Getting to know the HSUS

[Jeanne Joy]

Getting to Know HSUS by Rick Jordahl:

 

http://www.porkmag.com/news_editorial.asp?...&ed_id=8925

 

Federal Racketeering Lawsuit Stuns HSUS:

 

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail...suit-stuns-hsus

 

Humane Watch ad in New York Times :

 

http://humanewatch.org/images/uploads/2010...tch_NYTIMES.pdf

[SS Cressa]

Awesome links! Very informative

[Eileen Stein]

And from such impartial sources!

[njnovice]

And from such impartial sources!

 

LOL!

[Jeanne Joy]

Other biased sources for your reading pleasure.

 

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2010/...d-dog-food.html

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/m...behaving-badly/

[jdarling]

Terrierman rocks.

[Eileen Stein]

Terrierman does indeed rock, as a rule, but you don't have to be someone who can't find Uruguay on a map, or who considers "X% of the purchase price goes to our good cause" campaigns to be "kickbacks," to figure out that a $3.00/lb imported vegetarian dogfood is an idiotic idea doomed to failure.

 

As for the link to the Washington Times website -- that's a link to an opinion piece written by Richard Berman, the activist president of Berman & Co., an advertising and PR firm which lobbies for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. Berman is closely associated with, and represents, the Center for Consumer Freedom, and is comparable to that organization in "impartiality." Here is some info about him from a source that I am NOT claiming is unbiased:

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Berman_%26_Co.

 

And here's a piece about him from a neutral source:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/20...sat_x.htm

[Jeanne Joy]

You are exactly right. Berman is very good at what he does and makes a lot of money at it. So are Wayne Pacelle, the HSUS and PETA. They also make a lot of money, but it is acquired through donations gained on the false premise of helping abused and abandoned animals. When it is really funding their salaries and legislation to run animal agriculture out of business (not just factory farming).

 

Wayne’s HSUS blog:

http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2009/06/recession.html

 

From the United Nations:

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

 

You can also get a degree at the Humane Society University:

http://www.humanesocietyuniversity.org/

 

Since the only truly humane diet is a vegan one:

http://www.vegforlife.org/dogscats.htm

[Eileen Stein]

I've got no quarrel at all with your latest round o' links -- they are a fair representation of the organizations in question (though AFAIK the 4th one is not connected to HSUS). Seems to me that Berman and CCF are considerably more deceptive about their agenda and funding than the HSUS is, but none of them are above reproach.

 

According to Charity Navigator, 82.7% of HSUS income goes to program expenses, 4.4% goes to administrative expenses, and 12.7% goes to fundraising expenses. Berman in his article quoted the American Institute of Philanthropy as saying that a charity should spend $35 or less to raise $100. Charity Navigator's analysis found HSUS's fundraising efficiency was $0.13; in other words, it spends $13 to raise $100.

[kelpiegirl]

Why is it that every time something is brought up regarding the HSUS (which IS an animal rights group), there is always a question of the veracity of the assertions by groups who bring to light the outright hypocracy of theses AR groups, but never is there defense of these animal rights groups? It's like saying "Sure, the evidence says that they receive funds under false pretenses, and actively encourage terroristic acts (by funding them), but since so and so says they did, and prints this, then, well, then you can't believe it, so it's all part of a conspiracy by OTHER groups to MAKE the HSUS look bad, when in fact, they do that very well all on their own.

[Eileen Stein]

Why is it that every time something is brought up regarding the HSUS (which IS an animal rights group), there is always a question of the veracity of the assertions by groups who bring to light the outright hypocracy of theses AR groups, but never is there defense of these animal rights groups? It's like saying "Sure, the evidence says that they receive funds under false pretenses, and actively encourage terroristic acts (by funding them), but since so and so says they did, and prints this, then, well, then you can't believe it, so it's all part of a conspiracy by OTHER groups to MAKE the HSUS look bad, when in fact, they do that very well all on their own.

 

Because my concern IS the veracity of the assertions. If people presented direct evidence about the HSUS, rather than unsupported accusations from entities who hide their own agenda, I would have no reason to question it. But that's not what typically happens, for some reason. An article is posted, with at least the implication that the article is a fair and accurate statement of the facts, when in fact it is not, and it's written by a lobbyist who doesn't disclose that he represents Outback Steakhouse, Steak & Ale, and other businesses who have a vested interest in trying to make the HSUS look bad. Saying that HSUS gives only a tiny percentage of its budget to hands-on pet shelters is like saying that the NRA gives only a tiny percentage of its budget to activities involving rifles. So what? Neither of them pretends otherwise. Even a cursory perusal of the HSUS website leaves no doubt about the nature of its activities. You seem to think that the HSUS "actively encourages terrorist acts (by funding them)," but where did you get this idea? Was it from an accurate source, or an untrustworthy one? Doesn't it matter?

