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.

On April 27, 2010 the HSUS filed a ‘color of Law’ suit against Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, in conjunction with Michigan lawyer Beatrice M Friedlander.  The basis for the  alleging Ms. Friedlander’s rights are being violated because the Ohio state Constitution requires that signatures on ballot initiatives must be collected by Ohio residents.

Suddenly the HSUS is concerned with preservation of an individual’s Constitutional Rights? Did I miss a memo, or a press release?

What about the property rights of individuals who are having animals seized and dispersed by HSUS teams led by Scotlund Haisley, who has openly declared, “I want the scum to think we are law enforcement”. (Endorsed by HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, “I like his (Scotlund’s) cowboy ways”)

• What about the rights of Norman Pang in Hawaii? (currently suing the HSUS for action “under color of law” citing violations of Mr Pang’s rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth & Fourteenth amendments)
• What about the rights of Dan Christiansen in South Dakota? (172 dogs seized by the HSUS “in conjunction with Second Chance Rescue and the Turner County Sheriff’s Department” on September 2, 2009 and ordered returned by the judge on May 4, 2010 because the dog’s were deemed taken illegally)
• What about the rights of Virginia Garwood in Indiana? (241 dogs seized with HSUS assistance on the premise of tax issues with a warrant ordering ‘seize such property, or any part thereof, found during such search and hold said property pending further order of this Court”  Yet the dogs were sold to the HSUS within 24 hours and subsequently dispersed.  This case is still before the courts)
• What about the rights of Louisville, Kentucky residents who were subjected to seizure of animals and loss of them if they couldn’t post the mandated seizure ‘bond’? (Struck down as illegal) The Louisville ordinances were used as a springboard for similar legislation that has been passed or is pending across the US.  This has lead to significant speculation that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was heavily involved in the drafting of this legislation; especially since the HSUS regularly announces its involvement in the drafting in legislation across the US and dedicates significant resources to legislation and legal action.

All of these examples are cases involving (alleged) violations of FEDERAL constitutional rights with significant HSUS involvement.

So … is the HSUS only concerned about constitutional rights at the state level?  Or do they only look to overturn constitutional law when their goals are affected? Are they going to change their actions to ensure that they respect the constitutional rights of individuals in their own actions? Are they going to assist the individuals above in defending their constitutional rights?

Anyone care to volunteer their thoughts on these questions and propose their own?

Arizona HB2375, Possessing Dangerous Wildlife Prohibited

The title sounds great doesn’t it?  Let’s take a look at the animals that are included in clause “a person shall not own, possess, keep, harbor, import or transport into this state, have custody or control of or propagate dangerous wildlife” As written in the bill “For the purposes of this section, “dangerous wildlife” means the following animals and all hybrids, whether bred in the wild or in captivity”:

• All species of the order carnivora.  Common names include: carnivores, skunks, raccoons, bears, foxes and weasels.: What the bill doesn’t point out is that the order carnivora also includes ALL DOGS AND CATS!
• All species of the following families of the order artiodactyla. including the family bovidae.  Common names include:  bison (buffalo), duiker, antelope, gazelles, goats and sheep: What the bill doesn’t point out is that bovidae also includes COWS as well as goats and sheep! (Although there is an exception for Water Buffalo, Bison, American Bison & Buffalo
• Don’t forget that the bill also includes practically every variety of non-mammalian pet

I don’t know what possibility is more frightening.   Do the bill sponsors not understand the consequences of the legislation they have put forth? Or do they understand and hope the citizens don’t understand until too late?

Arizona HB2375, Possessing Dangerous Wildlife Prohibited: sponsored by Chad Campbell (D), Cloves C. Campbell Jr (D), Kyrsten Sinema (D), Nancy Young Wright (D), Edward Ableser (D)

Maryland SB505 (Pet Stores – Sale of Dogs Less than 9 Months of Age Prohibited)

At least this one is clear in the title.  The purpose of the bill? “A RETAIL PET STORE IN THE STATE MAY NOT DISPLAY, SELL, DELIVER, OFFER FOR SALE OR ADOPTION, BARTER, AUCTION, GIVE AWAY, OR 14 OTHERWISE TRANSFER OR DISPOSE OF A DOG LESS THAN 9 MONTHS OF AGE.”

