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

In 2007, the HSUS granted $5,632,209 to organizations and individuals across the US, yet 59% of that money went to only 3 states: Louisiana, Mississipi and California. 

• California received $1,456,420 with $1,360,000 of that going to the organization Californians for Humane Farms which operates out of the Sacramento, California HSUS office.  (93% of funding for lobbying efforts)
• Louisiana received $1,204,625.  Half of that ($600,000) went to Skip Bertram at the Louisiana State University Veterinary department,  and the overwhelming majority of remainder was spread to Humane Societies and Animal Control departments in chunks ranging from $30,000 to $10,000. 
• Mississippi received $1,240,900. Mississippi State University Foundation received $900,000.  Again, the overwhelming majority of the remainder was distributed in large chunks ranging from $50, 000 to $10,000 to Humane Societies, Animal Control Departments and Rescues.

If we use Californiaas a guide, 2007 was the year in which the groundwork was being laid for the “Great Egg Fight of 2008″ otherwise known as Proposition 2.   Consider the financial leverage exerted by the Humane Society of the United States when the HSUS threw its weight and funds into the fight in support of Californians for Humane Farms (CHF), when HSUS and CHF are the same organization.

So, it stands to reason that a similar percentage (90%) of the funding to the similarly funded states was intended for political purposes.  In 2007,  the $900,000 grant  to Mississippi State University was for a Spay/Neuter program assisting in the HSUS spay/neuter mandate.   In addition to the focus on spaying and neutering of pets, 2007 marked the beginning of the continuing HSUS focus on using dog-fighting  as a means of leveraging support for changes in legislation, with the attention focused in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi.  2007  was where the HSUS began to enjoy success in its push for pet-related legislative changes:  California, Louisiana and Mississippi were the test cases. 

Is this part of the reason that the indicated 34 state push for legislation  to be occurring so early in 2009?  Will the 2008 tax information provide documentation of the massive amounts of money being funnelled into generating support from cash-strapped animal control departments and rescues?  How many of these groups could use an extra $10,000 – $50,000 in their budget, especially in the current financial climate?  How many could stand to lose the same amount from their budget through not supporting the HSUS legislation as presented?

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved  

hsus-grants-analysis

hsus-2007-grants-analysis

This positional shift towards an animal rights approach began with the 1980 HSUS convention call for “pursuit on all fronts… the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of animals”.¹  In 1986, former HSUS director of laboratory welfare John McArdle was quoted as observing “HSUS is definitely shifting in the direction of animal rights faster than anyone would realize from our literature”.²  Interestingly, John McArdle was fired from his position with the HSUS shortly after this statement, allegedly for being ‘an animal rights activist, despite a similar observation made in 1986 by HSUS president-emeritus John Hoyt, “This new philosophy [animal rights] has served as a catalyst in the shaping of out own philosophies, policies and goals”.³  Being HSUS president-emeritus, John Hoyt was not in a position over which the HSUS could exert leverage.

This philosophical shift continued through the 1990s through former PETA employees joining the HSUS, such Cristobel “Kitty” Block and members of other animal rights organizations such as Wayne Pacelle, lauded in 1997 as “one of America’s most important animal rights activists”, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals.^12,13

·         Ms Block has been promoted from her previous position as an HSUS investigator (starting prior to 1995) to the position of Vice President of Humane Society International (HSI), the international arm of HSUS and is currently responsible for many of the HSI campaigns and legal challenges are led by HSI.^9,10,11  

·         Wayne Pacelle, who joined the HSUS in 1994, has risen from chief lobbyist and spokesperson to President and CEO.

Support for the animal rights position was further exhibited by HSUS’ significant participation in the 1997 Animal Rights National Convention with HSUS speakers including:

·         Martin Stephens: then and current Vice-President of Animal Research Issues ^{4, 5}

·         Patricia Forkan: then Executive Vice President, current Senior Vice President & International President, Humane Society International ^{4, 5}

·         John Lyman:  then director of Eating with a Conscience campaign ⁴

·         Michael Fox:  then Vice President of Bioethics and Farm Protection and current member of Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights^4,6

The inclusion of animal rights activists into the HSUS executive continued with the hiring in 2000 of John “JP” Goodwin.  Mr. Goodwin is currently Manager, Animal Fighting Issues and formerly of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and founder of the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT). ^5,7,8

Despite the progressive incorporation of Animal Rights Activism into the HSUS, there continues to be significant activity to curtail public awareness of this information:

• Through referring to Animal Rights philosophy as Animal Advocacy
• Through members of the executive changing their referenced first names as in the cases of Cristobel Block, now referred to as Kitty Block, and JP Goodwin, now referred to as John Goodwin. These minor changes make it more difficult to hold these members of the executive accountable for their controversial former affiliations
• Through the manipulation of public information as demonstrated by the continual removal of unfavorable information from the HSUS Wikipedia page, which has a long history of extremely close monitoring by a small number of individuals.

