Animal Rights or Human Responsibility (AR-HR)

In “Humane Nation”, Wayne Pacelle’s HSUS blog the attack was launched against the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) and Research Director David Martosko.  The independence of CCF is brought under attack as are its motivations and ethics.  I’ve said it before, and will say it again.  Methinks Mr. Pacelle doth protest too much.

When I started writing about animal activism and its impact on legislation, I made it a point of principle to set high standards for the sources of information that I used as reference.  Everything I use needs to be a direct account and/or verifiable with a reputable source.  Reputable source meant mainstream media, legal documents, first person authorship & direct quotes.  2nd hand, 3rd hand, anonymous online posting and unverifiable blog postings are material I simply will not use for a number of reasons.

In this effort, here is what I have found.  Whether I agree with CCF’s positions on an item by item basis, the accuracy of the research can rarely (if ever) be faulted.  I know this because when I have investigated similar issues,  gone back to the source documents and even done my own statistical analysis, the numbers have all worked out.   Disliking an individual and disliking an organization does not make their information incorrect.  As a life-long animal owner, I would love to be able to believe the HSUS, but I keep catching them in half-truths, deceptions and even bald-faced lies.

• HSUS claimed to have assessed the Vick dogs and declared them unsalvageable. Wayne Pacelle said so to the NY Times. The court documents declare that the ASPCA and BAD RAP were the assessors
• According to court transcript, HSUS claimed in court that the weeks-old Wildside Kennel pups were born killers, that the liability would be too high  and that they should be euthanized.  Coming dangerously close to perjury in their statements of associated costs.
• In the Nebraska Mustang seizure over the past few days, Habitat for Horses and LifeSavers have custody of the horses and are overseeing their care whle local ranchers are donating hay.  HSUS claims involvement but local reports indicate that HSUS arrived after the animals were already gathered and relocated.  This issue is too new to have much solid information, but previous history makes me cautious to believe the HSUS side, especially when the press release includes a photo of a thin horse with the caption “Ribs should never show on a horse”,  a blanket statement as ignorant as saying “Ribs should never show on a human”. 

I could find many more examples, but I try not to be too tedious. 

The problem that the HSUS has with David Martosko and the CCF is not that he’s spreading inaccurate information about the HSUS, but that he is spreading accurate information. Love CCF or hate it, is that sufficient reason to ignore accurate information?  It may be for some, but it isn’t for me.

 Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

 For those who are wondering, I am not employed by or a paying member of  :

• CCF
• pharmaceutical or cosmetics industry
• fur or clothing industry
• any pet breeding business (hobby or otherwise)
• any animal research facility
• agribusiness/food/restaurant or beverage industry
• hunting or gun club

Which unfortunately makes me a more difficult target than the CCF