funding activism I don't support. That pretty much nixes all the major national organizations. When I have funds to spare, they go to a local organization that runs TNR programs and socializes feral kittens. They were very helpful when we first started trapping, they're always in need of support, and I love what they do. I also love being able to see firsthand the good that they're doing in my own community.

I did once give to Best Friends, but some of the paraphernalia they mailed me contained things (both ads and commentary) that were a little too AR or AR-friendly for my taste, so I opted not to give again. I do think they accomplish a lot of wonderful things (particularly with hard-to-adopt cases), but there are plenty of people doing the same (albeit on a much smaller scale) in my own neck of the woods, sans the politics. Personally, I'd rather give them a hand. Just my preference.

I made 2 or 3 small donations to the HSUS, totalling not much (around $40) because I don't have much coming in. Guess where my money went! - I've been getting many more things mailed to me like frequent mailing donation requests, address stickers, 2 checkbook style calendars with a pen, a blanket, little notepads, and 1 or 2 other things. I'm a mild mannered guy, but this is maddening. I need to remind them that I'm already aware of them and the other orgs that have sent me a few things. I even included a hand written note in one of my donations explaining that I don't have much to give, but I wanted to try. Did anything go toward helping an animal? I've made a few donations over a few years in money and supplies to the Lawrence, KS. animal shelter, and I'll just stick with that. Once in a while I can get blankets or towels or something from yard sales, and other misc. items somehow, and the shelter seems very thankful for them.

HumaneWatch is nothing more than a lobbying organization on behalf of corporate clients such as Tyson, Hunte Corp., and a myriad of other corporations who have little to no regard for the welfare of animals

I contribute monthly to the HSUS and am proud to do so and will continue. The HSUS has a mobile CSI unit for animal cruelty to gather evidence for prosecutors to use in animal cruelty cases. They also have a mobile vet clinic which travels around offering veterinarian services to the needy whom might not otherwise take their pets to the vets. HumaneWatch, despite it's misleading name, cares nothing for animals and only about their pocketbooks.

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/multimedia/index.html?fr_story=1cb72ef11f32c824315d294d45f62f2f67d0521f&rf=bm

Yep. They pay a bounty of $5k to informers on their 'tip line', too, to be paid when the accused is convicted.

To the best of my knowledge, it has never been paid. They have never been required to pay it, because most often, those they accuse are either fully acquitted of any wrong doing, or the prosecutor can't find anything to indict on to begin with.

Of course - they have already seized the animals and dumped them in an underfunded overcrowded public shelter somewhere, generally an environment much worse than the animals came from. There some are arbitrarily killed, usually because they were a beloved elderly pet or perhaps 'too young'; the raiders refuse to accept vet records either for ongoing treatment or for vaccines. Sometimes they are killed because they have contracted a stress induced illness at the shelter. The rest are sterilized and distributed, without records, over the country, and even when a judge orders the animals returned, they cannot be retrieved.

So their 'bounty offer' is safe - but the goal has been met, a few more animals separated from their conscientious and knowledgeable owners, a few more killed, and the owners generally losing everything, apart from their animals and unlikely to obtain more.

Isn't that a pretty picture?

@Dr. Patty Khuly Your blog contents came straight from the Humanewatch/CCF pages. Shame on veterinarians who care so little about animals that they would give their support to the lies spewed by this CCF sponsored front group. HSUS is extremely effective in so many areas of animal welfare. They will have my life-long support and the support of others who share my profound concern for animal welfare.

..I'm just wondering why people like "Barb Douche" don't use their real names. Do they not know that I have their email addresses at the ready as blogmaster?

You're all right on HumaneWatch, but to write against me (and it) unverified names only to have me trace your real email addys back to the HSUS is a serious breach of ethics.

It's just shameful! It reflects poorly on your organization. Carping about tactics you willingly employ should find you redfaced––or at least looking for a new way to conceal your identity the next time you comment here.

Despite my fallibility (human, here) at least I'm above board and honest. Please have the respect and courtesy to act in the same manner the next time you appear here to attack me.

The schlock poll presented in this piece simply show that many people involved in animal related industries will do just about anything to keep things rolling along without interruption from an ever increasing push for better conditions and treatment of the animals in our care. Treating the source of the disease is always more effective than covering up the symptom. The Humane Society of the United States does just that, they work towards a fix of the core, source problems associated with the mistreatment of animals worldwide. There is nothing radical about the ever improving treatment of the most vulnerable and abused creatures in our society - the fact that a veterinarian would publicly suggest such a notion is entirely suspect. Thank you, HSUS, for your blue-sky, dauntless, impressive work for animals.

