“Why in the world would ANYONE choose to ride in a car around Central Park - a ride that would cost about the same as a carriage ride, $50 for twenty minutes? And then get out and pose for pictures petting a fender? And what about a soft nuzzle of the radiator cap, and instead of a carrot for the engine, a what, a little static electricity as a treat? WHAT is deBlasio thinking? Tourists should take a taxi to the park, and then get into a Disney-fied golf cart and pay for the privilege? Oh come on . . . In the absence of any evidence whatsoever that the horses are mistreated or overworked or abused in any way, why would a mayor who calls himself a progressive even consider eliminating middle class jobs and calling the carriage rides "inhumane"? Huh? (BTW, it is clear enough what deB is thinking - paying back political contributors. Shame.)”
“You assume that the goal of PETA and their friends, HSUS, FFA, MFA, and the alphabet soup of groups is to 'help' animals. Your definition of help probably doesn't match theirs, but no matter how you look at it, these groups have found a powerful cover story to hide behind while they 'help' themselves to your money. Redirecting funds? Yeah, that will never happen. There is no love lost between PETA and No-Kill. There are plenty of options available for people whose animals are sick, diseased or suffering, no one here is ignoring that at all. PETA and HSUS and Friends don't address the issues because they would have to reveal that they are not really interested in the welfare of animals except as a fund raising hook. Celebrities and politicians are busy people, have all kinds of other people to do most of their work, make their decisions, filter out hundreds of requests for their time or money on a daily basis. They are easily manipulated by media and politically savvy marketing specialists like those who inhabit the top offices of these groups.”
“None of this is disputed by PETA. So how desperate for attention does a celebrity need to be before posing nude without asking a couple of simple questions first. Doesn't seem like they are interested in being "educated". War was declared a long time ago, 'cherold', by PETA against the serious threat to their goals by the No-Kill movement, and the tone of the argument does not sound much like "reasoned discussion".”
“Will this be the year that the public finally awakens to the horrors of the "animal rights" movement? These groups - PETA, HSUS and more recently the ASPCA - are only interested in animals for the fund raising hook. For years HSUS and PETA have been playing good cop/bad cop with the public, very successfully. PETA gets your attention - who doesn't notice a nearly nude celebrity - and then HSUS slides up sideways, in designer suits and ties, and picks your pocket.”
JelliebeanTea on Apr 9, 2013 at 20:27:25
“I am an animal rights activist. And I am against PETA and their actions in this area. Very much so.
It is a huge mistake to think all of the animal rights movement speaks with the voice of PETA. A huge error.”
“You brought up two important points. First, the shelters/rescue groups that make their adoption criteria intolerably strict have no common sense. A friend of mine whose elderly cat died (she gave him 2/daily insulin shots for 3 years) went to a shelter to adopt another cat, and was denied because she had an intact dog at home. According to that shelter's rules, owning any intact animal 'proves' you are an irresponsible owner.
Secondly, you mention "kill shelters" that aren't euthanizing "frivolously". I don't think you understand the No-Kill philosophy. A "kill shelter" is the antithesis of No-Kill. If a shelter doesn't have enough money to keep animals, it could look for other options than to kill adoptable animals. That is a cop out. (Heck, they should come to my neighborhood, where there aren't enough shelter pets to meet the public's desire to 'rescue'.)
And finally, yes, you are correct, that HSUS could afford to support a large open admission shelter in every state in the country, but they will never do that. Just think about one thing - every time the media is all over a severe animal abuse case, remind yourself that these images are brought to you courtesy of animal welfare laws that WORK. Laws that were ENFORCED.”
“Opposed to MANDATORY S/N. Is that enough? I can't count the number of times in Winograd's writing I have heard him recommend low cost or free s/n clinics. As said above, get your facts straight.
