I’ve noticed a pattern over time with the HSUS press releases and CEO Wayne Pacelle’s blog, “Humane Nation”.  The pattern?  With noticeable frequency, issues used to attack their opponents are issues which are reflected within the HSUS itself.  Some examples?

• In “Humane Nation”, HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle attacks CCF founder Richard Berman for funneling funds from CCF to other pet organizations, yet the HSUS has a history of sending funds to ‘other organizations’ such as ‘Californians for Humane Farms’ which just happen to reside at the same address as the HSUS Sacramento office ($1,360,000 according to HSUS 2007 tax filings)
• In the HSUS webpage “Things you didn’t know about the (CCF) and Richard Berman“, one of the charges levelled against the CCF was “conducting prohibited electioneering and lobbying activities”  yet there is momentum gaining on the regarding the campaign to have the HSUS investigated by the IRS for the SAME THING.  (Both organizations are 501(c)3 organizations and subject to the same restrictions regarding political activity)

Lest you think I am just re-hashing old history, there is the latest matter of CEO Wayne Pacelle hiring new Vice President of Philanthropy, Deborah Peeples, who is the subject of a $87,164.60 federal tax lien.  Perhaps Wayne Pacelle will present an award to the IRS if they seize her property, as he did to Attorney General Greg Zoeller for seizing the property (dogs) of Virginia Garwood for tax reclamation purposes?

My thanks to the mysterious individual who forwarded these documents to me, who ever you are.  I am always interested in rock-solid documentation

Reminder: reference to the Center for Consumer Freedom is made for comparison purposes only.  Nothing written should be interpreted as either an endorsement or a condemnation of the organization.

• The 2006 AETA: What is it?  How and where does it apply
• Why is the AETA important to all levels of Animal Enterprise?
• Opposition to the AETA and court challenge results

The 2006 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) replaced the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 and contains a number of key points.

Key point 1: “Inclusion of economic damage to animal enterprises and threats of death and serious bodily harm to associated persons”

Under this bill, the term economic damage is defined as :

• the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records
• the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment
• the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from:
  • threats
  • acts or vandalism
  • property damage
  • trespass
  • harassment
  • intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person’s or entity’s connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise

However, economic damage does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise.  (Author note: ‘disclosure of information’ would include demonstrably true information only.  You’d think that this would go without saying but … )  This clause strongly protects 1^st amendment rights of free speech which are similarly protected by the “Rules of Construction” also contained in the AETA.

Key Point 2:  Definition of animal enterprise within the AETA includes the following:

• commercial or academic enterprises that use or sell animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing;
• any zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal event
• any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences;

Bear with me and consider the previous two points in light of the definition of the offense of force, violence and threats involving animal enterprises.

“Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce:

1. for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and
2. in connection with such purpose
   1. intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise;
   2. intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or
   3. conspires or attempts to do so;

shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b).

I know, blah, blah, legal-ease, blah.  Here’s the meat of the AETA.  If you fall into any of the included animal enterprise categories of the AETA, and you are being subjected to behaviour that falls outside the realms of free speech then you also have the recourse of protection under this act as well.  Hobby dog and cat breeders, I’m looking at you too.

Next article, I’m going to look at the ideas of application of the AETA.  Stay tuned.

Evidently the rights of families working in the pet industry are not considered worthy of the same respect.   Consider the following amended sections of the proposed bill

Sec. 1.

(a)      A retail pet store shall, before accepting an offer to purchase a dog or cat or upon request, provide the person making the offer or request with the following information in writing:

…(3) A list, and accompanying proof, of all inoculations that have been given to the dog or cat by any person, the date of the inoculations, and the name and title of the individual who  administered the inoculations.

(4) A list of all medical treatment provided to the dog or cat by any person, the date of treatment, the reason for the  treatment, and the name and title of the individual who provided the treatment.

(5) The name and business address of the breeder and of the facility where the dog or cat was born.

(6) The name and business address of the animal broker or transporter, if applicable.

(7) If the breeder or broker holds a license issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, the breeder’s or broker’s federal license number.

(b)    A retail pet store shall conspicuously post on the cage of a dog or cat being offered for sale, the following information:

…(3) The name of the breeder and of the facility where the dog or cat was born.

(4) The name of the animal broker or transporter, if applicable.