 

I'm not interested in defending the HSUS. I think some of what they do is indefensible. But I'd like to see an accurate portrayal of what they actually do and advocate, so that people can make up their minds about them based on the facts. I also think mindless opposition to, and fear of, HSUS is as bad as mindless support for HSUS. It leads people to oppose anything they support and to support anything they oppose, which makes us look bad, and it leads to people arguing, for example, that we shouldn't offer webcast coverage of the finals because HSUS might see it.

 

I hate to see us acting all panicky about the HSUS. Even if they did have the goal of "running animal agriculture out of business (not just factory farming)" -- and that's not what they say they want to do -- it doesn't really matter much what HSUS's hidden goals may be. What matters is whether they can convince a critical mass of people to support those goals. They are not going to be able to shut down all animal agriculture, because there is not sufficient support for that goal in the population at large, and there never will be. They are not going to be able to take our dogs away, because there is not sufficient support for that goal in the population at large, and there never will be.

 

And I guess I don't like being treated like I'm so dumb I can't recognize specious arguments and manipulation when I see them.

[Jeanne Joy]

(though AFAIK the 4th one is not connected to HSUS).

True enough. It was included as a point of interest. Here is one of PETA's: http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/Factsh...splay.asp?ID=34

 

Save the sheep -- alternatives to wool:

https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=d...ion&id=2853

 

And: http://www.savethesheep.com/alternatives.asp

 

Not only is sheep shearing abusive, but the wool industry threatens the land, air and water:

http://www.savethesheep.com/environment.asp

 

Educate your children???:

http://www.petakids.com/woolisbaad.asp

http://www.petakids.com/clothing.asp

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/r..._mommykills.pdf

 

While you are educating your children about sheep and the wool industry don't forget to also teach them using dogs to herd sheep puts extreme stress on them:

https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=d...ion&id=2225

 

In time, this same faction (HSUS, PETA which are really one in the same) will work to legislate the banning of sheepdog trials because sheep are terrified of herding dogs.

Even if they did have the goal of "running animal agriculture out of business (not just factory farming)" -- and that's not what they say they want to do -- it doesn't really matter much what HSUS's hidden goals may be. What matters is whether they can convince a critical mass of people to support those goals. They are not going to be able to shut down all animal agriculture, because there is not sufficient support for that goal in the population at large, and there never will be. They are not going to be able to take our dogs away, because there is not sufficient support for that goal in the population at large, and there never will be.

It doesn't really matter what they say. Their actions speak much louder than their words. It seems naive to think they can’t shut down animal agriculture (and related activities such as sheepdog trials) considering our Congress just passed the new Health Care Bill when clearly, the majority of Americans did NOT want it. In my estimation the HSUS (along with PETA) is a Trojan horse.

[Eileen Stein]

Before long, this same faction (HSUS, PETA which are really one in the same) will work to legislate the banning of sheepdog trials because using dogs to herd sheep puts extreme stress on them. You don't agree?

 

No, I don't agree. To begin with, I don't agree that HSUS and PETA are really one and the same. Although they certainly share a number of beliefs and goals (some of which are good and some of which are bad, IMO), they differ on others. I note that you were apparently unable to find any statements of HSUS against raising sheep. In its statement of policy, HSUS says:

 

The HSUS pursues the reduction of animal suffering in the raising, housing, care, transportation, and slaughter of animals raised or caught for food. Furthermore, we seek to ensure that animal production systems are humane, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive. The HSUS supports those farmers and ranchers who give proper care to their animals, act in accordance with the basic ethic of compassion to sentient creatures under their control, and practice and promote humane and environmentally sustainable agriculture.

 

I realize that you will say "Ah, but that's not what they REALLY think. Really they want to run animal agriculture out of business!" If you believe that, nothing I (or they) say could convince you otherwise, so I won't even try. But think for a minute. If that's what they REALLY want to do, why don't they say so? The only possible reason would be that they know the idea is so deeply unpopular and unacceptable that people would turn against them if they said it. If the idea is that deeply unpopular, you've got nothing to fear. They can't accomplish a goal that they dare not name.