Don't usually post anecdotes as being universal, but I will share that I have had many, many dogs in my life, and have only altered 3 of them. Never had a litter of anything, ever, in 60 years of living with dogs and cats. If you are "science challenged", I suggest you go back to high school biology class. MSN does, exactly, lead to . . . wait for it . . . extinction.”
“The kind of split personality you describe is very common in the Animal Rights movement. The movement attracts some people with highly anti-social behavior, and the animals are merely their cover story. Everyone loves animals, so they can get away with the most horrendous behavior behind the anonymity of the internet by claiming that the rest of us are the very embodiment of cruelty - and they play a good game of Straw Man to prove it. It might be called hypocrisy, but that is just too 'normal' a term, that requires at least some conscious thought, 'normal', simple deviousness. These people go much beyond hypocrisy, they really seem to not understand that the things they say and do are counter intuitive. They remind me of Uroborous, eating its own tail, from Greek mythology. No need for eyes, or ears, and consumes its own waste . . .”
Liz Berq on Oct 30, 2012 at 17:27:31
“Very good comment. These people don't so much "love animals" as they "hate humanity". One of the problems with this, is that before the internet, these people were isolated and were basically the "crazy" person in town that kids were warned to stay away from. Now they have formed "communities" where they are emboldened by people of their own kind to believe that they're just more evolved and actually better than anyone else.”
NoCowLevel on Oct 29, 2012 at 23:56:56
“Speaking as an animal rights activist, you're completely right. It attracts an...I won't say "insane" but definitely a kind of absolutism that escalates like wildfire. There's very little room for grey in quite a few circles of the animal rights movement, and it's dominated by very violent, aggressive attitudes and dogmatism. Someone puts forward a pro-animal position, and someone will immediately come out of the woodwork and jump on their position to say that they're not pro-animal enough by taking on a more radical position, and then someone even more radical than that will come forward who sees things even more black and white.
I don't know whether it's the nature of the issue, or the people it attracts, but it has that kind of intense emotional charge that definitely isn't tempered when its discourse can be reduced to, "Anyone who doesn't think or act exactly like me is an abusive murderer." Even with moderate animal rights activists I associate with, some of them still have that edge to them where disagreements can be nearly impossible to talk about calmly and rationally, but at least those people are decent, well-intentioned folk who aren't going to do this shit.
There's a lot of bizarre fringe elements in the animal rights movement. Kind of scary, sometimes. Honestly, I've taken way more nastiness and abuse from fellow activists than I have from even a single person who doesn't care about animal rights.”
“Bingo! This is the point that I gleaned from this article. This is a free country, and our own personal freedoms exist because of the rule of law. Yes, Vick has met the legal requirements, and can now participate in society in the same way as other convicted criminals who have completed their sentences. We may wish with all our hearts to prevent him from harming another dog, but preventing him from owning one is not going to prevent him from harming one. His children do not deserve to pay for crimes he committed. Denying them the companionship of a dog isn't going to make any difference to Vick.
The issue at hand is the HSUS's typical dealing with the devil, their greed and exploitation of animal suffering for a few shekels. Which is exactly what they proclaim 'other' people do. Their hypocrisy is beyond comprehension. Well, let me re-state - the comprehension problem is with the public who continue to believe that HSUS as a humane society. It isn't.
And for those who want to see more "laws" to prevent people like Micheal Vick from ever getting near a dog again, be careful what you wish for.”
“That is just terrible! They just can't help themselves, can they? They have to be "first", can't let anyone else get any credit for anything. The public is still under the impression that HSUS is the only anti-dog fighting force in the country, but if you talk to my friends in law enforcement, they will tell you how HSUS does more harm than good. They are indiscreet to the max, which I assume is what happened to you. They not only get in the way of real investigations, they claim credit for the work of others. Not only in dog fighting, either. They really don't investigate, they just listen to rumors and tag along on raids that are headed up by others, and all of a sudden, they are talking to the media and outing undercover folks in a very dangerous field. Dog fighting is not just about animals, it is a criminal enterprise. Which is why, I suppose, Vick's crimes against animals were minimized.”