(5) If the breeder or broker holds a license issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, the breeder’s or broker’s federal license number.

As a former Police Captain, especially one with background in sex crimes and domestic violence, surely Rep. Lawson is  familiar with such things as stalking, harassment and privacy.  Likewise, in times that have necessitates the creation of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), it boggles the mind to mandate the posting of names and business addresses when these same addresses are typically the family home address as well.

Consider the level of hostility & violence that can be exhibited by animal rights extremists:

• Anonymous threats on Indiana’s WRTV against an Indiana dog breeder accused of being a ‘puppy mill’:  “Seize the property and sell it, place all the those poor dogs in foster care and then call me….I’ll shoot those worthless white trash slu-s all over the bodies until the cry for mercy then pop pop..one shot in the temple.” (original link here)
• Firebombing of vehicles at the homes of the families of scientific researchers (original link here)
• The “Militant Direct Action Awards”  of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) lauding Animal Rights Extremist actions around the world, up to and including bombings and arson (original link here)
• The tragic event yesterday (January 28) of the young man in Portland Oregan who doused himself in gasoline, lit himself on fire and attempted to enter a fur store only to die from his burns and treated with a nudge and a wink by the Portland Anti-Fur Campaign (News report here)

Consider that John Goodwin, the HSUS Manager of Animal Fighting Issues is a self professed former member of the ALF, brought into the HSUS by Wayne Pacelle knowing his history. (John Goodwin now and then)

Consider that Rep. Lawson is an open supporter of the HSUS and an active volunteer (original links here & here)

Consider that Rep Lawson previously swore to serve and protect the people of Indiana in her role as an officer of the law.

Consider that both Rep. Lawson and Rep. Barnes have sworn to serve the people of Indiana.

Consider that they both have signed on to a bill that says to those in the pet industry:

• We don’t value your businesses or the jobs they create.
• We don’t care about your safety, the safety of your workplace or the safety of your families.
• But in the ‘spirit of negotiation’ we’ll let you keep your $25

Copyright 2010 by Erica Saunders http://AR-HR.com

All rights reserved

We lost John Yates, founder of the American Sporting Dog Alliance, on September 15. Though he fought his battles for pet owners with pen & paper, with script & screen, John was no less a warrior than a man on the battlefield.

With his research and writings on legislative issues, he fired his shot across the bow of fleets of Animal Rights misinformation.

With his love of dogs and pride in the dogs he has raised, he waved the banner high for those who choose to raise animals.

With fearless determination, he stood guard against the weakening of property rights legislation in the face of sentimental attacks on emotion.

John understood that in battle individual differences must be put aside for the sake of the goal, without wavering until the Hill is taken. He understood that though the battle can be won, the war can still be lost if the troops fall into disarray.

He truly understood that evil happens when good people stand aside and do nothing. He put aside his own distaste for thrusting himself into the spotlight to found an organization fighting for pet owners everywhere, even those who will not fight for themselves and those who certainly wouldn’t fight for him

John’s writing has touched me personally. His loss breaks my heart and it costs us all deeply.

Good hunting John. May your old dogs be waiting for you and the hills full of game.

Join us this week for discussion related to meal choice, junk science and media.  Please comment and let us know your thoughts!

Transcript to follow for those on slower internet connections.

Listen to Ar-hr on Blog Talk Radio

It will not come to much surprise anybody who reads this site on a regular basis that I do not subscribe to the philosophy of animal rights. It will also not come as any surprise that I do not have any fundamental argument with an individual’s choice to minimize or even strive to eliminate the use of animals in their life.  It is not however, my choice.

I do have problems with the forcing of this philosophical position on those who do not necessarily subscribe to that position.  Hence, my commentary on issues related to animal legislation discussions of both logical extensions of cause and effect on those matters.  I also have problems with the use of misinformation in the attempts to sway individuals on these positions. Sometimes this is due to poor statistics. Sometimes this is due to poor science. I often have difficulty judging whether this is purposeful or not, especially in the case of science.

There was one comment by David Cantor, which is certainly one I’ve heard before usually uttered by individuals subscribing to vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. It is the position that humans are naturally herbivores. I’ve always wondered where this position comes from, especially since it is not based on basic study of biology or comparative anatomy.