 

As for working to legislate the banning of sheepdog trials, it's obvious to me that sheepdog trials are so far down the list of either HSUS's or PETA's concerns that they will never get to the point of even advocating legislation against them. They haven't made much of a dent in outlawing hunting, have they? And there they can say that people are actually shooting and killing animals (Bambi!) that don't belong to them.

 

 

It seems naive to think they can’t shut down animal agriculture (and related activities such as sheepdog trials) considering our Congress just passed the new Health Care Bill when clearly, the majority of Americans did NOT want it.

 

Well, let's think about that for a minute. Teddy Roosevelt advocated universal health care. Since the time of Harry Truman it has been a declared goal of the Democratic Party. There have been extensive national discussions of health care reform for the last 20 years. The current president ran on a platform of health care reform more sweeping than the bill which ultimately passed, and was elected. While the recent polls may show a majority of Americans being against this bill, the disparity has not been great -- most of the polls I've see have shown both support and opposition to run in the 40-50% range.

 

Compare that to shutting down animal agriculture, which has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever been advocated by a single candidate for public office anywhere in the country. It's against the self-interest of every person in the US who drinks milk and eats meat, eggs and cheese. That's a heck of a lot of people. It's about as popular an idea as . . . well . . . outlawing pets.

 

I guess you're just a lot more in awe of the power of HSUS than I am. Just cause they say it doesn't mean they can do it. And they don't even say it.

 

 

ETA: I see that while I was writing this, Jeanne Joy was editing her post, chiefly to add more links to organizations other than HSUS, and to add more vehemence to her statements. I don't think the changes she made affect the substance of her post, so I'm just going to leave my quotes from her earlier unedited version the way they are.

[kelpiegirl]

First of all Eileen, the "stated mission" that organizations chose to publish; basically their platform, doesn't necessarily promulgate their true agendas. Their actions belie their statements. I chose to see what they DO, and what they FUND, over what they put forth as their purpose.

 

As to why they don't come out and say "we are against animals used for food" is because they know FULL WELL they will lose a great number of supporters. It's much nicer to just say, "Hey, we really just want so and so...., don't YOU?" Rather than say "Hey, Joe Blow, don't you GET that eating meat causes suffering for the animals? Stop eating meat!!!" No way that will fly.

 

As to the President's platform, as I recall it was about CHANGE, not simply health care reform. It was about galvanizing those who hated the previous administration, and telling them that ANYTHING is better than what we have had for eight years. Health care was on the list, as was the economy....

[Eileen Stein]

First of all Eileen, the "stated mission" that organizations chose to publish; basically their platform, doesn't necessarily promulgate their true agendas. Their actions belie their statements. I chose to see what they DO, and what they FUND, over what they put forth as their purpose.

 

Okay. What does HSUS do, and what do they fund, specifically, that you believe contradicts the statement of policy I quoted?

 

As to why they don't come out and say "we are against animals used for food" is because they know FULL WELL they will lose a great number of supporters. It's much nicer to just say, "Hey, we really just want so and so...., don't YOU?" Rather than say "Hey, Joe Blow, don't you GET that eating meat causes suffering for the animals? Stop eating meat!!!" No way that will fly.

 

Is there an echo in here?

[jdarling]

I think photos like the ones on THIS SITE would have a better chance of raising the eyebrows of the people wanting to shut down sheepherding. (Scoll down towards the end of the page...)

 

 

Have no fear ... that dog is up for stud.

[Jeanne Joy]

You may not view them as one in the same, but I think it is fair to say they are bedfellows. The HSUS may not have an official statement against raising sheep, but it is not hard to read between the lines. Protection by elimination:

 

http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/f...Three-Rs-05.pdf

 

http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/gve.pdf

 

Eileen, you believe they are who they say they are. I am convinced they are a wolf in sheep's clothing. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as the old cliché goes.

[Eileen Stein]

Jeanne Joy, I hope you understand my second and more important point -- that it doesn't really matter what's in their secret heart, if a corporation can be said to have a secret heart. What matters is what they can do. They could secretly be in favor of requiring everybody to eat nothing but kumquats, and there would still be no reason to fear them.

 

In any case, let's see if we have any areas of agreement, before we agree to disagree.

 

Do you think that there are any practices prevalent in animal agriculture today that are inhumane? I'm not talking about practices that misguided city folks might think are inhumane, I'm talking about practices that you yourself think are inhumane. If not, you don't have to go any further; we're at a standstill. If so, what if anything do you think should be done about that? What if anything do you think a Humane Society whose true and only purpose was the alleviation of animal suffering should do about that?

[jvw]

I work for a food distributor. One day we had a company come in a do a presentation for us on their pork products. They started with how they had redesigned their whole farm to make conditions more humane for the pigs. I was appalled to learn how conditions are on traditional pork farms and I'm generally a "stick my head in the sand meat eater". It was really cool to see how they changed practices. Yes, it was more expensive (both the farm overhaul and the expense of raising the pigs) but they felt you really could tell the difference in the end product (I agree!). They even had to change the breed of the pigs in the new system (communal living areas and piglet rearing areas where the mom is free) so they had better temperament.

 

Animal rights groups can be radical. But seeing the conditions of how pigs for commercial slaughter are raised makes me glad there is some lobbying out there.

 

I'm not saying I agree with the HSUS or PETA.

 

So that is two cents

 

Jennifer

[Debbie Meier]

It would be interesting to compare the video they showed you to what you would see if you took a tour to a commercial hog facility. I used to go with Wayne to the nursery every now and then, it was a crap load of shrieking, jumping, playing, feeder banging, bite you and run piglets all sorted into pens based on size and sex with as much food as they wanted, free access to water, climate controlled with heat or fans depending on the time of the year and the pens were self cleaning (steel grate with small gaps over pits that were pumped out to a lagoon). The pigs were clean and other then smelling like hog it was not overwelming or gagworthy. From the nursery they would be moved to a finisher, stocked fewer in larger pens to allow for growth, and more shrieking, jumping, playing, feeder banging, etc until they were finished out and hauled off to be processed or to the sorting station.

 

In all reality everyone should step up and take the time to go and see for themselves as opposed to believing everything that is being shown to them via video. Imagine what the video production would look like if a campain was waged against using dogs to herd livestock, it's not going to depict the norm, it going to be slanted in an effort to get viewers riled up.

 

Deb

[jvw]

They did not show us a video.

 

But what was it like where the pregnant sows were?

[Debbie Meier]

Wayne used to work at one of the sow farms too, multiple barns, all on slats with self cleaning floors, hogs are kept in large pens most of the time in groups until they get close to farrowing, they then get taken through the hog wash and then on to the farrowing crates so that after the piglets are born they will not get laid on. After farrowing and when the piglets are removed and trucked to the nursery the sows are moved back through the hog wash and then back to pens. The old time hogs get to know the routine and move on through. Every now and then they get one that is resistent and does not want to load into the crate, they can be dangerous banging around putting up a fight.

 

Everything had feeders and water, rubber mats were added to the floors if a sow needed the cushion to prevent sores.

 

Deb

 

(hog wash= powerwashed and disinfected.)

 

Also, all rooms are powerwashed and disinfected inbetween rotations

[jvw]

Deb that sounds like it was humane. Sounds similar to how the farm was described to us in the presentation.

[Debbie Meier]

I remember the guys getting nervous when the hogs were getting close to farrowing, every now and then one's dates would be off and they would farrow before getting moved into the crates. The sows did not live in the farrowing crates all year round, it was simular to a jug situation for ewes. The pork assoc. displays a farrowing crate at the State Fair each year with a sow and piglets in it to educate the public against what they have been lead to believe.

 

eta: Wayne was reminding me that from farrowing they went to breeding, there they were put into different crates they would get heat checked and eventally bred, if you were to unload and reload them every day into the crates to prepare for breeding it would be unreasonably stressful. From breeding they would move to a different room and there they would go into another set of crates, checked to see if they came back into heat, those go back to breeding. Everything was kept in order based on their breeding date and then sent to farrowing close to their due date. It is very much an assembly line, but done in a way to create as little stress as possible when compared to keeping everything grouped into pens and then loaded and unloaded nearly daily for heat detecting, breeding ultrasounding, feed adjusting, etc., etc. Also, safer for those working with the big sows.

[Debbie Meier]

Deb that sounds like it was humane. Sounds similar to how the farm was described to us in the presentation.

 

 

It's how all the units are set up around here, Iowa Select, Christensen Farms which took over alot of the Heartland Pork Farms. When Wayne worked for Iowa Select they were considered one of the top producers in the nation.

 

When you drive the country side you have big sow farms, smaller nursery sites and then finishers, recently they have been doing some wean to finish sites. All are set a good distance apart for bio security purposes. Semis are steam washed inbetween shippment, small trailers for transporting weaners from the sow farm to the nursury are washed once a week or before they haul piglets to a new farm or from a different farm.