Then you need to know about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA).

All of the aforementioned groups (and more) frequently suffer harassment, threats, trespass, property damage/loss and false allegations on a frequent basis.  The ability of the targeted to combat these actions is typically limited by one single factor, money.  Most of the affected groups put all their extra financial resources into their animals, it leaves little to throw into lawsuits that can drag on endlessly.  Its like the old joke, “How do you earn a small fortune with horses?  Start with a large one”

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) levels the playing field. It shifts the burden of the cost of the pursuit of a case from the individual to the federal government.  It also contains both a scalable penalty system and a means of ordering restitution to the affected parties when there is a course of conduct (pattern) of 2 or more acts violating the AETA which include bodily injury (serious or substantial) or economic damage.

The scalable penalty system is especially interesting as it allows a scope to deal with a range of events from the small scale to the large without the penalty necessarily exceeding the injury.

If you have been targeted in ways that appear to violate the AETA, please contact me.  I will be happy to put you in touch with people who are happy to provide more information and help guide you through the process.

The AETA, its not just for the protection of the ‘big guys’ but the ‘little guy’ too.

The coordination and execution of the raid is such an admirable feat, it makes me wonder why HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle feels it is necessary to inflate the numbers on raid?  According to Wayne Pacelle’s blog, A Humane Nation, the raids seized at least 450 dogs and spanned 8 states. (Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas)  However, according to the FBI/Department of Justice press release, approximately 350 dogs were siezed and the raids spanned 5 states. (Missouri, Texas, Illinois, Iowa, and Oklahoma)  Where did the other 3 states and 100 dogs reported by the HSUS come from?  The HSUS article and the FBI/DOJ press release were released on the same day, so it cannot be explained by subsequent changes in the case.

Sadly & predictably, Wayne Pacelle has already begun making pessimistic comments regarding the future of these seized dogs to the media.  As quoted in St. Louis Today, “It’s just unclear what will happen,” said Wayne Pacelle, head of the Humane Society of the United States. “I think it’s pretty certain that a lot of those dogs will not pass a behavioral test”  Yet, Wayne Pacelle has made such comments before. 

In 2007, he made the following statements to the NY Times regarding Michael Vick’s dogs, “Officials from our organization have examined some of these dogs and, generally speaking, they are some of the most aggressively trained pit bullsin the country,” Wayne Pacelle, the president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “Hundreds of thousands of less-violent pit bulls, who are better candidates to be rehabilitated, are being put down. The fate of these dogs will be up to the government, but we have recommended to them, and believe, they will be eventually put down.”  Pacelle said the Humane Society normally advocated that fighting dogs be put down shortly after being seized.”  Yet the reality was that only 1 of the Michael Vick dogs was euthanized due to aggressive temperament. (Ah yes, and HSUS was not the agency involved in the dogs assessments)

In 2008, Amanda Arrington HSUS North Carolina Lobbyist (sorry, State Director) and Chris Schindler HSUS Deputy Manager, Animal Fighting Law Enforcement (who isn’t a law enforcement officer) testified in court to ensure the euthanizing of the Wildside Kennel pit bulls including 60 puppies, some only weeks old with statements like “You know, people speak about the Michael Vick dogs. Those dogs have not even been rehabilitated.” (Those would be the “most aggressively trained pit bulls in the country” where only 1 required euthanasia for aggressive temperament)

Now we have dogs that don’t exist, in states that weren’t raided, that Wayne Pacelle is hinting will/should be euthanized for behavioral issues?  I am confused, very very confused.

Update 1,  I received the following comment this morning on AR-HR.com from Sarah Barnett of the HSUS:

Hi, I am an HSUS Employee and this is the statement from the HSUS; With so many different organizations and local, state and federal agencies coming together for last week’s historic rescues there is understandably varying information on the details of the rescued. Raids began as early as 5 Am last Wednesday, and carried on into the early morning hours – therefore stories were updated into the next day. Stories on the Humane Society of Missouri and ASPCA websites reflect that seven or eight states were involved (HSMO has not included NE in their story, although dogs were rescued there as well) and approximately 450 dogs were rescued. These facts are also reflected on many news stories published throughout the country. There was absolutely no inflation of last week’s momentous rescues – unfortunately the cruel animal fighting industry is widespread enough to keep us all busy fighting it for some time to come.

Update 2, My email reponse to Sarah Barnett of the HSUS:

Hello Sarah,

Thank you for the HSUS position statement with respect to the AR-HR.com article on the recent Dog Fighting raids.

Could you please clarify your position and department within the Humane Society of the United States? I would also request that you clarify the source of your authority to speak on behalf of HSUS.