• Exemptions?

• Breeders who sell directly to the buyer
• Public or Private humane societes (not to be confused with the HSUS) and non-profit animal adoption organizations
• Adoption events operated by humane societes (not to be confused with the HSUS) and non-profit animal adoption organizations (i.e. rescues) out of or in connection with a retail pet store

• Optimum bonding in dogs occurs up to the 12 week mark as does the foundation of early training. The adolescent phase in dogs (typically 8-14 months) is the TOUGHEST for most owners to deal with.  Way to set families up for failure.
• The blatent double standard.  Its ok to ‘adopt’ dogs under 9 months so long as a humane society or rescue is ‘involved’.  So it is an improvement for the dogs to come from a source where even LESS is known about the dog’s health/background/history?  Again, way to set families up for failure
• The blatent attempt to make it impossible for people to raise dogs for a living and to force the ‘entry price’ up on dog ownership. anyone heard of the concept of supply and demand?  What about material costs?

• Future editing could be ESPECIALLY problematic.  ‘Tweaking’ of legislation does not undergo anywhere near the same level of public notification as the initial passing of a bill.  It wouldn’t take much adjustment of the exemptions and/or age of sale to make selling OR adopting a dog essentially illegal.

Again, I don’t know what possibility is more frightening.   Do the bill sponsors not understand the consequences of the legislation they have put forth? Or do they understand and hope the citizens don’t understand until too late?

Maryland SB505, Pet Stores – Sale of Dogs Less than 9 Months of Age Prohibited:  sponsored by Lisa Gladden (D), George W. Della Jr. (D), Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D), Catherine Pugh (D)

To those who think that these issues could never happen?  I have two words: WAKE UP!

The first phase of the campaign reportedly resulted in thousands of letters with this request being sent to the IRS Fraud Division, over 1100 by registered mail.  In the current phase, the request for additional letters requesting IRS investigation continues.  This is supplemented by the request to pose similar requests to government representatives.

But WHY would there be a need for such a campaign, you ask?

Because, as referenced in the AR-HR article, “Did the Humane Society (HSUS) Fail to Account for Political/Lobbying Activity of Personnel on IRS Tax Filings?” & according to the IRS website, “Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. 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.”

Because as laid out in numerous AR-HR articles and by SAOVA in their summary on this issue, it appears that these rules are being violated.

Because HSUS tax returns from 2005, 2006 & 2007 do not even acknowledge the political activity by HSUS personnel and volunteers despite significant documentation to the contrary, 2008 is the first year to acknowledge such activity yet the numbers do not make a great deal of sense considering the expanded scope of HSUS political activity.

Because HSUS efforts to influence the political processes continue behind the scenes as recently as last week when the following email was sent out be Anne Sterling, the HSUS State (Lobbyist) Director for Indiana.

From: Anne K. Sterling

Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:58 PM

To: Anne K. Sterling

Subject: Calls needed – HB 1258: Pet Stores & Animal Fighting

Hello! Our primary animal bill this legislative session, HB 1258, is getting a hearing tomorrow, Wednesday, January 20^th at 3:30 in the House Courts & Criminal Code Committee, Room 156C.

The bill would address pet stores & animal fighting. (Full document available at the link)

If the HSUS wants to maintain its tax-exempt status, then they need to stop playing politics.  If the HSUS wants to play politics, then they need to give up their tax-exempt status.

You have to pay your taxes, why shouldn’t the HSUS have to pay theirs?

Copyright 2010 by Erica Saunders http://AR-HR.com

All rights reserved

This Annual filing also includes the contracts signed with fundraising organizations, allowing a close inspection of how much of the money raised is retained by these organizations.   For example, did you know:

• For some fund-raising organizations, the HSUS has agreed to potentially receive only 0-1% of the pledged revenue (pg 30-36 of 370, contractual minimums) and pay up to $51/calling hour, not including additional expenses?(pg 25 of 370). 
• For other organizations, the HSUS has agreed to specifically receive between 0.1-2% of gross revenue, “Organization agrees that DSG shall be compensated pursuant to the terms of the agreement which is estimated to be ninety- eight percent (98%) of gross revenue.”    (pgs 136-138 of 370)
• $8850/month  @ 54hours/month  ($163.80/hr) for “Internet consulting services” related to online communications  and Internet based relationship building (after July 2008) (pg 82 of 370)
• $16000/month @ 88 hours/month ($181.82/hour) for Internet consulting services” related to online communications  and Internet based relationship building (prior to July 2008) (pg 97 of 370) (pg 142 of 370)
• The Humane Society of the United States contracts with offshore telemarketing firms? (pg 127 of 370)

As always, donate to an organization you believe in and that is using your funds the way you intend them to be used.