“No, not true. Feld brought a RICO lawsuit against HSUS charging them with various very, very serious crimes involving misuse of the legal system. They tried to sue Feld for violation of the ESA, but their witness was paid to lie. There is plenty of proof of that. HSUS doesn't usually care about the truth, because most of the individuals or groups they sue are unable to properly defend themselves, and are forced to settle out of court. This is not usually an admission of guilt, it is just the fact that HSUS is financially able to out-spend just about anyone. Even their opponent is not guilty, they can't afford to defend themselves against the constant court harrassment of HSUS, settling is less costly, even if the individual WINS. But they poked the bear this time, Feld has the resources to fight this. Again, a RICO suit is bad news for HSUS, they have a lot to lose.”
DebbyM on Oct 24, 2012 at 16:34:19
“And ask yourself why are they doing this to HSUS? Ever think about that? If I'm doing something bad/evil, my first tactic is to try and discredit whoever is investigating or exposing my evil acts. That is why they are doing it and they are using whatever means they can think of.”
“I forgot the most important question for those who love to hate Berman - how many pets has Berman and Co. killed lately? (Vegans, this is a rhetorical question.)”
Truth not hysteria on Oct 28, 2012 at 10:12:49
“Yep. Happens over and over and over and over. The stories are deeply heartbreaking. I don't know how it is that more of the victims haven't commited suicide. Thanks for taking that topic on, chienblanc.”
“(cont.) Calling a rescue group turns out to be a big mistake, they find judgement, not compassion. So forget that, they already feel bad - but they still have animals they can't properly care for. HSUS looks so good in their TV ads, so kind and compassionate, so caring and loving. Little do they know HSUS will only call that local kill shelter, and probably law enforcement. Once that kill shelter has possession of the animals, the crucifying begins. The owners were promised discretion, told that they were "doing the right thing", but oh, never mind, now that you have turned over all your animals, we will tell the world how horrible you are, begging for MONEY on your name. All the media are alerted, and their name is splashed all over TV and newspapers. And the shelter kills the animals anyway, because they have no more space. And the local HSUS rep begs the community for MONEY 'to care for all these abused animals' - which are dead, or soon will be. This is a business of crisis marketing, with the animals as the tag line, the hook, the reason for us all to donate. And people still hate Richard Berman. How many people know that Berman's firm helps MORE ANIMALS than HSUS! Because Berman gives actual MONEY to actual real animal causes, like the Humane Society for Shelter Pets, which anyone can visit to find a shelter in their own neighborhood. HSSP asks for NO MONEY, btw.”
Truth not hysteria on Oct 29, 2012 at 00:08:09
“A good example of one HSUS victim who DID sue after an illegal HSUS raid. Most of the victims can't afford to do so, and many are so emotionally destroyed they wouldn't put themselves through it even if they had the funds.
This is a PDF of the actual court document, housed in the HW online document library:
“(cont.) But they don't take into account the MIDDLEMAN here, the means to an end. The MONEY. Which is HSUS's part in all this. They actually plan on these animals being killed, because it is part of the process towards their goal. The MONEY. Then, when the animals are gone, HSUS starts in on the owners, very publicly shaming them, blaming them for the deaths of their animals, convincing the public that these people - who tried hard to do the right thing from the start - are the most despicable people on the planet - animal abusers. So, people like your organic farmer, who, for some reason, such as illness, death of a spouse, financial crisis, age or infirmity, or maybe just poor judgment and lack of planning, find themselves in over their heads, are turned into virtual criminals by simply trying to do the right thing. Most of these people really do love their animals. They hear that the local shelter is always "full", and will kill their animals, so they try a rescue group . . . to be continued.”