When one examines human physiology, there are a number of characteristics that stand out in direct opposition to this position.

1. Our eyes, the “windows to our souls”, which are forward facing as opposed to placed on the sides of the skull.  Typically herbivores, although there are always exceptions, have eyes positioned to the sides of the skull to facilitate rearward view of approaching predators.
2. Our teeth, which display neither the pronounced canines of the obligate carnivore, nor the more expensive molar development of the herbivore
3. Our intestinal tract, which is adapted to cope with both animal-based and plant-based nutritional sources

The combination of these characteristics are typical not of the herbivore, but of the opportunistic omnivore. The characteristic we share in common with several animals.  As opportunistic omnivores, we can survive on either a plant-based or animal protein-based diet but we do not tend to thrive on either in isolation.  This is demonstrated by the requirements for B12 supplementation for those who subscribe to a vegan diet.  This is similarly demonstrated by the phenomena known as ‘rabbit starvation’, which occurs in individuals who subscribe primarily to a low fat, close to zero carbohydrate animal protein diet.

We do not enjoy meat, because we are bloodthirsty or cruel or heartless. We enjoy meat because we have evolved to do so, because there are key nutrients present in animal-based proteins that are most bioavailable to us from this source. It’s only natural.

Anyone who wishes to subscribe to a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle is welcome to do so. However, to position the philosophical ideas as biological fact is to risk the health of those who believe you.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

Last week, WSB-TV aired an investigative report into how the primary focus of the Humane Society of the United States is on activist efforts and political/lobbying activities, not directly on animals in need.  As aptly described by the writer of the YesBiscuit! blog, finding the video of this report online has been like a game of whack-a-mole ever since.  The video keeps re-surfacing, only to be forced offline again within hours, so I won’t be posting new links to the video, instead I encourage searches for video using keywords such as Humane Society, HSUS, WSB, Expose, Investigation as it does reappear in an increasing number of locations. (NOTE: Since this article was released, I have been forwarded several stable links that remain available.  The Blogroll link for the video is now usable)

I do continue to ask, “How is it that the Humane Society of the Unites States (HSUS) continues to qualify as a 501(c)3 tax-exempt charity?”  I actually don’t care if the HSUS wants to be an animal rights lobbying organization, all power to them.   But if that’s what they want to be, I believe they need to be explicitly clear about their goals, and that their tax & charitable status should reflect it.   

 For the skeptics out there that don’t believe the extent of the political activity of the HSUS, employees and executive, I offer further examples of public declarations of legal, political and lobbying efforts made on behalf of the HSUS:

• Michael Markarian, HSUS Executive VP for External Affairs and regular contributor to the Huffington Post, wrote of his involvement efforts on Capitol Hill in his article, ‘Herd on the Hill’
• On the HSUS Legislation and Laws page, “These are just some of the issues we will be tackling in the 111th Congress. Click here for a more complete roster of pending and anticipated bills”   The roster includes 3 pages proposals for legislation covering topics from pets (companion animals) to scientific research and changes in educational curriculum
• In his HSUS blog article, “Maine-stream” (May 15, 2009) HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle  makes reference to ” our landslide victory in Californiaon Proposition 2 last November”, “And this week, Maine Governor John Baldacci signed our billto ban both veal crates and gestation crates in his state”  and  “remember when Floridians favored an HSUS-authored initiative in 2002″
• July 12, 2006, HSUS Vice-President Patricia Forkan was before the Federal Ways and Means Committee testifying in favor of a US-Peru Trade agreement
• Don’t forget the extensive list of court cases that HSUS has initiated against or has supported against farmers, pet owners and/or breeders, hunters and others.

These are only a few examples of the extensive amount of legal, political and lobbying involvement of the HSUS, its employees, volunteers and executive.   Consider the following sections of the IRS website:

• Regarding Lobbying:  An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.  Yet here is an example of the kinds of emails being sent out to supporters
• 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. (Click here for original reference)
• Organizations other than churches and private foundations may elect the expenditure test under section 501(h) as an alternative method for measuring lobbying activity.  Under the expenditure test, the extent of an organization’s lobbying activity will not jeopardize its tax-exempt status, provided its expenditures, related to such activity, do not normally exceed an amount specified in section 4911.  This limit is generally based upon the size of the organization and may not exceed $1,000,000 (Click here for original reference)  Yet, in 2007  $1.36 million was granted just to Californians for Humane Farms, a lobbying group for the famous Proposition 2 located at the same mailing address as the California HSUS office. This doesn’t factor in the HSUS own direct activities.

And so, I continue to ask the question?  How does this permit the HSUS to continue to qualify for tax-exempt status?  Can someone who understands charity tax law better than I do explain it?

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

The online game of Hide & Seek continues regarding the video of the WSB-TV investigation into HSUS fundraising practises.  The video appeared online for viewing last evening briefly, only to be removed again within hours.   It will be interesting to see whether attempts to suppress this video from viewing will be successful.  Does turning this video into the ‘forbidden fruit’ of the Internet really serve to make it less interesting? or to only increase the interest in seeing what ‘they’ don’t want you to see?

Meanwhile, the Center for Consumer Freedom has indicated that there has been a wave of citizen interest in re-opening the investigation into the use of the $34 million raised from the Hurricane Katrina campaign.  Parties interested in having this matter properly investigated are being encouraged to contact the Louisiana Attorney General’s office at 1-800-351-4889.

In another strange move for the HSUS, they have partnered up with Michael Vick for their Anti-Dog-Fighting campaign.  It is not such a strange move for Michael Vick.  If he was looking for a high-profile group to work on his image with, HSUS was really his only option since ASPCA was the group (link to original court documents) involved in the his conviction and PETA has publicly made taking a brain scan a condition of working with him.  I actually feel a little sorry for him in this situation,which I NEVER thought I could say, since the HSUS publicly used his high-profile arrest and court case as a repeating media opportunity and now are riding his coat-tails on his personal ‘road to redemption’

The timing of the Michael Vick partnership is incredibly odd since it will just bring further scrutiny to their fundraising practises surrounding Michael Vick’s dogs (see previous article), on the heels of the fresh scrutiny into their fundraising practises regarding Hurricane Katrina.  This is also a very risky move for the HSUS, since a number their Twitter followers have been VERY vocal in their ‘unhappiness’ with this new program.  I also wonder if Michael Vick’s public relations team have checked whether associating with the HSUS Animal Fighting Issues Manager, John “JP” Goodwin will affect the terms of Michael Vick’s probation. Not knowingly associating with convicted criminals* is a typical condition of probation agreements, and John “JP” Goodwin happens to have been convicted of criminal actions* from his days associating with the extremely radical Animal Liberation Front (ALF). 

Its getting weirder by the day.

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

*CORRECTION:  It appears that there may have been an error in my initial statement regarding John “JP” Goodwin’s convictions as felony level.  Although there have been convictions, the level (felony or misdemenor) requires further clarification.  This reference has been removed pending further investigation.

Its amazing how this story just keeps on rolling, and its really the Humane Society of the United States that is driving it.  A cone of silence continues to descend over the original WSB-TV story on HSUS fundraising practises that continues to support the rumor of the unleashing of the HSUS legal team on WSB-TV for their researched & fact-supported story. 

 As I previously mentioned, the original story been removed from the WSB-TV website.  When I wrote to WSB-TV that I was saddened to see the story removed from their website, I received the following response.  A response that has been sent out to others who wrote in to WSB-TV over their disappointment as seeing the story vanish from view.

“Thank you for writing to Talk2Us. We appreciate hearing that you were engaged by the report about HSUS. We put up and pull down stories as part of our daily editorial process. We are working on an additional story about HSUS.  – WSB-TV”

Its an odd response.  How often does a network pull a story after less than 24hrs where the viewing is accelerating and the comments are still being logged at a rapid pace.  (mostly supporting the article I might add. I have copies of the comments, just in case this is contested)  Furthermore, the Youtube copies of the WSB-TV video have all been taken down by WSB-TV request through a copyright claim.  Funny thing though, at last my count there were 254 Youtube video links that were WSB-TV video.  Yet the video that they have taken down is the one with the HSUS investigation?  Considering the current evidence, I fear a much less accurate follow up.  I hope to be wrong.

David Martosko of the Center of Consumer Freedom has not been immune from the attacks either.  Alot of people on Twitter were surprised to find that his accounts had been suspended for “Suspicious Activity”, allegedly at the behest of the HSUS.  Given that (a) his Twitter activity does not appear to violate Twitter terms of service and (b) the Humane Society Twitter users have the ability to block his messages if they don’t want to see them, it is difficult to interpret this as anything but a message that the HSUS doesn’t want anyone one Twitter to be able to see his messages.

I’ve been noticing a significant amount of activity on this website as well, with a minimum of 15 visits from the Humane Society of the United States server this morning already.  They are spending a lot of time on the two most previous blog articles as well as on the About AR-HR page.  I’ve publicly asked (via Twitter) if there is something in particular that they are looking for, but have not yet received a response

The usual recommendation to corporations facing this kind of media is to ignore it, since attempting to make it go away usually makes the process worse.  I’m becoming increasingly curious why they are actively choosing to forego this normal, and wise, course of action.  Why is fighting to make it seem like this report never happened SO important to them up to the very highest levels?

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

Apparently the HSUS executive has not been content to stop with the rumored unleashing the HSUS legal team on WSB-TV. This is a rumor supported by the swift removal of both the text, viewer comments and video from the WSB-TV website by the afternoon of Friday, May 15th and the subsequent removal of the text article from Google’s cache system by Saturday, May 16th. The speed of this has been startling considering that images in Google’s cache can linger for days, weeks and even years in some cases. This process can be accelerated by website owner request.

Since May 14th, the number of personal attacks by both the HSUS executive and employees has been escalating and even some of their own supporters have not been safe from the spatter. Consider the following:

• The article posted on “Civil Eats” by the Senior Director of the HSUS factory farming campaign, Paul Shapiro. Aptly titled, “Lose Pretty or Win Ugly”, Mr. Shapiro proceeds to launch a series of attacks that could as easily describe HSUS tactics as the opponents named in the article. The comment, “When it comes to campaigning, CCF isn’t exactly known for its fidelity to the truth.” is particularly ironic after the admissions of HSUS Georgia Director Cheryl McAuliffe that most of her job entails activist planning and lobbying. With her further admission that all finances are controlled from Washington headquarters, it seems unlikely that Georgia is the only state with this proportion of political activity. It is even more ironic considering the HSUS ran an online fundraising campaign using the following soliciting statement beside the donation check box
  • Yes! I want to make a special gift to help The Humane Society of the United States care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case and to support other vital animal protection programs. (Click here to see the image) As I have written before, HSUS was not the agency caring for the dogs but instead it was the organization Bad Rap in association with the ASPCA, while HSUS was recommending the Michael Vick dogs be euthanized.
• HSUS Chief Operating Officer Michael Markarian and HSUS Internet Brand Manager Carie Lewis were actively forwarding the article “CCF Continues to Decieve Journalists, Public” from the blog, Digging Through The Dirt through the social networks via Twitter (pdf of image available in case Twitter post disappears) yet never acknowledge that the CCF statistics are independently confirmed through this website. This raises the question, if the CCF data is accurate (which it is) then why does HSUS continue to claim deception? The “Digging Through the Dirt” Blog even accused CCF of attacking HSUS with Craigslist postings. However, there is one problem with this accusation. Its not CCF, which I know for a fact. No, it isn’t me either but I’m going to leave it at that for now.
• HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle has attacked the Center for Consumer Freedom’s status as a 501(c) 3 tax-exempt charity despite the evidence provided by WSB-TV which throws the HSUS’ own 501(c) 3 tax-exempt staus into doubt.
• Andy Vance and I were called the “Limbaugh and Coulter of the meat industry” by HSUS employee Barbara Henderson. This was by far the mildest and most entertaining of the attacks to date for a couple of reasons. (1) I’m not certain that the meat industry really knows or cares much about either AR-HR.com or myself. (2) Didn’t Rush Limbaugh just do a couple of public service announcements for the Humane Society of the United States that he has taken ALOT of heat for? It probably isn’t good policy to use a celebrity supporter’s name as an insult attempt, even in jest.

WSB-TV may have pulled their very brave report from public viewing, but the awareness this story has raised has certainly struck a nerve up to the highest levels of the Humane Society of the United States. If there was nothing to the story or the questions it has raised, why are they waging a war of personal attacks instead of simply laying out the numbers and the data? Equally interesting is the question, “Why are the HSUS executive leveling accusations that match the HSUS as closely, if not more closely, than those they are attacking?”

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