• The badge and identification provided to Ronnie Graves by the Humane Society of the United States, reportedly ordered by Scotlund Haisley & identified by a law enforcement official as ‘too similar to that of law enforcement’
• The statement by Scotlund Haisley to Ronnie Graves, “I want the scum to think we’re law enforcement,” when confronted with the potential illegality of the identification
• The response of Wayne Pacelle, “I like the Cowboy Ways that Scotlund brings to the team,” when the Scotlund Haisley’s comment was reported to him by Ronnie Graves, in person.

These items appear to tie together three potential issues: Impersonation of a Police Officer, action “under color of law” , and issues related to Section 1983 of the US Constitutional Torts Code (cited below).    These three elements appear to all be tied together by the Carroll Cox show interview, as well as additional recent court cases. 

Would you know this badge meant nothing if HSUS showed up at your door?

Impersonation of a Police Officer

Since Police Impersonation laws seem to be relatively similar across the US, I am referring to Criminal Jury Instructions as published by the Judicial Branch of the State of Connecticut:

• Element 1 – Impersonation: The first element is that the defendant <insert as appropriate:>
  • by (his/her) words or conduct, pretended to be a sworn member of an organized local police department or the division of state police within the department of public safety.
  • wore or displayed without authority a uniform, badge or shield by which a police officer is lawfully distinguished.
• Element 2 – Intent: The second element is that by such action, (he/she) intended to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority or otherwise to act in reliance upon such pretended authority. A person acts “intentionally” with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such result. <See Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

Scotlund Haisley's Facebook photo, kicking in doors.

I am not a lawyer, and do not pretend to be, but to my layman’s eyes the elements cited in the CT Criminal Jury Instructions appear disturbingly close to being fulfilled.  Especially when considering that the badge authenticity as a law enforcement badge is irrelevant to this sort of issue:

• Commentary:  The fact that the uniform, badge or shield was not authentic is irrelevant. “The goal of the statute is to prohibit criminal impersonation. Among other things, the statute prohibits an individual from using a badge with the intent of inducing another to submit to authority that he or she does not possess. Because the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used a badge that appeared to lawfully distinguish him and that he used the badge in the manner proscribed by the statute, we are unable to see how the issue of the badge’s lineage or authenticity bears on the goals that the legislature sought to achieve.” State v. Guadalupe, 66 Conn. App. 819, 828 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 902 (2002).

Note the common elements between the HSUS badge and true law enforcement badges; especially the use of eagle at the top, the placement of lettering, the use of gold tone metal, the logo in the center and the use of the US flag.

Action “under color of law”

There are two scenarios where private persons (or organizations) are considered to be acting “under color of law”:

1. a private person who conspires with a state actor is a state actor for the purpose of the alleged conspiracy.
2. a private person who acts as an agent of the state acts under color of law.

 Humane Society of the United States announces its working collaboratively with government agencies on a regular basis, does this not fulfil the definition of “under color of law”?  A few of numerous examples below:

• “Yesterday, our team worked with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and its Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement” (Source: Wayne Pacelle, “A Humane Nation”)
• “The HSUS’s Emergency Services team had four deployments—puppy mill raids in North Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi and South Dakota—where we partnered with local organizations and law enforcement to rescue dogs in distress, the victims of greed and neglect.” (Source: Wayne Pacelle, “A Humane Nation”)
• “…we rescued more than 500 dogs and about 15 cats in cooperation with the Kaufman County Sheriff’s Office…” (Source: Wayne Pacelle, “A Humane Nation”)

Section 1983 of the US Constitutional Torts Code

Here is where the potential implications for the Humane Society of the United States as an organization, its volunteers personally and any government agency or official become disturbing.  According to Section 1983 of the US Constitutional Torts Code:  “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state or territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

I know, its a lot of legal-ese.  The layman’s thumbnail sketch:  An individual (and/or organization) in an entwined relationship with government that is involved with depriving any citizen of any of their Constitutional rights “under color of law” is subject to being sued by the injured party in their individual capacity.   