Again, another false name. "Paul Nobson," please use your *real* name when defending your organization. It doesn't make your case when you don't. Your email address betrays many of you.

The thing about HW is that most of the people there were already fighting their personal fights against the HSUS; HW only gives them a group to unify under and gain strength. The ideology of the CCF does not come into the picture for many of us at all and I'd go so far as to say that if HW ceased to exist, many of us would find a way to reunite under a new banner.

In the interest of disclosure, Christa is a member of a group called "Stop HumaneWatch." This group considers it their mission to "expose Humanewatch for what they REALLY are. The enemy to The Humane Society and ALL Animal Advocates!" They do so by posting nasty-grams on YouTube and other online misbehavior, not by refuting the statements that HW makes about the HSUS. I have yet to see one comment from the SHW group that relies solely on facts (in fact, they mock people who insist on operational definitions) or that presents facts that is not from an HSUS or AR source. It's too bad that the spend so much energy defending an organization that has collected close to $200 million in assets using deception to aid them.

I need to defend myself and point you in a direction. On facebook, there have been people who disagree with my point of view. They've been very sarcastic, nasty....yada yada. You get the idea.
To try and draw me out, they've creatively called me "Barb Douche"....a play on my real name.
I am in no way associated with these comments and want to make this very clear. You may track my email or any thing you choose for verification.
For the naysayers.....my name is Barb Durtche.....note the correct spelling.
Thank you

Well, Dr. Khuly...

Gotta say you've probably hit the mother lode of controversy. Many of the folks here attacking Humane Watch are regulars of opposition groups but are also very radical animal rights supporters, many of them vegan. And whereas I have no problem with individuals making decisions on behalf of themselves, I DO have a problem with them trying to impose them on others. But I suspect you know who the imposters are. I see these folks on a daily basis in other cyber worlds. Good for you.

I find myself in opposition to many of your positions, but appreciate the methodology in how you arrived there. To say I'm disappointed in your lack of reproductive experience, is an understatement, but is consistent with the philosophy which you've already shared with your blogging audience. That's another discussion and one which I will address on that blog entry, later. Simply suffice it to say that I've always found your blog entries to be informative, well-founded, passionate, and above all, I've never found anything to be untruthful. Disagreeable, perhaps , but not untruthful.

To be honest, many of the folks blogging here, "had" no idea your blog existed until you blogged on this particular topic, so of course, they have no idea who "you" are, nor have any appreciation for the quality of your blogs. This war is about the opposing sides attacking the "messenger". And boy, howdy...did you pick a topic! That all being said, I doubt that they realize just how well you ARE able to defend yourself, and for that I'm both sorry that you have to, and grateful that IT IS you, in this case. I can always depend on you to tell it like it is.

I think the HSUS does do good work. And that they deserve to continue doing so. I also think they raise funds deceptively. Their website has a disclaimer that they do NOT support local shelters directly. BUT...what do their ads "say" or "imply" tacitly is completely different? Why not the disclaimer on the ad itself? In addition, their 501(c)(3) is most likely operating illegally in terms of lobbying time. And they are in conflict with their own by-laws, regarding lobbying. And, in their fund-raising efforts for the 501 (4)(c), I'm not sure they are all that transparent about disclosing that is ALL lobbying activity fund-raising.

As to the "real" topic of your post...if you wish to spend your money donating to legislative initiatives on "behalf" of animals, please take the time to understand those initiatives in detail, and to balance the benefits AND risks to the animals as a result, and to the potential dangers to the individual owners, or their industries. HSUS would have you believe that none of this will affect good owners, or good farmers, and that it is all to the benefit of animals with no risks. That is NOT true. Yes, we all need to look for ways to improve the lives of animals...but we can't do that at the explicit expense of humans, either. And in the case of animals, yes, it "improves" a facet of their lives, but may also bring risk that they are protected from NOW. So know the issues. In addition, I can't stress enough the need for local donations. And that doesn't have to be financial. Call your LOCAL shelter, local rescue...find out what they need. Blankets, food, feeding equipment, fans, whatever. Or donate your time...socialize a dog an hour a week, volunteer to groom...there's literally a hundred ways to help, and to donate. Unless you know the folks in the rescue personally, and can trust where your money is going...donate ONLY to organizations and rescues that are 501(3)(c). The advertising industry has been preying on human emotion since time immemorial. In the case of helping animals, please, please, please, take the time to know WHERE and WHAT your money is really supporting.

And in the spirit of disclosure...since many of the radicals I converse with daily are here...yes, this is Verjean. No reason for me to hide, either. And good for you, Barb!

Yeah. And I stepped in it...

