When I was growing up and first entering the work force, I can remember my parents and many of my mentors admonishing me to always think of the solution and stop dwelling on the problems. So far, I think that advice has worked well for me.
I have to wonder why Wayne Pacelle of the HSUS did not learn that lesson during his young life…
Are you following the huge debate and controversy that has been going on since HumaneWatch aired their advertisement about HSUS during the Oscar’s last weekend? You can see the ad here…in a nutshell, HumaneWatch has spent the better part of the last 
two years exposing the amounts of money that HSUS brings in from donors on an annual basis and how little of that money goes back to local animal shelters and rescues. The commercial that ran in the Washington DC market brought that fact to light during a highly rated Oscar’s program.
Now…HSUS’s Pacelle is outraged and developed a blog and email blast to condemn what was done.
But, here’s the problem. Instead of addressing the issues that HumaneWatch has brought up (less than 1% of monies collected by HSUS are given to local shelters) or even looking to help create a solution, HSUS again has focused the attention on the organization behind HumaneWatch (Center for Consumer Freedom) and it’s chairman, Rick Berman.
In his email, Pacelle says that HumaneWatch has a goal of “stopping you and me from fighting against animal cruelty in all forms”. Funny…the ad that ran never mentioned stopping HSUS from doing that. The focus is (and in my mind) always has been on increasing donations and help to LOCAL animal shelters who receive very little to nothing from HSUS.
Even noted blogger, KCDogBlog, has come out saying that this attack by HSUS is unfounded and inappropriate. To quote him: But what bugs me is that no where in the 12 paragraph blog post, or 9 paragraph email, does HSUS acknowledge local shelters, and how they could use donations too. That these organizations, most of whom are very cash strapped, often lose money to the fundraising efforts of national organizations, but do great work in helping save the lives of dogs and cats in their own communities. It would have been really easy for HSUS to at least acknowledge, at some point, that the “takeaway” from the CCF’s commercial, give to your local shelters, is actually a noble donation
HSUS and their supporters online respond by saying that “we never claim to help local 
shelters…our mission is much bigger”. You know what…that’s fine. There is a need to find and prosecute people who routinely and regularly abuse companion animals or livestock. If HSUS wants to continue to fight those battles, that’s great and I do wish them luck. But, HSUS needs to come clean and be transparent about where YOUR donation is going. Stop using dogs and cats in your fund raising appeals if the money is going to fund lobbyists trying to pass legislation about pigs, chickens or cattle. OR…if you are going to use our companion pets in your advertising, earmark MORE of the donations to go to helping the animals that need it the most…those in our local shelters.
It’s time that all of us who cherish our animals focus on the solutions to these problems and stop the attacking the organizations/people who are just trying to inform people about where their hard-earned money is really going. In my mind, the solution is pretty simple…HSUS: provide a better disclaimer so that potential donors know if their money is going to support a vegetarian/vegan agenda. Everyone else: If you want to support animals who need your help in local shelters and local rescue groups, donate your time/money/supplies locally.
I find information about how the HSUS uses donated money more transparent than information on the finances of locals. The HSUS publishes financial information , including their annual reports, on their website, but I find a lot of locals do not, including the ones I donate to. One thing about locals that I am not seeing discussed is that in most communities of any size, there are multiple shelters and rescue groups, all competing for donations in their communities. The number of these tiny struggling groups grows as members of one group split off and form a new group. The no-kills bad mouth the open admission shelters in many communities, while turning down homeless pets in need of shelter. In my community, if one wants a show of support for strong prosecution of a cruelty case, it is necessary to go to the no-kill group (the one that couldn’t take in the stray from my neighborhood) because the shelter just doesn’t do that. So, with friends in both groups, I send some support for both groups. But what really discourages me about many, many local organizations is the reluctance on their part to back what some of us see as real solutions, for example, support for strong enforcement of ordinances that require pet owner responsibility, spay/neuter ordinances, license ordinances, antichainging ordinances. These are hard. That is why locals in most places that I know of shun them. However that may be, I hope it is clear that I do support my locals with donations and volunteer. Now as to why I also support the HSUS, it is only the nationals, primarily the HSUS, that have the experience and professional expertise to mount campaigns against animal fighting, puppy mills and similar abuses. I have been an outspoken volunteer in animal advocacy for over 40 years and I am still involved only because I had the encouragement and support of the HSUS during the early hard years before rescue of dogs/cats became such a popular undertaking. If you will look closely, you will find that the HSUS encourages its members to become involved on the local level.
Rose…first, let me say thank you for such a well thought out response. It was logical, coherent and avoided the melodramatics we often see when these sorts of issues are discussed.
Next, I understand your concern about the plethora of individual shelters, rescues and other non-profits all out there trying to make a difference. Although I know everyone has very good intentions, somehow many of these groups are at odds with each other because of varying belief systems.
I applaud you for your ability to help both locally and with the national topics that appeal to you. Not many can do that and I think that is where HumaneWatch is trying to make a point. Some people are limited in what they can donate and because of their fund raising appeals, many people do believe that donations to HSUS will end up helping the strays and homeless animals in their local communities. And, as we have heard often in the last two years, that is not the case.