“This sad story is typical of the HSUS modus operandi. I find it highly offensive that they set people up this way. What they do is lure people into coming to them (said the spider to the fly), lie to them about how much they want the "help", and as soon as the person's animals are seized, HSUS pounces. People don't see it coming, they assume, wrongly, that HSUS is an animal charity, that they actually care about animals. But what they really care about is their public image and MONEY. They exploit animal suffering - not to mention human beings - to raise funds. Not only that, but they manipulate the public by bragging that they actually "help" animals, but in reality, the animals are only the means to the end. MONEY. Once the animals are seized, HSUS dumps them on the local animal shelter, which these people could have done themselves, except they assume that the shelter is always "full" and their animals will be put to death immediately. (They really DO care about their beloved animals, but that isn't what HSUS wants us to understand. ) . . . to be continued.”
“Let's get another thing straight . . . Vick never served a single minute in prison for animal abuse or cruelty. He was convicted on federal gambling charges, everything else was gone in a plea bargain. How useful is this law, really?
This is THE problem with the band aid approach HSUS practices. They write laws that are vague and useless, often unnecessary, over-riding existing laws that actually did work, but people believe that "something was done". HSUS is only doing this for money, plain and simple. I have no doubt in my mind that the people who work for HSUS are animal lovers, and mean well, but they are being exploited too. To HSUS, dog fighting is just another way to put their money grubbing hands on your wallet. This is the whole purpose of teaming up with Vick - it might have been a mistake, though, when you look at the backlash. Back when Wayne was trying to deflect the attention of the public OFF of their real activities, he grabbed Vick as an opportunity for a "bold move" that would make people forget that they were caught lying about the dogs. Creepy.”
PatA on Oct 20, 2012 at 14:53:11
“Ask that poster how much money HSUS raised the day after the headlines? I got a letter asking for money. It was over one million dollars.”
“Your estimate of pet store vs shelter is actually the other way around. The campaign to vilify pet stores and hobby/show and performance dog breeders has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dream, and now "rescue" dogs are the new "little black dress". Everyone must have one. HSUS has spent millions to convince people of a nonexistent problem called "pet overpopulation", and THIS is why we need to read and UNDERSTAND this article. If we continue to believe the HSUS propaganda, we will never clean up the problem of sub-standard breeders - because it THESE people who are feeding the rescue trend now, because there really aren't enough dogs to meet the demand. I know, many of you will not believe that, but it is a hard cold fact.
Just look into the underground railroad called 'humane relocation', and prepare to be amazed. In my neighborhood, the shelters are importing dogs from Kentucky and southern Indiana in order to hold weekend 'adopt-a-thons' that move 50-70 dogs in three days at $300 to $500 apiece. There is Big Money in "rescue", and a huge black market in dogs specifically bred to supply the rescue demand. HSUS doesn't want anyone to see what is really going on, because they would lose their biggest marketing hook - the myth of "pet overpopulation". But they always have "hoarding", so on and on they go.”
Kim Egan on Oct 20, 2012 at 14:19:51
“I don't care if pets from the United States are relocated between the states. What really bothers me is the bleating about "pet overpopulation" while shelters all over the United States are importing dogs from Haiti, the Middle East, and U.S. territories.”
“Another person who didn't read - or at least comprehend - the article. Not many people have a problem with lobbying done by . . . ahem . . . 'lobbying' firms. The problem is that HSUS lobbies in direct conflict with their public charity status that affords them enormous tax benefits, that you and I pay for. Their staff of 25 (or is it 50?) in-house lawyers have a real task in front of them trying to cover up their illegal lobbying. It's the 501(c)3 status that needs to be removed, and the RICO lawsuit could easily accomplish that. If that happens, HSUS will have so many fines and back taxes to pay they will go bankrupt, not to mention the motivation for all the begging they do will disappear. That is what most of the real animal charities hope - to prevent HSUS from taking donations away from actual charities.”