All of this combines to throw a veil of doubt over intentions of the HSUS, as the sheep’s clothing throws a veil of doubt over the intentions of the wolf.^14,15

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved          

References

1. HSUS, Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 1981 publication, as cited in The Humane Society in the US: Its Not about Animal Shelters, Daniel Oliver
2. John McArdle, quoted in Katie McCabe, “Who Will Live, Who Will Die,” Washingtonian August 1986, p115, as cited in The Humane Society in the US: Its Not about Animal Shelters, Daniel Oliver
3. John Hoyt, quoted in Katie McCabe, “Katie McCabe Replies,” Washingtonian October 1986, pp109-110, as cited in The Humane Society in the US: Its Not about Animal Shelters, Daniel Oliver
4. The Humane Society in the US: Its Not about Animal Shelters, Daniel Oliver http://saova.org/articles/HSUS_ItsNotAboutAnimalShelters-Oliver.pdf
5. The Humane Society of the United States website, 2009  http://www.hsus.org/about_us/board_and_staff/experts/
6. Self-disclosed biographical information, Michael Fox, http://tedeboy.tripod.com/drmichaelwfox/id1.html
7. New York Times article, Anti-Fur Groups Wage War on Mink Farms, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E6D8153CF933A05752C1A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
8. No Compromise article, Fur Wars Heat Up: A.L.F. is on the Warpath! , JP Goodwin, http://www.nocompromise.org/issues/04furwar.html
9. http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/04/7-8/7.04.swf
10. http://www.hsus.org/about_us/board_and_staff/experts/experts/kitty_block.html
11. http://www.pewwhales.org/whalesymposium/agenda.php
12. http://www.humaneusa.org/humaneusaboard.htm#Pacelle
13. http://friendsofanimals.org/
14. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humane_Society_of_the_United_States&action=history
15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Humane_Society_of_the_United_States

A few minutes later, I hear a woman ranting “You need to keep an eye on your child!!” “He just fell down and could have gotten hurt!”  while continuing to complain about irresponsible parents on her cell phone.  Her tirade is stopped when we quietly point out that the little boy is actually playing and the mother looks exhausted, and she goes on to complain in her continuing cell conversation about people “giving her shit”

What does this have to do with pet legislation?  Everything.  Much animal legislation is based upon parachuting in and first impressions, upon dislike of the owner instead of love for the animal, upon punishment instead of partnership. 

In these challenging times, we need more love, more partnership and less dislike and less adversary.  This is not a Pollyanna view but is very practical.  It costs money to seize animals, conduct investigations, house/feed/medically care for seized animals and to pursue court cases.  In fact, it costs alot of money paying for housing, food, water, animal control officers, veterinarians, lawyers, police officers, vehicles and more! 

By working with animal owners and lending a helping hand, much of the cost of enforcing pet legislation could be reduced.

• Horse owner’s field shelter(s) not up to requirement?  Is it more economical to seize/house/feed the horses or to assist in fixing the shelter(s)? I’ve owned horses and I can tell you that ther 2nd answer is the right one.
• A small percentage of animals appear underweight?  Work with owner to find out why.  If owner is actively pursuing the matter in conjunction with a vet or there is a valid medical reason why, there is no neglect. Perhaps offer a discount-priced appointment with the shelter vet as a second opinion.  Still less cost than seizing/housing/feeding and beginning the medical investigation from scratch.
• Region appears to have problems with dogs having behavior problems?  Offer low-cost/free seminars or training classes to assist in public education.
• Problems with dogs not properly cared for due to owner having health problems?  Coordinate a volunteer-based dog-walking or care service that can be called on by people with health difficulties. Shelters and rescues already have a volunteer base anyway.

These are tough times and no one, individual or government, can afford to spend money in large amounts when smaller amounts will serve as well.  Of course, these methods don’t result in media events.  There are no heros, except to the animals who do not get uprooted from everything they have known.  But  that’s the point, isn’t it?   If it’s all about the animals, shouldn’t the human animal be included too?