But it's all my fault. If I'd been busying myself reading Gina and Christy over at PetConnection on my off-time instead of hiding my nose in my novels or playing yogi I'd have known to steer far clear of this topic.

But here's an interesting point this has raised: How is it that people who would probably consider themselves perfectly ideologically aligned out in the real world (or at least on the same team) can manage to find themselves hate-buddies on the Web?

But then, that's the subject of another blog post. Thanks for some additional clarification, Rosebud/Verjean.

Dr. Khuly, your willingness to tackle a controversial topic is to be commended. It is not your questioning of the HSUS that has created such a firestorm, however. It is your use of biased, discredited sources.

Now there's a distraction in the form of posts made under phony names. You called them out, appropriately, as an unethical tactic that undermines the point being made.

What concerns me is your claim that you have "trace[d] your real email addys back to the HSUS". This is a very serious accusation, one that is being repeated on attack sites like HumaneWatch.org as gospel.

Dr. Khuly, I sincerely hope that you will share your proof with us, or issue an immediate retraction and apology to the HSUS. You seem like a fair-minded person, and I would be deeply disappointed to find that you have resorted to libel while condemning the ethics of others.

Furthermore, you have attacked all 550+ employees of the HSUS based on the alleged actions of one individual. This does not seem reasonable to me.

Please, keep opening those cans of worms, but do so with respect for truth and fairness. They are what make the difference between inquiry and an inquisition.

Sincerely,
John Doppler Schiff

Richard Berman is behind humanewatch.org and his "Center for Consumer Freedom" is nothing more than a front 501(3)(c) that funnels money to his company that's lobbying on behalf of large agri-business and other big business interests. You can read up on him and his scamming industry here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/us/politics/18berman.html?pagewanted=1&sq=correction%20gulf%20of%20mexico%20foundation&st=cse&scp=1

http://www.prwatch.org/node/9175

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2010/05/investigative_report_berman_1.html

Read all of these articles and then make up your own mind whether Humanewatch.org is doing anything at all to further the cause of animals, OR, whether it exists to enrich Richard Berman.

If you think I'm misleading you, here's a quote from Richard Berman's own son:

"My father is a despicable man. My father is a sort of human molester. An exploiter. A scoundrel. … He props up fast food/soda/factory farming/childhood obesity and diabetes/drunk driving/secondhand smoke. He attacks animal lovers, ecologists, civil action attorneys, scientists, dieticians, doctors, and teachers. His clients include everyone from the makers of Agent Orange to the Tanning Salon Owners of America."

Any animal lover that supports HumaneWatch.org is clearly not an animal lover. Yes, HSUS can articulate its message more clearly, but the only people attacking them are those business interests that have millions at stake if and when factory farming is outlawed (or altered in any way).

I hope your readers become educated to the despicable Richard Berman and Humanewatch.org.

Thank you.

As a shelter manager AND a member of humane watch, I have to take severe issue with the idea that because I belong to humane watch I couldn't possibly be an animal lover.

I GIVE my time to the shelter. Drive 100 miles each way every Saturday for adoptions to try to find homes for the dogs in our 501(c)(3), no-kill shelter. (the shelter buys me breakfast and lunch--fast food)

I GIVE my time to care for the animals, educate the public and find appropriate homes for these dogs.

I GIVE my time to stay up with starving puppies because an irresponsible owner decided they didn't want to bother feeding them any longer.

I GIVE my tears when I lose one of those puppies because he was too far gone and too sick.

I GAVE that puppy a name because I could not bear to see him die without someone caring enough to name him.

I GIVE my smiles because the remaining pups are now--after over a month of care--fat, healthy and now able to be put up for adoption to find good homes.

I GIVE my office supplies, my computer and my own software to produce the database and pages and pages of paperwork required of my state licensing to track the incoming animals, their health care and final result.

My family picks up the slack and cleans pens, walk dogs and help when needed on Saturdays so I can GIVE to this shelter.

And if Humane Watch no longer existed, I would find another similar group. It is not the messenger I am interested in, it is the message.

DON'T tell me I can't be an animal lover just because I belong to Humane Watch.

It is the message I am interested in, NOT the messenger.

Thank you, Dr. Patty Khuly, for this piece.

It takes backbone and guts to publicly admit that having seen the evidence and thought it over, you have changed even some part of your thinking.

I do suggest that you continue your research, and disregard those who are committed to Berman bashing - as several posters have commented, this is not about Berman, nor about Humane Watch, but about HSUS.

Having said that, I do recommend Humane Watch's archives. That is the best repository for the public documents which support our opposition to everything AR, and a very considerable time saver.

You have not only my thanks, but my admiration.