Please confirm that it is the official HSUS position that the data within FBI/DOJ releases on the dogfighting related raids, which were published on the same date as the HSUS release (July 9), are not accurate

Thank you for taking the time to contact AR-HR.com

Regards,

Erica Saunders

AR-HR.com Founder

Update 3, Response from Sarah Barnett of the HSUS:

Hi Erica,

Thanks for your response – I work as the emerging media manager for the online communications department for the HSUS, and what we were stating in the comment I posted was that with new information coming in every minute during these amazing rescues, the numbers were increasing as more raids occurred.

Sarah Barnett

Emerging Media Manager, Online Communications

 Update 4, Summary of HSUS response

I must point out 2 problems with the final HSUS response on this matter. 

1. Both articles were released on the same day (July 9) on approximately the same timeline.  Therefore it seems unlikely that the HSUS would be in possession of more up-to-date data than the FBI.
2. Ms. Barnett did NOT make any attempt to confirm that the official HSUS position is that the FBI data is incorrect.

My personal opinion is ’shenanigans’ but I leave this up to you as the reader to decide for yourself.

“Why are so many people convinced that pet ‘adoption’ differs from pet purchase?”

The question struck me after reading the following comment on Twitter and the HSUS response. (click here)  The original comment was, “So discraceful.(sic) I would never buy a pet-Adoption is my first/only option!”  The HSUS response?  “AMEN”  

In the legal sense, every pet acquired by paying a purchase pricean adoption fee or minimum donation is purchased.  Yet, ‘adoption’ is held up as morally superior.

A significant difference between the idea of conventional purchase and ‘adoption’?  Typically that one is not obtaining the pet from the person responsible for the breeding, though even this is not a hard and fast criterion if including USDA commercial breeders in the calculation. 

Another significant difference between the conventional purchase and adoption? Conventional purchases typically involve intentional breedings, whereas adoptions often as not involve unintentional breedings. 

Conventional purchases involve a majority of pups and a minority of adults, most ‘adoptions’ involve a majority of adults or seniors and a minority of pups.  This is the single most differentiating factor between conventional purchases of pets and ‘adoption’.  

These factors sum the most critical criteria for a prospective pet owner to consider.  Are they better suited to handle a young pet or an older one?  A known temperment or an unknown temperament?  Can they handle training young pet? Can they handle one with longer term behavioural problems or training deficits?  Are they willing to deal with the uncertainty of an unknown health history or does known health history of pet and parents make for greater peace of mind?  

 Every pet is the result of a breeding, intentional or unintentional and people typically don’t attach much value to that which comes cheaply or free.  Shouldn’t we be willing to commit resources to obtain a pet, which is ideally a lifetime commitment?   I own the full spectrum of pets.  I have a cat I purchased from a city shelter, another cat from a friend who couldn’t keep him and a dog purchased from a breeder.  I will have them all with me for the length of their lives.

Owning a pet is a choice.  Choosing the pet you can commit to for a lifetime, whatever the source is the ‘right’ choice, the ethical choice, the humane choice.  Choose what makes you human(e)

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

On this day, of all days of the year, Americans take time to celebrate these principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.  Living in a society that is founded on the concept that such human rights are ‘unalienable’ is a precious thing that many places in the world cannot claim.  Yet, these rights are not absolute or unbalanced by other considerations.  A person’s right to Life does not come at the expense of another’s Life.  A person’s Liberty extends to the point that it impinges on the Liberty of another person.  A person’s right to the pursuit of Happiness is not a guarantee of Happiness nor is it the right to pursue Happiness at the expense of another’s Happiness.  This freedom, this vision of Independence, is no easy thing to manage at the personal or the societal level.  It precludes the use of the quick fix or the easy answer.   Independence and these unalienable rights are messy and at their most precious when one’s actions are ‘unpopular’. 

In honor of Independance Day and of the Declaration of Independance, I would like to remind everyone of some rights that are not wrong, though they are popular targets.

• It is the right of the individual to breed dogs as much as it is the right of the individual who wishes to participate in rescue to do so. 
• It is the right of an individual to sell animals as much as it is the right of a rescue or shelter to sell animals.
• It is the right of the farmer to run their business based on a non-organic business model or on an organic one. 
• It is the right of the individual to choose to include meat in their diet, or not.
• It is the right of the individual to choose how they care for animals they own, so long as the care does not violate legal standards of care. 
• It is the right of the hunter to hunt animals within the bounds of the law, while it is the right of the non-hunter to not participate in hunting.
• It is the right of an individual to choose to obtain their pet from the source they select
• It is right of one individual to say they don’t agree with the actions of another.

 By protecting the liberties of others, even those we don’t agree with, we protect our own liberty.  By protecting the ability of others to pursue happiness, we protect our own ability to pursue happiness.By protecting the rights of others to choose, we protect our own right to choice.  Choose what makes you human(e).

Happy July 4th to you all.

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

“Did the Humane the United States fail to account for Political and/or Lobbying activity of Paid Personnel and Volunteers on their 2005, 2006 & 2007 IRS Tax Filings?”

According to the IRS website, “Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.”  

Yet, when looking at the 2007 IRS 990 forms filed by the HSUS, I noticed the following information in the statement of Lobbying Activity by Non-Electing Charities:

The question for this section reads: During the year, did the organization attempt to influence national, state or local legislation, including any attempt to influence public opinion on a legislative matter or referendum, through the use of (a) Volunteers  (b) Paid staff or management.  The response to both sections was No.  This was the response in 2007  as well as in 2006 & 2005 despite the following examples:

• May 8 2007  HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, testified before Congress to “urge the Congress to pass legislation” as stated in his HSUS blog Humane Nation, introducing himself as representing the Humane Society of the United State and submitting a 52 page report including his testimony and supporting documentation
• November 8, 2005 HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle testified before Congress on the issue of the Pet Animal Welfare Statute
• On the Ballot Initiative section of the HSUS website, one may access a list of Ballot Initiatives where HSUS claims central involvement extending from 1990 through 2008
• On the Enacted and Vetoed State Legislation section of the HSUS website, the following statement is found, “The Government Affairs section of the Humane Society of the United States tracks, reviews, drafts, comments, lobbies and testifies on legislation that impacts animals in almost every state. We also keep a record of certain priority legislation on this website so citizens can take action.”  This page includes the lists of Enacted and Vetoed Legislation from 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008.

All of the above cited items could not have occurred without the involvement of paid and/or volunteer personnel.   All were claimed under the auspices of the Humane Society of the United States, not the Humane Society Legislative fund or one of the other HSUS sub-entities.  

It appears that these activities continue, as was observed by the investigative team who attended a Georgia state HSUS meeting and found it to be primarily involved in activist plans and lobbying, an assessment agreed with by HSUS Georgia State director Cheryl McAuliffe who also acknowledged that this forms the majority of her work-related activity and that all budgeting is controlled from the HSUS Washington headquarters.  It is reasonable to believe  significantly greater volunteer involvement, especially when one considers emails such as this one being sent on the behalf of the HSUS:

From: Jordan Matyas [mailto: jmatyas@hsus.org] 

Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:51 PM

To: Jordan Matyas

Subject: Legislative Update from Springfield

It has been a very busy few months at Illinois’ state capitol. Because of your help, we are having a great year in Springfield. The summaries below provide a blurb about each bill – for more information on any particular legislation, feel free to contact me. Thanks so much to all of you for your phone calls and emails to legislators – but remember the fight is not over!  (See here for remainder) 

If the HSUS has not accounted for the activities of paid employees and volunteers, and this lack of accounting causes the HSUS to fail the “Substantial Part of Activities” standard set by the IRS, the HSUS could be subject to back-taxes on the $152 million in gross receipts for 2007 alone.  Considering the increase in lobbying activities in 2008 and 2009, will the HSUS continue to claim that there is no activity by either volunteers or paid personnel that is occurs under the auspices of the HSUS?  Will the HSUS executive explicitly reference the sub-entity that they are representing, as Patricia Forkan did in 2006, without invoking the authority of the HSUS? 

Will the HSUS pay taxes on its 2008 filing or 2009?

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

The Pet Parent movement is everywhere these days with people talking about pets as ‘furkids’ and themselves as pet parents.  As the owner of a young dog and two senior cats, I completely understand referring to a pet as ‘Baby’ as term of endearment.   I also understand the wish to express how a pet is an integral part of the family. Unfortunately, the psychology of the ‘pet parent’ movement doesn’t always serve the interests of pets.

The role of a parent is to raise their child to make their own way in the society as independent individuals. Fundamentally, parents aren’t expected to be responsible for their child forever.  Children are expected to eventually make their way alone.  Contrast this with the idea of ownership, in which there is no implied end date to owner’s responsibility to the owned. 

Ownership is not a dirty word or a term to be disparaged.  To own one’s pets is to take ownership for one’s pets.  To take ownership for an animal is to take responsibility for the animal’s need.  George H Morris, a consummate horseman and Chief of the US Olympic Show Jumping team once said, “Love means attention, which means looking after the things we love. We call it stable management.”  This statement holds true for every responsible pet owner, animal breeder, farmer, equestrian and zoo keeper. The language we use may differ but taking ownership means being responsible, being responsible means paying attention.

 Paying attention means recognizing pets, unlike children, will never grow up and make their own way in the world. 

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

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