So, let’s say you are a volunteer helping a private organization seize animals (property) in association with a government agency.  (entwined relationship) Under Section 1983, if there are Constitutional violations associated with the actions of the private organization, not only might the organization be in an actionable position but also the individuals associated.  That includes volunteers. 

Why should you care?

The recently filed lawsuit in Hawaii is a Section 1983 lawsuit citing violations of Mr Pang’s rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth & Fourteenth amendments. It appears that volunteers are among the included parties, even if not yet individually identified.   (Page 8 also references the use of ‘law enforcement looking badges’)

The portions of the Louisville Metro Government Animal Control law struck down in Kentucky as in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment were brought to court through a Section 1983 suit, leaving Louisville Metro Government  and associated officials potentially subject to damages and court.  Louisville Metro Animal Services Director Giles Meloche has recently resigned, officially leaving as of December 31.  The Kentucky court specifically cited that permanent deprivation of an animal owner of his property absent a finding of guilt is unconstitutional.  Another federal lawsuit on similar grounds is reportedly being filed against Louisville Metro Government on friday October30.

The information conveyed by Ronnie Graves appears to indicate an intent to deceive people as to the true level of authority of members of the HSUS Emergency Rescue Team and an acceptance of that attitude up to the highest levels of the HSUS leadership.  As per statements by Ronnie Graves, these issues were raised in January 2008, yet the use of the possibly illegal badges and identification continue to be used  as demonstrated in HSUS photos and videos on a regular basis.  (example below from a recent HSUS video)

Afterthoughts…

There have been numerous raids of animals across the US in which animals have been seized and dispersed or even euthanized prior to court decision.  This includes the Garwood case in Indiana, another case in North Kentucky just working its way through the courts, innumerable raids involving pitbulls and many more.  The number of potential cases could be staggering.

It raises questions.  Why are government agents allowing the use of this style of identification, badge and uniform by HSUS personnel under their watch?  Do they understand that they are potentially placing their agencies and themselves in an actionable position?  Do volunteers understand that they could end up personally liable for unconstitutional actions if they occur “under color of law”?

The Louisville ordinances were used as a springboard for similar legislation that has been passed or is pending across the US.  This has lead to significant speculation that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was heavily involved in the drafting of this legislation; especially since the HSUS regularly announces its involvement in the drafting in legislation across the US and dedicates significant resources to legislation and legal action

Therefore, perhaps the legal experts at the HSUS and legislators everywhere should take note that the following sections of the Louisville ordinances have been struck down as unconstitutional with immediate injunction against enforcement under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses:

• Enclosures for unaltered dogs require approval of the Director of Animal Services in writing:  “There being no apparent reason why the owners of unaltered dogs should be treated differently than the owners of their neutered counterparts, the written approval requirement lacks a rational basis and is unconstitutional”
• Confiscation of Victimized Animal (Section 91.101):  Significant analysis is dedicated to this portion of the decision (pgs 16 -20) and should be considered important reading for any animal owner.  The critical portions of the decision on this section include:
  • “As (LKC) argue, pet owners clearly have a property interest in their animals. See Besws v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, 210 S.W.3d177,180 (Ky.2006) (recognizing that dogs are personal property)  This interest is not absolute and is subject to regulation by state and municipal governments. Id.  Nonetheless, the government is not permitted to deprive an animal owner of his property without due process of law.”
  • “the portion of 91.101 that would permanently deprive a pet owner of his property, absent a finding of guilt, is unconstitutional”

Three sections were found to be problematic by the court through express authorization of seizure of animals without requirement for a warrant:

• Section 91.073(D) dealing with potential violation of tethering laws.
• Section 91.094(A) dealing with suspected animal cruelty
• Section 91.101(A) which states “Any animal found involved in a violation of any portion of this section may be confiscated by any Animal Control Officer or any peace officer and held in a humane manner”

In court, Metro was noted it “vehemently disclaims the idea that it authorizes warrantless searches”.  Metro further acknowledged the Fourth Amendment as acting as an independent check on Animal Control Officers. (although there are a number of animal owners in Louisville who might equally ‘vehemently’ disagree with that position)   The subsequent analysis by the court is entertaining, at minimum, noting as follows below:

• “This is, of course, a wise position to take; to the extent that an ordinance authorizes searches or seizures of a sort not sanctioned by the Constitution, it must be unconstitutional.  That is merely to state a truism, but as the Court has in essence been asked only to affirm that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches contemplated by the above-quoted sections, there is little else to say.”