My current favorite example is that HSUS is in Missouri right now working on a constitutional amendment to change the way that the citizen initiative process and legislative oversight of that process occurs. How is that helping animals directly? Do HSUS donors KNOW that part of their donation is funding this sort of lobbying? According to Ballotpedia.org, HSUS has already spent at least $93,000 in supporting this campaign. I understand that other (non-animal) groups are also working on this amendment, but to me, as someone who could have donated money to HSUS, I am not sure this is how I understood my money would be spent.
Again, as I have mentioned many times, I think that HSUS has done some great work and can continue to do some wonderful work for these national types of issues regarding animal cruelty. BUT…if they are going to spend millions in California on Prop 2, then shouldn’t their fund-raising efforts show more chickens and cattle and pigs?
I am acutely aware of the situation in Missouri and the perceived need to change the law to protect the integrity of the initiative petition process in that state. This action comes after the legislature passed legislation to substantially weaken a law governing large dog breeding facilities, commonly known as puppy mills. The citizens had circulated the petition to regulate dog breeding facilities and the Missouri voters approved it, but with the legislative modification, the dogs in puppy mills lose the intended protection. The HSUS was highly supportive of the Missouri humanitarians who circulated the petition – for the protection of the dogs. This is a very good example of the HSUS doing what the locals cannot do alone. Thus the effort to protect dogs continues. The HSUS is spending money on a campaign to increase adoption of pets from shelters, and has taken initial steps to find and list quality breeders who can supply well raised pups to those whose hearts are set on a purebred puppy of some specific breed. If I am not explaining that well, better information is on their website. In addition, I have been personal witness to the HSUS coming to the direct aid of dogs and cats within my own community more than once, from severe criticism of a city pound some years ago, resulting in a large change in the way animals were housed and euthanized to sending a rep to visit a district attorney in regard to the prosecution of a severe case of dog abuse. They recently offered to pay for counseling for a dog and cat hoarder from this immediate area. So many of these things that are done for dogs and cats within various communities never make national headlines, but they were done nonetheless. The HSUS publishes a fantastic bimonthly magazine designed to aid the animal sheltering community. They offer training experiences for those of us who primarily work with dogs and cats, their annual EXPO being a prme example. If you have never been to one, you would be amazed at the educational offerings. The HSUS has always been available on the phone to answer my dog advocacy and care questions. Me and how many thousands of others? But does any and all of this entitle them to use dogs and cats in their advertisements? My take on that may well be different from yours, probably will be. I say use whatever picture you can to get the attention of the public when there are any animals which need to be spared unnecessary suffering. If any potential donor wants to know what the HSUS does, all they need do is check on their website. Check out their press releases and news items featured on that site. One more remark about dogs and the HSUS – when I read that they have sent one of their rescue vans to rescue dogs from a puppy mill or a dogfighting operation, I say to myself that I got my money’s worth. And by the way, I also read local news reports from papers and tv stations online about those puppy mill busts and dog fight busts which involve national organizations. I recommend that others do the same. Just nice to know that reported rescues are also documented by professional media. We may just have to agree to disagree about what kind of advertisements the HSUS should use. Glad that we can agree on a lot of other things.
Regarding the Missouri legislation which would restrict the number of breeding animals that a facility could legally possess, doesn’t it strike anyone that the NUMBER of animals is not the issue? The issue is the QUALITY OF CARE that is provided to the animals. I would think that anyone involved with animal welfare issues would focus on quality of care instead of numbers. You can be irresponsible and cruel and abusive with one or two animals. You can provide excellent care to hundreds of animals if you have appropriate animal husbandry protocols and you have the service workers to provide that care.
When the voters in Missouri voted to implement a law that would limit the number of animals allowed at a dog breeding facility, those voters were primarily urbanites and not farmers. Farmers know that you can work with numbers of animals. Urbanites seem to think in terms of pet animals and do not understand how appropriate care can be provided to large numbers of animals. Urbanites have been exposed to 25 or more years of propaganda from the animal rights extremists about animal care and what is or is not appropriate. Now, there is NO SCIENCE behind most of the animal rights propaganda, but plenty of emotion.
I abhor animal abuse and belief it should be punished by laws that deal harshly with ANY kind of serious abuse. However, I do not believe that laws which limit the numbers of dogs in a breeding facility have anything to do with abuse…but they do have a lot to do with implementing the animal rights agenda of NO animal use! I am not a dog breeder and do not even own a dog, but I did grow up on a farm and I am very familiar with farm animals and numbers and how to provide appropriate care.
It seems to me that the legislators in Missouri were quite correct in their changing of the law that was put in place during the previous legislative session. I also do not believe it is correct for the HSUS to continue to press for laws on farming, agriculture, dog breeding, poultry housing or any other animal issues when they have NO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH behind their proposals. They simply have an uneducated inexperienced well propagandized public to pressure to vote for these misguided laws. The end result will not be an improvement in animal welfare, but it will result in a restriction on animal use of any kind, which is really the goal.
Again, thanks Rose, for the intelligent and mature debate. Like you said, we won’t agree on everything and we can’t “convince” each other of the rightness or wrongness of our arguments, but I SO appreciate your openness and adult responses. We don’t often see that in these types of discussions!