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

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

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