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

Doesn’t make any sense?  Tell that to Ted Tellefson of Oregon, because it happened to him on Friday March 13, 2009.  3 weeks ago, the local sheriff charged Mr. Tellefson with 100 cases of animal neglect which were dropped after he agreed to surrender the majority of his dogs.  The same sheriff that laid the charges is the same one that indicated the overwhelming majority of the dogs were, ” healthy, well-fed and well cared for”   The real crime wasn’t neglect, but in the sheriff’s words “”He had more dogs than 50 people would need”  

Since when did the number of dogs owned come to equal neglect?  No danger, no abuse, no cruelty,  just one person’s opinion of  “too many dogs.” 

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/humane_society_to_rescue_200_d.html

Picture yourself … there’s a colony of stray cats in your neighbourhood.  Animal Control isn’t doing anything when you call.  You start feeding the cats, poor homeless things.  You start trapping them and taking them to your vet to have them sterilized on your own dime.   You update Animal Control to let them know what you are doing.  You think you are being a good citizen. Nothing changes until they show up at your door threatening charges of felony animal abuse, media cameras in tow.  You find yourself labelled an ‘animal hoarder’ and ‘mentally disturbed’ in the news.

Picture yourself … Animal Control shows up at your door, claiming an anonymous complaint, they intimidate their way without a warrant and claim household clutter is ‘unfit conditions’.  Your dogs are seized from your home.  Your friends show up to vouch for the good care your dogs receive and find Animal Control at their doors within days, claiming anonymous complaints demanind to enter their homes without a warrant as well.

Picture yourself … you place an ad in the local paper for a friend with a puppy needing a home.  Animal Control shows up at your door demanding to enter.  When you ask to see the warrant, they leave only to return with a police officer in tow claiming there is a warrant and demanding to be let in, yet have no warrant to produce.

It could never happen you say?  Every one of these cases have happened and recently.  These were not so-called ‘puppy mills’ but to good, responsible people doing their best.  These are only a few of many recent cases of out-of-control Animal Control departments.  Circumventing due process is becoming rampant with little or no accountability. 

Why you ask?  Its simple, Animal Control Officers across the US have learned that all they have to do is whisper “puppy mill”, “animal hoarder” or “poor living conditions” to make public scrutiny disappear.  No warrant?  No problem, say “puppy mill” and the police will come and back you up.   No evidence? No problem, take a few photos after a couple of days in a kennel run with little care and you will have all the evidence the public needs.  No witnesses? No problem, all you need is an ‘anonymous’ complaint or two.   

So-called ‘puppy mill’ bills are in front of legislatures in the majority of states across the US.  They enjoying much support from the average pet owner because, “Who isn’t against puppy mills?”  Here’s the problem, the bills target us all and in the eyes of many Animal Control Officers we are all either ‘puppy mills’ or ‘animal hoarders’.  Its just a matter of time until they can find a loophole to include us all in the definition.

Get involved, read the legislation,and look past the buzzwords.  If you love your pets, you are in as much danger as any one of the people in the stories told above.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

Sounds great right?  There’s a problem.  Some of this isn’t true and some of what isn’t true helps the veterinary bottom line.

Reduces cancer risks?  Spay and neuter does decrease the chances of cancers of the reproductive organs.  Its hard to develop cancer in a missing organ.  The problem is, the cancers links to intact reproductive systems are a) lower odd of occuring cancers or b) more treatable cancers. (prostate, mammary, uterine, testicular)  The cancers linked reproductive system removal tend to be a) more common  and b) more aggressive/fatal. (osteosarcoma or bone cancer, hemangiosarcoma or blood-fed tumors which are highly invasive and can affect the heart, spleen, liver or numerous other sites)  Cancer treatment, human or animal, is expensive.

Keeps them from growing too tall?  Just the opposite is true. The earlier the spay/neuter, the LONGER the animal grows.  Puberty closes the growth plates in the joints.  It’s the same reason why children who are ‘late bloomers’ in terms of physical sexual development also tend to be taller.  Add in the fact that different joints close at different point in development and joint relationships are changed.  Hips are one of the last joints to finish developing which is thought to be a reason that hip dysplasia is more common in spayed/neutered dogs.  With hip dysplasia surgery costing $5000-$7000 per hip side, it is a lucrative surgery. 

Better for the health of the dog?  Neutered male dogs triple the risk of developing low thyroid problems, which can affect everything from a dog’s weight to skin conditions to cause temperament problems ranging from timidity to aggression. Treating low thyroid requires lifelong medication, inexpensive medication but lifelong.

“Reduces risk of dog bite injuries” It does reduce “dog on dog” bite injuries but may lead to increased “dog on person” bite injuries.  Spaying and neutering have shown an increased incidence of fear aggression, making it more likely for a dog to lash out in self-defense at a perceived threat, like a child dashing over to hug.

It is difficult to understand why tampering with the entire hormonal system of any animal is considered a decision to be taken lightly.  Especially when the effects can be so costly to the wallet and the heart.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

Once, on Oprah, I heard a wonderful phrase that has stuck with me.  “When someone shows you who they are, believe them.”  ‘Pete’ shows us who he is in the interview, he tells us us straight. “I am a professional liar.”   We need to believe him.  Animal rights activists have been lying in dramatic fashion for nearly 30 years, and we have been falling for it.  Again and again and again, starting with the Silver Spring monkeys.

In 1981, a researcher named Gary Taub hired a research assistant to help him with his ground-breaking neuroscience research.  While Taub was away on a 3 week holiday, the assistant broke into the lab to take a series of horrific looking photos and convince the Maryland Authorities to raid the lab and seize the monkeys.  Taub has always contended that the photos were staged and gave as example that a photo in particular showed the monkey in a chair contorted in a fashion only possible if the chair was completely re-adjusted.  Sound familiar?   The research assistant was Alex Pacheco, co-founder of PETA, and it took Gary Taub 6 years to  have all charges dismissed and clear his name in the research community.

The fact that such neglect and mistreatment leads to unreliable research results didn’t matter.  The fact that the research was and remains one of the most revolutionary breakthroughs in physiotherapy for stroke and traumatic brain injury patients didn’t matter.  Those photos are still being trotted out to display the ‘evils of animal research’

These videos and photo evidence have always had a common thread, they are obtained by individuals dedicated to eradicating human involvement with animals by any means necessary.  The response to the last question of Time’s interview says it all.

 Question: “Have you ever walked away from an assignment because it’s just too hard to be there?”   Response: “Never”

Makes you wonder what he hasn’t walked away from.  When you consider that PETA followers euthanize over 90% of animals that come into their keeping, does manufacturing a little video seem so hard?  When will we learn to believe them when they say “I am a professional liar” 

I’m learning today.  How about you?

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

For analysis of a near identical style event involving the Humane Society of the United State  (HSUS) and ABC’s Nightline, please go to http://www.ultoday.com/node/440

Press Releases and Media

or

http://nicenow.org/nicemedia.aspx

• The top quality dog breeding kennels were large kennels, some even  started by war veterans with the assistance of the US Government through the USDA
• Quality breeders did provide puppies to pet shops, which used to be a source of healthy, well-bred dogs
• Spaying and neutering of pets was not the norm

Under the long-term pressure of the Animal Rights movement, the number of large dog breeding kennels has declined. 

• The result?  By pushing the responsible, knowledgable and ethical dog breeders to exit the market; Animal Rights actions have directly led to increased market space for irresponsible, uneducated and unethical dog breeders to move in.  It is the law of supply and demand, if there is demand then someone will supply.

The under long-term pressure of the Animal Rights movement, quality breeders with long-term breeding plans stopped selling to pet shops.  

• The result?  To leave the pet shops to be increasingly supplied by breeders with less knowledge, less experience and less concern for a healthy dog.  When someone shouts about the poor health and temperment of the dogs that are the most accessible to the average person, it is worth considering why this has become the case.

The under long-term pressure of the Animal Rights movement, spaying and neutering of dogs has become the norm.  

• The result?  A rise in hip dysplasia, bone cancer, ligament ruptures, reduced bone density, thyroid conditions, spay incontinence and increased fear agression.  All these conditions are scientifically proven to occur much more frequently in the spayed or neutered dog from interfering in the hormone system.  One of these conditions even increases the chances of a dog biting: fear agression. 

So the next time you see a media report on an irresponsible dog breeding operation, ask yourself “Who created the opportunity for this operation to enter the market place”.  The same people who claim to have the solution are the ones to have created the problem in the first place. 

The Animal Rights methods caused this, their methods can’t fix it.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved