This article has taken a little time due to the need for some serious data analysis as I have spent 2 days sifting through the US grants from the HSUS to individuals and organizations, and I am just getting started. Why now? A few of the reasons, the 2008 grants information will be coming out soon with tax season is rolling up, it is only possible to compare trends if the 2007 data is pre-analysed for comparison and 2009 has been a record year for HSUS backed legislation.
In 2007, the HSUS granted $5,632,209 to organizations and individuals across the US, yet 59% of that money went to only 3 states: Louisiana, Mississipi and California.
- California received $1,456,420 with $1,360,000 of that going to the organization Californians for Humane Farms which operates out of the Sacramento, California HSUS office. (93% of funding for lobbying efforts)
- Louisiana received $1,204,625. Half of that ($600,000) went to Skip Bertram at the Louisiana State University Veterinary department, and the overwhelming majority of remainder was spread to Humane Societies and Animal Control departments in chunks ranging from $30,000 to $10,000.
- Mississippi received $1,240,900. Mississippi State University Foundation received $900,000. Again, the overwhelming majority of the remainder was distributed in large chunks ranging from $50, 000 to $10,000 to Humane Societies, Animal Control Departments and Rescues.
If we use Californiaas a guide, 2007 was the year in which the groundwork was being laid for the “Great Egg Fight of 2008″ otherwise known as Proposition 2. Consider the financial leverage exerted by the Humane Society of the United States when the HSUS threw its weight and funds into the fight in support of Californians for Humane Farms (CHF), when HSUS and CHF are the same organization.
So, it stands to reason that a similar percentage (90%) of the funding to the similarly funded states was intended for political purposes. In 2007, the $900,000 grant to Mississippi State University was for a Spay/Neuter program assisting in the HSUS spay/neuter mandate. In addition to the focus on spaying and neutering of pets, 2007 marked the beginning of the continuing HSUS focus on using dog-fighting as a means of leveraging support for changes in legislation, with the attention focused in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi. 2007 was where the HSUS began to enjoy success in its push for pet-related legislative changes: California, Louisiana and Mississippi were the test cases.
Is this part of the reason that the indicated 34 state push for legislation to be occurring so early in 2009? Will the 2008 tax information provide documentation of the massive amounts of money being funnelled into generating support from cash-strapped animal control departments and rescues? How many of these groups could use an extra $10,000 – $50,000 in their budget, especially in the current financial climate? How many could stand to lose the same amount from their budget through not supporting the HSUS legislation as presented?
Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved
