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?

We lost John Yates, founder of the American Sporting Dog Alliance, on September 15. Though he fought his battles for pet owners with pen & paper, with script & screen, John was no less a warrior than a man on the battlefield.

With his research and writings on legislative issues, he fired his shot across the bow of fleets of Animal Rights misinformation.

With his love of dogs and pride in the dogs he has raised, he waved the banner high for those who choose to raise animals.

With fearless determination, he stood guard against the weakening of property rights legislation in the face of sentimental attacks on emotion.

John understood that in battle individual differences must be put aside for the sake of the goal, without wavering until the Hill is taken. He understood that though the battle can be won, the war can still be lost if the troops fall into disarray.

He truly understood that evil happens when good people stand aside and do nothing. He put aside his own distaste for thrusting himself into the spotlight to found an organization fighting for pet owners everywhere, even those who will not fight for themselves and those who certainly wouldn’t fight for him

John’s writing has touched me personally. His loss breaks my heart and it costs us all deeply.

Good hunting John. May your old dogs be waiting for you and the hills full of game.

Wayne, Wayne, Wayne … May I call you Wayne?  After the past couple of months of reading your blog, I’m starting to feel like I know you.  After listening to your speech to the NAFB (National Association of Farm Broadcasting), its obvious that you are reading my writing as well  therefore you must feel like you are beginning to know me too. I wish your interpretation of my writing and direction had been a little closer in message to my own, but since you are comfortable annexing some of the key language of my blog ,calling you Mr. Pacelle seems a touch too formal.

As an individual who is intensely concerned with decent care for animals, and in a growing way a voice for a similarly concerned group, I have to disagree with your opinion that the HSUS proposed pet bills should have been met with universal approval.  The growing & increasingly organized opposition to the HSUS crafted animal care related bills openly demonstrates that they are not universally supported.  It is mis-leading to try and lump all the opposers as ‘puppy mills’ without recognizing that in the collective eyes of the HSUS (a) all dog breeders are lumped in to ‘puppy mill’ category and (b) all who disagree with HSUS positions are portrayed as not caring about decent animal care. 

I understand your passion for the ’cause’, but your truth is not the only truth. Your vision, is not the only vision. Blanketing a nation, at the state and federal levels, in the HSUS vision of ‘what is right’ is enough to give many a conscientious animal owner pause.  Many of the bills presented combine a distubing combination of vague language but defined numbers.  Despite their being spun as ‘puppy mill’ bills or as ‘Baby’s Bill’ or other warm and fuzzy names, the legal language contained within includes an overwhelming majority of dog breeders in their scope.  The ‘intent’ of a law doesn’t matter, only its language and scope of application.  Given the proclamations of animal law expertise by HSUS executive, your legal teams are well aware of this principle, making it hard to believe the broad targeting is anything but intentional.

Therefore it is no more astonishing for responsible breeders and the AKC to stand in opposition to HSUS proposed pet breeding bills infringing on their constitutional rights and freedoms of choice than it would be for you to stand in opposition to laws mandating that all citizens must eat meat, which would be in violation of your own rights.  Humane treatment of both human and animal demands a great deal of freedom to adapt on an individual basis, a trait that HSUS proposed bills are consistently lacking. 

As you ended your missive, I similarly end my own.  I believe that the American public needs to know who is proposing these despicable ‘puppy mill’ bills and how these battles are playing out. 

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

In hunting, one remembers survival does not come without effort and luck.  A resulting meal is a reminder and celebration of the life of that creature.  A return empty-handed is a reminder that effort doesn’t always pay off, but that nothing of substance occurs without effort.  The day’s work is a moment of return to participation in the eons-old cycle of hunter and hunted.   Even more valuable, a reminder that the meat in the butcher’s case  was once another being and therefore to be valued.  This can even be seen in the hunter’s love for products like jerkey and smoked meats, ages old ways to preserve the product of the hunt so that it would not be wasted

In agriculture, farmers struggle in the face of the uncertainty of weather, season, fortune and market.  They do so to raise produce, flock, litter and herd in the hope that one’s investment will pay off.  It often doesn’t, yet they persist in a 24hr/365 day commitment to their business that most of us could not endure.  Raising any living item to market, seed or spawn if fraught with risk.  No farmer can look at food without a thought to its original field or form.

It is worth remembering.  No life comes without a little death.  All living creatures from seed to plant to breathing creature all suffer injury and death for our survival, that this is neither good nor bad but is simply the nature of life itself.  Perhaps instead of trying to divorce ourself from this reality, we all might take a lesson in this simple honesty from those who live with it so intimately.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved  

Disclaimer: I am not actually a hunter, a farmer & have no financial ties to hunting or agri-business.

 Links to referenced articles:

A Novelist Takes Aim: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123819949095362075.html

Bow-Hunting Bill Sparks NJ Tiff: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20090328_Bow-hunting_bill_sparks_N_J__tiff_Sportsmen_want_Sunday_ban_lifted__animal-rights_groups_are_opposed.html

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

The most recent example?  The “Act to Ensure Humane Dog and Cat Breeding  in the State,” submitted by Norma Worley, Director of Animal Welfare for Maine, in conjunction with Rep. Sara Stevens as bill sponsor has launched an attack on any one who has or considers breeding a dog in the state of Maine.

 An “Act to Ensure Humane Dog and Cat Breeding  in the State,” what could be wrong with that?   Let’s take a look:

• A “Breeding kennel” would be any location with a single unspayed female dog or cat where any offspring have been offered for sale, sold or exchanged for value.  Are you a  family that has a nice dog and wants a pup from her?  Norma Worley  and Rep. Sara Stevens want you categorized as a breeding kennel unless you give away every other pup.  We all know how much we value something free right?  Unless, of course, you decide to turn the rest of the pups over to Animal Control to sell.
• You have an unfixed dog?  Norma  Worley and Rep. Sara Stevens now wants you to to pay $150 per year (up from $11) for each unfixed dog 6 months or older
• You have bred a single litter?  Norma Worley and Rep. Sara Stevens want to charge you $500 per year (up from $75) times the number of intact female dogs or cats you own.  That nice dog you have and the female pup you kept, $1000 per year if you want to keep them intact. 

None of the proposals assist with humane breeding practises, they simply inflate Animal Control department coffers when people across North America are suffering with the worst recession in years.  This is a scorched earth tactic to blackmail pet owners and breeders into accepting fee that are still 5-10 times the current fees while pretending to be reasonable.

Since when did pushing responsible pet breeders into the poorhouse assist fit the definition of “Humane”?  You may even hear this bill lauded as a “Bill to Combat Puppy Mills.”  Read it for yourself, Norma Worley and Rep Sara Stevens aren’t after Puppy Mills.  They’re after every person who has bred a pet or considers breeding a pet. 

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

Link to legislation amendments proposed by Norma Worley, Maine Director of Animal Welfare and sponsored by Rep Sara Stevens

an-act-to-ensure-humane-dog-and-cat-breeding-in-the-state

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