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.

The WSB-TV article addressed a number of important points that are commonly mis-understood about the Humane Society of the United States:

• The Humane Society of the United States has little to no affiliation to local shelters and local Humane Societies, despite having a name that leads to the convenient but mistaken identification of the HSUS as the parent organization.
• Only a small percentage of donations made to the Humane Society of the United States are granted to local shelters and Humane Societies. In 2007, less than 6 million dollars were handed out as US grants out of over 152 million* taken in (less than 4%*). Of the almost 4%, a large percentage of the grants were handed out to organizations that did not provide direct care to animals in need.
• After Hurricane Katrina, Humane Society of the United States fundraising efforts raised 34 million dollars. By 2 years after Hurricane Katrina, only 52% (18 million) could be accounted for as spent on Katrina-related activites. The connection between reconnecting animals with their owners, the premise for the Hurricane Katrina fundraising, was tenuous at best for a number of the projects indicated as supported by Hurricane Katrina funds. As of the 2 year mark, funds related to the Gulf Coast began to make a shift to HSUS legislative goals again.
• Channel 2 attendance at a local HSUS meeting found the 2 hour discussion to be dominated by activist planning and lobbying efforts. This impression was confirmed as accurate by Cheryl McAuliffe, Georgia Director for the HSUS. Ms McAuliffe also confirmed that all budgeting was directed from the Humane Society of the United States Washington headquarters

By Friday morning, there was a response from HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle claiming WSB-TV had used discredited source information from the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). It is difficult to understand how Mr. Pacelle can take the position that the CCF information has been discredited when it is able to be verified independently using HSUS IRS documents and HSUS press releases. Mr. Pacelle also indicated that all funds raised for the Hurricane Katrina crisis have been spent helping Katrina families and pets, yet this is also established as dubious, based on HSUS press releases. (unless introducing items such as cock-fighting bills are counted in this position) By Friday evening, all links to this ground-breaking and courageous article had disappeared from the WSB-TV website.

Yet, the most interesting result of the investigation is a point not (yet) pursued by WSB-TV. Is the HSUS in compliance with requirements to maintain its 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt status? According to Cheryl McAuliffe, Georgia Director for the HSUS, activist and lobbying efforts form the bulk of her activities. Yet, according to IRS 501 (c) 3 regulations:

“In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

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 the Humane Society of the Unites States dedicates a significant amount of resources to its efforts to introduce and influence legislation as demonstrated by the portion of its website tracking HSUS legislative efforts at the state and federal levels as well as through ballot initiatives.

This raises an important question. With an income of over 152* million annually, is the IRS being cheated out of substanial revenue if the Humane Society of the United States is not in compliance with the 501 (c) 3 charitable organization requirements? The HSUS claimed involvement in 140 legislative bills at the state level in 2008 alone, has claimed credit for a great deal of legislation in 2009 and publicly acknowledges ‘urging’ assorted legislators on a variety of bills.

It seems fishy to me & I simply don’t understand why the mainstream media doesn’t find it interesting as well.

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

*CORRECTION: Originally stated 200 million should have referred to HSUS assets. HSUS 2007 gross income was just over 152 million. Percentages have been corrected to reflect this.

On August 4th, the following article was released on the HSUS website, “Indiana Legislator Gives Second Chance to Puppy Mill Dog”.  In this article, Andy MacAlpine of the HSUS  details:

• Linda Lawson’s involvement in the raid
  • “Rep. Linda Lawson helped move dogs from their cages onto trucks that would take them to a a nearby emergency shelter.”
• Linda Lawson’s request that a specific dog (Pomeranian) be diverted to her local shelter,
  • “Lawson held the dog a second time later that day while her picture was taken, and she kept track of her the rest of the time she was there. Before she left, she told Sterling that she would like to see the Pomeranian go to her local shelter, the Humane Society Calumet Area in Munster”
• Linda Lawson’s taking her granddaughter to the Humane Society Calumet Area in Munster to adopt ‘a dog’,  ’stumbling across’ the Pomeranian and the subsequent adoption of the dog by her granddaughter.
  • “Later that month, Lawson took her 7-year-old granddaughter, Genavive, to the shelter to adopt a dog. It wasn’t long before Genavive spotted the Pomeranian. The two met in a nearby room, and the dog immediately started licking the little girl’s face. Soon memories of the Pomeranian imprisoned at the puppy mill came rushing back to Lawson. “Genavive said, ‘Grandma, I think this is the one!’” she says. “And I’m like, ‘Thank you, Lord. It is the one!’”