The foresight of including this information in the decision is admirable, as it puts the observation in the record that these sections indeed violate the Constitution if applied as written should Metro Animal Control Officers decide to do so in the future, as they have been alleged to have done so in the past.

The direct ramifications of this case are immense, much more so that most realize.  This is one of the first of the Section 1983 federal suits launched in response to trampling of animal owners’ constitutional rights.  The Hawaii lawsuit by Norman Pang is another.  There are many more on the horizon and rightfully so.  The State of Indiana might want to take note.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders

All rights reserved

*Restated for clarity and technical legal accuracy

On September 11, 2009, Norman Pang of Hawaii filed suit against the following individuals:

• Pamela Burns, President & CEO of the Hawaiian Humane Society
• Kenoi Vaughn, Manager of Field Services of the Hawaiian Humane Society
• Rigo Niera, Director of Animal Protection of the Hawaiian Humane Society
• Rebecca Rhodes, Executive Director of Kauai Humane Society
• Inga Gibson, Hawaii State Director (Lobbyist) of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
• Scotlund Haisley, Senior Director, Emergency Services of the HSUS
• Rowdy Shaw, Raid Team Member, HSUS
• Jackie (last name unknown), HSUS

This lawsuit is directly in response to the actions taken surrounding the July 19, 2009 raid publicized by the HSUS video below, actions that are outrageous if the details of this case are proven out.

Norman Pang is the widower of Bonnie Pang.  His wife, Bonnie, operated the Hawaii 501(c)3 non-profit Animal Haven which according to its charter was to provide “permanent sanctuary for all species of animals and birds where they would be completely safe and well cared for”.  Bonnie founded Animal Haven as a no-kill and hospice environment in opposition to the euthanasia policies of the Hawaii Humane Society (HHS), with whom she had a history of conflict.  This history included allegations in 1995 by HHS of neglect and animal abuse from which Bonnie was acquitted and after which the Pang’s filed suit against HHS and the City/County for their actions. 

Since 1995, people have continued to bring animals to Animal Haven, described in the court filings as “malnourished, ill, crippled, and/or terminally ill”, in the knowledge the animals would not be turned away.   Prior to her death,  Bonnie asked her husband not to turn the animals over to HHS if anything happened to her in order to prevent their mass euthanasia.   On July 13, 2009,  Bonnie passed away in her sleep.

Enter the Humane Society of the United States

Knowing that he could not manage the needs of the animals, the grieving Norman Pang immediately set about seeking help to find a new home for the animals in compliance with his wife’s last wishes.  He received an offer of assistance from Oahu Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) who contacted the HSUS.

Two days after Bonnie’s death, on July 15^th, HSUS personnel accompanied by OSPCA personnel informed Norman that they would care for the animals from that point forward & had Norman sign transfer of ownership of all animals and birds into to the HSUS and OSPCA as of that day.

According to the papers filed, no one from HSUS or OSPCA would appear to care for the animals they now owned for FOUR days.  Norman Pang was left to do so, alone, providing food and water to animals that no longer belonged to him.  On July 17^th,  HSUS personnel including Scotlund Haisley visited the property with Mr Haisley stating that “he was satisfied there was no basis for any criminal complaint”

On July 19^th, HSUS personnel began removing the animals with Scotlund Haisley repeating his statement that “he was satisfied there was no basis for any criminal complaint”.  This was the same day that HSUS personnel showed up with the video cameras, to tape the conditions of the animals owned by HSUS and OSPCA for 4 days but cared for by neither.

Animals left to be cared for by a man, alone, who had just lost his wife.  A man who acted immediately to fulfill his wife’s last wishes and in the interest of the animals, knowing he was in over his head. 