Lucy Van Pelt on Oct 19, 2012 at 20:08:33
“I think Mr. Cooper might have to write a blog explaining the laws concerning 501 (c) 3 non-profit organizations. Clearly, most of the people defending these sham charities do not understand the rules and restrictions these groups are supposed to legally abide by. It's a shame we have so many uneducated people who blindly follow the leader (in this case HSUS). But it applies to lots of other things as well, like politicians, etc...(but we wont get into that here).”
“Well, Over40, there are lots of others who have learned these same bitter truths, must be Paul Bunyon's ax. Considering the general liberal views of HuffPo, I'm thinking that running these PETA/HSUS expose articles are biting painfully. So read again, but with comprehension this time. HSUS's corruption and vitriol (reading Wayne Pacelle's blog is like listening to the talk on the playground at recess, alternately bullying and whining, quite amazing) are not new to the true experts in animal welfare. Some of us have been waiting a long time for this, with grateful anticipation. Cooper does not disappoint.”
Over40 on Oct 19, 2012 at 21:26:07
“I did read with comprehension and I stand by my statement.”
“How old are your "11cats"? Be careful what you wish for.
And btw, you might want to change your user name before the Pet Police get you arrested for hoarding, which AmyK with HSUS has already said on this comment section is common. According to my television, there must be a cat hoarder on my own block. Doublespeak - they plead with us to adopt. But don't expect to take more than one or two homeless pets, because they will getcha for hoarding . . ." The entire HSUS brain trust contradicts itself so often it doesn't know which way is up.”
Truth not hysteria on Oct 19, 2012 at 10:43:04
“Wow, another animal abolitionist being honest. If only HSUS were as honest about their intent to sterilize all pets to the point of extinction. You do realize, momof11cats, that 100% sterilization of a species means they go the way of the dodo?
The hairs should be standing up on the neck of every cat lover out there, and a huge chill running down every spine.
Momof11cats, if she gets her way, will proudly become evilwitchwhocausedcatextinction unless she -- and indeed ALL animal abolitionists -- are not soundly and quickly defeated.
“Oohh ooohh, I can respond to this one! NOTHING that HSUS does 'for' animal shelters is free, nothing. Even their big high profile raids. A peek at the minutes of a local humane society held a little tidbit that was worth gold. It had to do with the response that HSUS gave to this shelter when they begged for HSUS's help in the case of a large neglect/cruelty case in my state a few years ago. In all the hyperbole about the dismal scene, there was this little note about "customary fees". HSUS agreed to help out this shelter with trucks, triage stations, kennel crates etc. if - and ONLY if - they would be allowed to videotape the entire event, and be given permission to use the footage to raise funds. Funds for HSUS, not the desperate shelter. The only thing we had hoped to find was an amount, but it wasn't noted, so we can only guess that it was substantial. As soon as the raid was finished, HSUS pulled out and immediately began a huge fund raising pitch locally. They ran rampant over this local shelter's efforts, ignored their needs completely, and put themselves in the faces of the local media. Within a week, HSUS had tapped out the community for donations, leaving the shelter to get blood from a stone.”
Lucy Van Pelt on Oct 18, 2012 at 21:32:52
“You know I already hate HSUS, but then you have to tell me this and I think my blood is BOILING!!!!”
“Yes sir, he is a lobbyist. HSUS is not charitable. If they want to continue to do what they do, fine, but not on my dime.
There have been people who passed for a "hell of a guy", charming and personable, good looking, well dressed and well spoken. I friend of mine would say the same thing about a former co-worker - Jeffrey Dahmer. Public personae is one thing, but character is not so easy to discern, especially that of the worst among us. Pacelle can appear normal, he has Ingrid, a partnership made in . . . er . . . hell.
Quoting the HSUS web site is not very convincing, and shows a serious lack of critical thinking skills. And this "why he repeatedly opposes animals as pets--most pet puppies come from sickening Missouri pet farms, which is why he refers to them as "livestock," because to the puppy mills, that's exactly what they are." WHAT?
Let's ban the production of automobiles to solve drunken driving. THAT makes sense. But it would work, right?”
cominsja1 on Oct 19, 2012 at 00:43:08
“If you support puppy mills, say so. If you oppose them, then stand beside HSUS in doing so.
I was mentioning the HSUS website in reference to the original piece's statement that "This is, after all, the organization that operates shelters nationwide and saves hundreds of thousands of animals." Which it isn't. It's a powerful pro-animal lobbying group, something that would be known to anyone who perused the organization's website, the one I linked to. The original piece seemed to think most people are confused about what HSUS does. If so, a better piece would have simply stated what it does, without the negative editorial slant.”
“Here's a link to start your investigation: http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2738652 There are many places to find this information, usually on sportsman's web sites, sometimes on environmental sites. So HSUS sues the government and then bills the government for the legal fees. I wonder what rate they claim - based on their payroll, or based on typical billing rates - I'm betting on the latter. I think I read something about how many lawsuits the HSUS legal department files, but I can't remember the the number. Amicus briefs flow out of their office like water, is what I remember.”
“I don't want to speak for Lucy Van Pelt, but speaking for myself, I don't believe that discussing HSUS's policy oriented activities is useful. The time is past for including the top leadership of HSUS in animal welfare public policy discussions. To borrow a horror movie term, I think HSUS is a shape shifter. Or a modern day version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Wayne Pacelle is the slick, manipulative "Mr. Hyde", long gone is Dr. Jekyll. I often read of the disillusionment of animal welfare AND animal rights groups, who demand his ouster. Yet he is still on the throne. HSUS is basically dishonest from the top down, so intelligent, productive discussion, compromise of any kind, is not possible. I just don't know how we can overcome their unwarranted positive public image - which they have bought and paid for many times over. I agree with Douglas Anthony Cooper - the RICO lawsuit could be IT. For those who minimize the effects of this, I can tell you from my own experience in search and rescue, training my dogs with a Texas State Police RICO investigator - a RICO suit is a bona fide Big Deal.”
williamlynn on Oct 19, 2012 at 10:19:09
“You are absolutely right that RICO investigation is serious. Whether this will constitute prosecutorial overreach or a sound case remains to be seen. ”
“On the need for policy/cultural initiatives to IMPROVE human/animal relationships I fully agree. But "solve"? Nope, never happen, nor should it. First of all we have to balance the rhetoric regarding animal "welfare". On the one extreme we have the vegan cult-ure/belief/quasi religion, and on the other we have extreme, uncaring exploitation of animals. Beyond these extremes we are getting into mental illness and criminality, so let's just throw those classifications out right now, and be pragmatic. In the middle is Science and Philosophy and Ethics, to oversimplify. On this planet, we are limited to what is this fact: something has to die for something else to live. That fact leaves us with a lot to work with. My concerns are that groups like HSUS, PETA, IDA, FFA, NIO, ASPCA are nothing but barriers to understanding because their goal is self aggrandizement, not charity. They are hypocritical, the worst exploiters of animals that have ever existed. They need to get out of the way - now! If HSUS loses their public charity status, that will be a good start.”
williamlynn on Oct 19, 2012 at 10:05:28
“Very good point about improve vs. solve. We don't want to let perfection become the enemy of the good, a? Still we can do much better by people, animals and nature than we are doing now. With respect to various animal organizations, I think many folks have a somewhat outdated view of what constitutes a charity, akin to volunteer soup kitchens in churches. Whether we like them or not, these are now sophisticated non-profits who cannot avoid fundraising, marketing, PR, advocacy, legal initiatives, and so on. In the ngo world, we call this the "sustainability" of the enterprise. And while there are doubtless many things we might find to critique, I do not think it fair to dismiss all the good they have done in the process. ”
Lucy Van Pelt on Oct 18, 2012 at 20:21:19
“They truly are exploiters of animal suffering. I believe this 100%. They have no serious desire to rescue anything, only to exploit the suffering for monetary gain.”