Puff piece that this article appears, it does no favors to Rep. Linda Lawson.  The picture of the Pomeranian in the picture with HSUS Indiana State Director (Lobbyist) Anne Sterling and the picture of the Pomeranian with Linda Lawson’s granddaughter certainly look like the same dog.  The statements and framing of the information in the HSUS article, at minimum, put forward the perception that Rep. Lawson exerted her influence in order to obtain her pick of dog from the raid.

This information is damning enough that both this HSUS article and the HSUS video of the raid of the Garwood farm have both been entered into evidence by the Garwood, to the outrage of Judge Whitis.  Given the questions already raised by Judge Whitis regarding due process, and therefore a perception by the judge that the constitutional rights of the Garwoods may have been violated, this information gives the appearance of abuse of power as well. 

The HSUS knows about the previous article examining Linda Lawson’s conduct with respect to the raid of the Garwood Farm (Breezy Valley Dairy).  I observed their activity on the article and their monitoring of the subsequent commentary by readers.

The HSUS knows about the articles examining the conduct of the Attorney General’s office with respect to the raid of the Garwood Farm (Breezy Valley Dairy).  I have observed their activity on the article and their monitoring of the subsequent commentary by readers.

This is an organization of very savvy people, highly skilled at media and message.  Yet they have volunteered additional damaging information regarding one of their political allies? In the midst of a rising furor over the questions posed by the August 2nd AR-HR.com article? (HSUS was also monitoring the proliferation of links to this article to other blogs and websites)  I find it very difficult to believe that this was accidental or not considered.  So, I have to ask if this is payback for what the HSUS perceived as failure regarding HB1468 with the removal of the overwhelming majority of the HSUS-backed additions from the bill?

With friends like this, do Linda Lawson and other legislators need enemies?

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

There are a number of serious problems with this situation:

• These dogs were seized using a warrant that included an order to seize and hold the dogs pending further instruction from the court.  The warrant was executed on June 2, 2009 and the dogs were sold on June 3.  The dispersal of the dogs is currently being questioned by Judge H. Lloyd (Tad) Whitis, therefore there was no instruction from the court permitting the release of the dogs. (Search Warrant Pages 1, 2 and 3)
• The premise of the warrant was for jeopardy tax assessment, with the dogs being seize as collateral for a tax debt claimed by the Indiana Attorney General’s office as being in excess of $132,000.  
• In the press release by the Indiana AG’s office on June 3, 2009, the seized dogs were stated to be “rescued animals now are being cared for by the Humane Society of the United States“, when in fact they had already been sold to the HSUS under the claim that the Indiana Attorney General’s office had ”full power to sell the property” & ”the Property’s title is free and clear from liens and encumbrances”.(clause 2)  I would have thought that the seize and hold order on the warrant executed approximately 24 hours earlier would be counted as an ‘encumberance’

I am not certain what I find to be more disturbing:

• The ignoring of Due Process by the Indiana Attorney General’s office as noted by Judge H. Lloyd (Tad) Whitis
• The fact that the HSUS is buying dogs for re-distribution to shelters and rescues and resale, at least in this instance.  I now question how many of the other dogs that they have ‘rescued’ have actually been purchased.  Considering the HSUS claims that the dogs were sick and neglected, wouldn’t this make the HSUS guilty of buying sick dogs for redistribution similar to the those targeted in their ‘puppy mill’ campaigns?  Wouldn’t the Indiana AG’soffice similarly be guilty selling sick dogs?  Or were the dogs simply neither sick nor neglected, and the Garwoods maligned?
• The sale of the only collateral property possessed by the Indiana Attorney General’s office for $300  on a claimed outstanding debt of over $132,000

The combination of all these factors in a single case is incredible.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