This is the Humane Society of the United States at work. 

This is how your donations are being used.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

 Reality

Reality is fundamentally what divides us,  actual reality as opposed to virtual reality.  There are myriad moral and ethical arguments presented to justify much of the proposed and upcoming legislation.  Yet, all these positions are based on the idea that there are black and white solutions to the complex issues associated with animal ownership and management at every level.  The problem is actual reality is messy, full of an entire spectrum beyond shades of grey. We should all know better but what traps us is our wish that life’s choices were simpler, the virtual reality of a easier world.

Proposing limits on animal ownership numbers is ‘easy’ but doesn’t take the spectrum of reality into account. ome people can’t manage a single animal while others manage a large number of animals easily.  Limits don’t take into the phenomenon of co-ownership into account, where an individual retains partial title on an animal that goes to another home which provides a safety net.  Limits don’t take into account the difference in managing a large number of small dogs vs a large number of very large dogs.

Proposing mandatory spay/neuter laws is  ‘easy’ but doesn’t take the effect of altering an entire hormonal system into account.  They don’t take into account the direct or indirect effects on animal health:

• Direct effects of spay/neuter on an individual animal: increased display of fear aggression and inter-sex aggression, increased risks of costly skeletal disorders, increased risks of lethal cancers
• Indirect effects of spay/neuter: loss of genetic diversity, loss of healthy animals from the breeding populations through too early selection as potential breeding prospects  

Proposing cage-free raising of chickens is ‘easy’ but doesn’t take into account that cages also protect birds from each other.  It doesn’t take into account the natural startle response of chickens is to flock together and that they can easily hurt and even crush each in the case of large flocks.  It doesn’t take into account that chickens fight, and even severely hurt each other.  It makes it especially difficult to protect birds from disease.

And so on…

Actual reality, its the world we live in.  Its a world where complex problems don’t have simple answers.   If there were simple answers then we wouldn’t have the problems in the first place.  Its a world full of people; good and evil, honest and deceptive, strong and weak in various combinations at every level. 

That’s the reality, the actual reality, and ‘simple’ solutions just don’t cut it.   But ‘simple’ solutions are awfully good for trying to sell you a virtual reality, which in reality, is nothing of value at all.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

“The society also will honor New Mexico’s attorney general for assembling a task force to combat illegal animal fighting, a Nebraska county sheriff who investigated a case of cruelty against 200 wild mustangs, a district attorney in Alabama that busted dog and cock fighting rings, and Indiana’s attorney general who used a tax law to close a local puppy mill.”

Although I’m sure correspondence accompanying the award from the Humane Society of the United States to the Indiana Atty. Gen. does not match my imaginings, I can just picture the following letter:

“To Atty. Gen. Greg Zoeller,

Please accept this Humane Society award, in appreciation for the following actions:

• Disregarding Due Process, and the terms of the court obtained search warrant,  in order to sell us the dogs obtained in the raid on Breezy Valley dairy farm.
• Being so generous as to sell us these dogs for $300, when the claimed tax debt used for the purpose of the dog seizure was in excess of $132,000
• Intervening on our behalf, with respect to dogs  being fostered by rescues we had given the dogs to so they would feel confident adopting them out prior to conclusion of current court proceedings
• Being willing to apply tax law to close down a commercial dog breeder since there was no evidence to support a cruelty or neglect case.

So sorry these events have resulted in Indiana residents and Indiana House Representatives raising ethical concerns over your office’s conduct.  Hope this doesn’t get pursued through the state Bar Association, especially over that issue with the search warrant. We hope that reminding everyone of this event by giving you this award, which is sure to get covered by the media,  makes everything better

Love and kisses,

The Humane Society of the United States

PS Your talking about the poor conditions the dogs were kept at the press conferences was SUCH a bonus, especially since our video and photos don’t back it up. ”

Although this piece of correspondence is purely my imagination, it is frightening that all the issues referenced in it are actually true. Even more unfortunate is the fact that knowing this information means that I must look at the other individuals receiving awards with a suspicious eye.  If this behavior is characteristic of those who were receiving awards from the Humane Society of the United States, what don’t we know about the rest of the award winners?

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved