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.

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

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

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