• Why has property seized by the state of Indiana been handed over to an organization predominantly involved in political lobbying such as the HSUS ?
• Does the state of Indiana or the Indiana Attorney General’s office have a formal arrangement with the HSUS allowing its people to act as law enforcement officers in the State of Indiana?  If so, why is an organization predominantly involved in political lobbying being permitted to act in law enforcement capacity?  If not, why was the HSUS involved in this proceeding with the tacit approval of Indiana Attorney General Zoeller, who has not disavowed the HSUS involvement? 
• Why has property seized by the state of Indiana been been given away, preventing the state selling the seized property to offset the outstanding tax debt and prior to the laying of criminal charges or any legal conviction?
• Why was member of the Indiana House of Representatives Linda Lawson permitted to participate in the seizure of property on behalf of the HSUS in a law enforcement operation? Rep. Lawson can be seen in the images below in HSUS t-shirt participating in the raid.

Upon obtaining a copy of the search warrant indicating the terms of the property seizure, the questions of the terms of the sale or gifting of the dogs seized by the Indiana AG’s office to any organization becomes especially troubling.  According to the terms of the search warrant, issued to the “Officers of the Indiana State Police, the Indiana Attorney General and his Agents, and any Law Enforcement Officer of the State of Indiana”, the items that authorities were allowed to seize related to the jeopardy tax assessment included:

h)  Any and all cash, canines, or other inventory or business proceeds found.

The troubling part is the section directly after this portion of the warrant, which reads as follows word for word:  YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED to seize such property, or any part thereof, found during such search and hold said property pending further order of this Court. 

The warrant gave the authorities the authority to SEIZE the dogs but not to DISPERSE the dogs.  The court order set down immediately after the raid barred the Garwoods’ from giving permission to disperse the dogs.

So if the authorities had no legal authority to disperse the dogs and the Garwoods’ were legally barred from consenting to the dispersal of the dogs, why was Indiana Attorney issuing press releases (see here and here) related to the dispersal of the dogs to rescues around the state of Indiana (and beyond Indiana borders) for adoption?

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

“Why are so many people convinced that pet ‘adoption’ differs from pet purchase?”

The question struck me after reading the following comment on Twitter and the HSUS response. (click here)  The original comment was, “So discraceful.(sic) I would never buy a pet-Adoption is my first/only option!”  The HSUS response?  “AMEN”  

In the legal sense, every pet acquired by paying a purchase pricean adoption fee or minimum donation is purchased.  Yet, ‘adoption’ is held up as morally superior.

A significant difference between the idea of conventional purchase and ‘adoption’?  Typically that one is not obtaining the pet from the person responsible for the breeding, though even this is not a hard and fast criterion if including USDA commercial breeders in the calculation. 

Another significant difference between the conventional purchase and adoption? Conventional purchases typically involve intentional breedings, whereas adoptions often as not involve unintentional breedings. 

Conventional purchases involve a majority of pups and a minority of adults, most ‘adoptions’ involve a majority of adults or seniors and a minority of pups.  This is the single most differentiating factor between conventional purchases of pets and ‘adoption’.  

These factors sum the most critical criteria for a prospective pet owner to consider.  Are they better suited to handle a young pet or an older one?  A known temperment or an unknown temperament?  Can they handle training young pet? Can they handle one with longer term behavioural problems or training deficits?  Are they willing to deal with the uncertainty of an unknown health history or does known health history of pet and parents make for greater peace of mind?  

 Every pet is the result of a breeding, intentional or unintentional and people typically don’t attach much value to that which comes cheaply or free.  Shouldn’t we be willing to commit resources to obtain a pet, which is ideally a lifetime commitment?   I own the full spectrum of pets.  I have a cat I purchased from a city shelter, another cat from a friend who couldn’t keep him and a dog purchased from a breeder.  I will have them all with me for the length of their lives.

Owning a pet is a choice.  Choosing the pet you can commit to for a lifetime, whatever the source is the ‘right’ choice, the ethical choice, the humane choice.  Choose what makes you human(e)

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

On this day, of all days of the year, Americans take time to celebrate these principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.  Living in a society that is founded on the concept that such human rights are ‘unalienable’ is a precious thing that many places in the world cannot claim.  Yet, these rights are not absolute or unbalanced by other considerations.  A person’s right to Life does not come at the expense of another’s Life.  A person’s Liberty extends to the point that it impinges on the Liberty of another person.  A person’s right to the pursuit of Happiness is not a guarantee of Happiness nor is it the right to pursue Happiness at the expense of another’s Happiness.  This freedom, this vision of Independence, is no easy thing to manage at the personal or the societal level.  It precludes the use of the quick fix or the easy answer.   Independence and these unalienable rights are messy and at their most precious when one’s actions are ‘unpopular’. 

