• American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
• Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
• Animal Welfare Institute (AWI)
• The Fund For Animals (subsidiary of the Humane Society of the United States)
• Tom Rider
• Animal Protection Institute through Born Free USA United (API)
• Wildlife Advocacy Project (WAP)
• Law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal as an organization; Katherine Meyer, Eric R. Glitzenstein and Howard M. Crystal in their individual capacities
• Jonathan R. Lovvorn & Kimberly D. Ockene, attorneys for the HSUS

Sheer vindictiveness for the 9 year long lawsuit waged against Feld Entertainment by the defendants you say?  Maybe not.

The 135 page long filing for the RICO , as well as the 57 page Court opinion in the December 2009 dismissal of the original case documents a history of payments routed to Tom Rider by his many of his RICO suit co-defendants in exchange for his testimony against Feld Entertainment.  This was explicitly noted by the court in the December dismissal as follows:

• Mr. Rider’s self-serving testimony at trial about his personal and emotional attachment to these elephants also is not credible because he did not begin to make complaints about how FEI treated its elephants until after he began accepting money from animal activists, possibly first from such individuals in the United Kingdom and then certainly from PAWS, MGC, the current organizational plaintiffs and WAP. Other than these payments, which have totaled at least $190,000.00 and have flowed to Mr. Rider in an uninterrupted stream from March 2000 through at least December 31, 2008, Mr. Rider has had no other source of income or financial support. (pg 44 of 57)

Damning examples of additional credibility issues regarding the testimony are further accessible through the December 2009 case dismissal.

• Court finds that Mr. Rider failed to prove either a strong and personal attachment to the seven elephants at issue or that FEI’s treatment of those elephants caused and continues to cause Mr. Rider to suffer aesthetic or emotional injury. Mr. Rider was repeatedly impeached, and indeed was “pulverized” on cross-examination. The Court finds that Mr. Rider is essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness who is not credible, and therefore affords no weight to his testimony regarding the matters discussed herein, i.e., the allegations related to his standing to sue. (pg 19 & 20 of 57)

Disregard Humane Watch and the RICO filing  court records if you wish.  But this RICO suit stems directly from the observations of US District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in the conclusions of the original trial in December 2009. Can those be as easily discarded out of hand?

• Have the poorly constructed animal ownership legislation campaigns ceased or even slowed?  Not a bit.
• Has the Humane Society of the United States been more open in the truth of its fundraising campaigns or use of funds?  Nope, not according to the recent misleading fund-raising on the back of Fay (the sweet & now deceased mutilated pitbull) or according to their 2008 tax records.  Frankly, the ASPCA has not been much better.  Has anyone else changed the channel recently over their creepy tv ads?
• Are town and state official still writing and implementing unconstitutional legislation, similar to Louisville KY, that may cost them more than they can afford in court?  Sadly, yes.

The pause has come because I was starting to feel that the articles were becoming repetitive, that I was doing a dis-service to those who read these articles.  If I intended to recycle articles, I might as well simply pull up articles from the past for your reading pleasure.  So, I have been considering where this site should be headed for the next year.  This is not to say that I will not be writing about similar topics as the past year but that the vision is expanding.

In 2010, the theme of the site will be to focus on a “Truly Humane Society” when it comes to animal legislation and the animal welfare movement.  The focus will be on examining the possibilities of a humane society” that:

• Rescues animals in true need of rescue and follows through until those same animals have a safe permanent homes instead of seizing animals to get headlines, raise funds or bolster political activities yet advocate for euthanasia for those same animals behind the scenes.
• Assists animal owners in trouble  at all income level to keep their animals not demonize them as ‘neglectful’ over minor issues or philosophical differences
• Assist animal owners & rescues caring for elderly, ill and ‘unwanted’ animals instead of classifying them as ‘hoarders’ and stigmatizing them as mentally ill
• Raises funds through open, clear and honest disclosure of activities in all fundraising literature instead of shading the truth to the point of being unrecognizable
• Shines the light on the rescues and groups doing the blood, sweat and tears work that occurs after the emergency teams have left instead of leaving them high and dry to fight for donation scraps in the shadows

In short, to increase the focus on positive solutions, on supporting our fellow humans and animals in these challenging times and most importantly on pulling together instead of pulling apart.

For 2010, may we be TRULY humane, instead of in name only.  Mr. Pacelle, are you listening?

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.

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

Though it might surprise you from my writing, I don’t own an American Pit Bull Terrier or a Staffordshire Terrier or any breed typically targeted by breed-specific legislation. Part of the reason is that these breeds are banned where I live.  Only those owned previous to legislation enactment are permitted under law and those are subject to muzzle law.  If animal control sees your dog and thinks it has similar characteristics, the dog runs the risk of being seized and killed unless you can prove non-violating breed parentage.  Good luck if your dog is a mixed breed.  So I purposely picked a breed that is almost impossible to mistake and has documentation to back up the fact, my choice that I have never regretted for a second.

But the plight of the bully breeds weighs on me;  beautiful, loyal, sweet and devoted to their people. Though not the breed for every dog owner, they are remarkable and resiliant.  I was reminded of all these qualities by this video, shown by every bully breed dog i have ever met.

I hope and pray the dogs of these recent raids are given the chance of the Vick dogs, and not slaughtered outright from infant pup to parent like those of Wilkes County this past February.  Every dog deserves to be evaluated as an individual.  Every dog deserves a chance.

Please … let them have a chance. 

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.

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

In this letter, the Spay USA statistic is quoted “…one un-spayed female dog and her offspring can reproduce 67,000 puppies in six years.”  This statistic depends on one thing, that the public will never look how those numbers were obtained.

To obtain this statistic from one dog in 6 years, the original dog must produce 6+ pups/year with every pup also producing 6+ pups/year.  Biologically, this isn’t possible due to a little thing called puberty.  Include the statistic that 75% of pets are neutered, it becomes mathematically impossible.  In fact, when the HSUS statistic of  a 75% pet neutering rate applied to the calculation, those 67,000 puppies become 56 puppies, in 6 years.  That is actually a frighteningly low number of pups.  The problem is, this biologically impossible statistic has become ‘common knowledge’ pushed by animal rights groups,  believed by a large portion of the animal welfare advocates and has filtered down to the rest of the population. 

Although it sounds like heresy, we don’t have an overall pet overpopulation problem.  We have a combination of problems with 2 of the most significant below: 

• Over-population in some regions but shortages in others.  There are shelters and rescues bringing in pets from out of city, out of state and even out of country to provide the pets people are looking for.  What we have here is a resource allocation problem
• Inexperienced pet owners with no idea how to train animals, and an inability to easily obtain a trained animal to fit their experience level.  It used to be acceptable to sell trained dogs, they even commanded a premium, yet it is demonized now.  So, inexperienced owners get pups they don’t have the tools to train, then turn them over to a shelter in frustration during the pup’s adolescence.  These untrained adolescent dogs often then get adopted by a new set of inexperienced pet owners who are equally overwhelmed by the challenges of animal training.  This problem alone is a massive contributor to shelter turn-ins and a very possible reason that previously adopted dogs make up the largest portion of shelter relinquishment.

This means that the dream of a home for all adoptable pets is challenging but realistic. It also means understanding that the concept of  ‘no-kill’ does not apply to every animal, but to the reasonably sound of mind and body.  Death is not the worst option an animal can face, but it certainly shouldn’t be the first option.  In cases of over-crowding and in the electronic age, it should not present an excessive challenge to establish where a rescue or shelter has space to assist. 

Unfortunately, bad statistics are even worse than no statistics.  They point us in the wrong direction, they send us chasing after the wrong questions and the wrong answers.  They justify actions that we would discard as unthinkable in the face of  accurate information, like killing adoptable animals.  Statistics like the Spay USA statistic don’t just drive bad policy, they kill.

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

From the Canine Grants portion of the Helmsley Trust Web site:

Canine Grants

The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust is providing general operating support to further the effectiveness and reach of two of the ASPCA’s three core program areas: Animal Health Services and Community Outreach. With these funds, the ASPCA will increase the number of animals served via its Mobile Spay/Neuter Clinics, Bergh Memorial Animal Hospital, the Animal Poison Control Center, and the Animal Behavior Center. The ASPCA will also increase the percentage of homeless animals safely rescued from animal shelters in seven targeted communities, including New York City.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) is the first and oldest humane organization in the Western Hemisphere. The ASPCA is dedicated to creating a humane nation in which companion animals receive the respect and kindness they deserve as sentient beings.

The Trust is providing general operating support to Canine Companions for Independence (CCI) to support CCI’s work to enhance the lives of people with disabilities by providing highly trained assistance dogs and ongoing support to ensure quality partnerships. CCI breeds, trains and places four kinds of assistance dogs with people with disabilities: Service dogs, for adults; Skilled Companion dogs, for children; Hearing dogs, for deaf and hard of hearing individuals; and Facility dogs to work with a professional in a therapeutic environment or school.

The Trust is providing general operating support to advance the training and placement of service dogs with people who have physical disabilities, offering greater independence and an enhanced quality of life to disabled people.

The Trust is providing general operating support for Dogs for the Deaf’s work to rescue dogs from shelters and professionally train them to assist people with severe hearing loss or with other physical or emotional needs caused by strokes, autism, cerebral palsy, seizures, Alzheimer’s disease, and depression.

The Trust is providing general operating support to Guide Dogs for the Blind to offer safety, independence, and companionship to the blind, and love, responsibility and purpose to dogs.

The Trust is providing general operating support to Guiding Eyes for the Blind to support its work to enrich the lives of blind and visually impaired men and women by providing them with the freedom to travel safely with the assistance of professionally trained Guiding Eyes dogs, thereby assuring greater independence, dignity and new horizons of opportunity.

The Trust is providing general operating support to assist Leader Dogs for the Blind to provide service dogs that bring safety and independence to the lives of people who are blind and visually impaired.

The Trust is providing general operating support for NEADS/Dogs for Deaf and Disabled Americans to train dogs to assist people who are deaf and physically disabled.

The Trust is providing general operating support for Puppies Behind Bars, an organization dedicated to training inmates to raise puppies to become service dogs for the disabled and explosive detection canines for law enforcement agencies.

The Trust supported The Seeing Eye with a general support grant to assist the Seeing Eye with breeding, raising and training Seeing Eye dogs to guide blind people. The Seeing Eye also teaches instructors the science and technique of training dogs as guides for blind people, and instructs blind individuals in the proper use of dogs.

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

 The problem is this:

• The HSUS was not in possession of the dogs once they were seized
• The HSUS was not involved with the assessment of the dogs
• The HSUS was not involved with care of the dogs after they were seized

 In fact, the agency involved in this case was the ASPCA and the conduct of the HSUS, their words to the contrary, during the duration of the story demonstrates they didn’t have the dogs. Groups involved in federal cases are not permitted to talk to the media during an active court case without the permission of the US Attorney involved or to fund-raise using animals involved in an active court case without the permission of the US attorney involved.   The ASPCA did not have permission to do these things, so they did not.  On the other hand, since the HSUS was not part of these processes after the seizure, they were free to talk to the media, claim they had assessed the dogs and then campaign for the dogs’ deaths all while fundraising with the claim that they were involved in the dogs’ care.  

This bring me to the following questions:

• How much money was raised from this campaign from people thinking they were donating directly for the care of these dogs?  It must have been sizable considering the prevalence of the story and the HSUS in the news over that period in time
• What was the money actually used for?  The total grants for 2007 show no significant difference from the total grants issued in 2006
• Why has there been so little attention paid to this deceptive fundraising campaign?  The HSUS only pulled the direct fundraising campaign after other dog rescue groups started crying foul over the campaign.  The misleading statements about the level of HSUS involvement are still on the HSUS website, including pictures of the same dog used in the misleading campaign.

Shouldn’t the people who donated during that point in time have been contacted when the inaccuracy of the campaign was ‘noticed’?  Shouldn’t they have been offered the option to have their money returned if their reason for donation was for care of the dogs  so that they could donate to organizations more closely involved?   Doesn’t the HSUS want their supporters to feel secure that they understand where and how their donations are really being used?

Is this the level of conduct and ethics one should expect from a 5-star ranked charity?

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

vick_hsus_campaign_p1

http___hsustypepadcom_wayne_2007_07_vick-indictment

vick_specialmasterreport