In honor of Independance Day and of the Declaration of Independance, I would like to remind everyone of some rights that are not wrong, though they are popular targets.

• It is the right of the individual to breed dogs as much as it is the right of the individual who wishes to participate in rescue to do so. 
• It is the right of an individual to sell animals as much as it is the right of a rescue or shelter to sell animals.
• It is the right of the farmer to run their business based on a non-organic business model or on an organic one. 
• It is the right of the individual to choose to include meat in their diet, or not.
• It is the right of the individual to choose how they care for animals they own, so long as the care does not violate legal standards of care. 
• It is the right of the hunter to hunt animals within the bounds of the law, while it is the right of the non-hunter to not participate in hunting.
• It is the right of an individual to choose to obtain their pet from the source they select
• It is right of one individual to say they don’t agree with the actions of another.

 By protecting the liberties of others, even those we don’t agree with, we protect our own liberty.  By protecting the ability of others to pursue happiness, we protect our own ability to pursue happiness.By protecting the rights of others to choose, we protect our own right to choice.  Choose what makes you human(e).

Happy July 4th to you all.

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

Some examples of the workshops include:

• Becoming a Citizen Lobbyist at the State and Federal Level, “Come to this workshop to learn effective approaches to getting bills passed for animals”  Speakers: Speakers: Nancy Perry, Vice President, Government Affairs, HSUS; Jessica Feingold Lieberson, Director of Grassroots Campaigns, HSUS 
• Sound Strategy: A Key to Ending the Use of Animals in Labs, “The panel discussion will offer a toolkit for how you can help educate the public, influence policy efforts and prompt action.” Speakers: Kathleen Conlee, Director of Program Management, Animal Research, HSUS; Laura Ducceschi, Director of Education at American Anti-Vivisection Society/Animalearn; Jennifer Campbell, Director of Member Services, New England Anti-Vivisection Society
• Advocating for Animals at Your State Capitol, “Speakers will focus on the state legislative process and cover topics such as picking the right author to advance a bill”  Speakers: Kelly Peterson, Policy Advisor to Chief Operating Officer and Oregon Legislative Specialist, HSUS; Nicole Paquette, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, Born Free USA
• Get Ready, Get Set, Lobby! And Training for Lobby Day, “You will get all the training you need for Lobby Day including tips on how to be a good citizen lobbyist, a refresher on how the legislative process works, a briefing on the highest priority animal welfare bills in Congress right now, and the logistics and schedule for Lobby Day.” Speakers: Nancy Perry, Vice President, Government Affairs, HSUS; Jessica Feingold Lieberson, Director of Grassroots Campaigns, HSUS; Heather Carpenter, Deputy Director of Grassroots Campaigns, HSUS  (mandatory for Lobby Day Attendance) 
• Advocating for Animals in the U.S. Congress, “Come learn about some of the federal bills that we’re working on to protect animals and how you can help ensure their passage!”  Speakers: Tracy Silverman, Animal Welfare Institute; Lauren Silverman, Federal Legislative Specialist, Government Affairs, HSUS; Jean Flemma, Staff Director, Insular Affairs, Oceans & Wildlife, US House of Representatives (mandatory for Lobby Day Attendance) 

That is just a small fraction of the workshops that are aimed at promoting political and lobbying activity.  I  feel like I’m being tedious documenting that much of the politically focused portions of the TAFA conference.  (If you agree on the tedious part, I’m sorry.  Really I am.)  Yet, I feel compelled to point out the intense focus on political effect at the conference.  Why?  Because of the following comment on Twitter from the HSUS, “We’re not a “political group”. That’s a lame argument that our opponents use because they have nothing else.”

As usual, I have many more questions than answers.  My primary question tonight is, “If it is such a lame argument, why does the topic form the significant majority of the TAFA conference?” 

I don’t expect there to be much of a response forthcoming though. 

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