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.

• 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”?

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

Rep Linda Lawson at Breezy Valley Dairy Farm, 305 miles from District 1 & constituents

In light of recent documentation obtained regarding the seizing and sale of dogs in Southern Indiana, the question must be raised, “What is Indiana State Rep. Linda Lawson’s involvement in this situation?” Reported in a previous article by AR-HR.com, Rep. Linda Lawson was seen participating in the June 2, 2009 seizure of dogs from the Garwood farm (Breezy Valley Dairy Farm). The raid was conducted in Mauckport while Rep. Linda Lawson represents Indiana District 1, located 305 miles away. 

This raises a number of ethical questions regarding Rep. Linda Lawson’s involvement:

• If this was volunteer activity, was Rep. Lawson using state time and resources to coordinate with the Humane Society of the United States regarding participation in the raid? 
• How did she manage to clear time during the work week to participate in this raid during the greatest economic crisis since the 1920’s and in the midst of a special legislative session nearly 4 weeks prior to the passage of the Indiana state budget?
• If this was volunteer activity, why was Rep. Lawson standing with Indiana Attorney Greg Zoeller during the subsequent television press conference announcing the raid?  If this was not volunteer activity, why was Rep. Lawson acting in District 70  instead of  Rep. Paul Robertson? Rep. Robertson, a fellow Democrat to Linda Lawson, has been notably quiet through this matter.

Certainly any political representative is free to volunteer in their spare time as they see fit.  However the raid occurred on a Tuesday morning while the Indiana legislature remained in special session, a point when District 1 constituents would reasonably expect their state representative to be dedicating herself to their representation during a budget crisis.  Instead, Rep. Lawson was carrying puppies out of a barn a 4 hour drive away from her district and almost 2 hours drive from the state capitol. 

Rep. Lawson’s ties to the Humane Society of the United States are well known, as is demonstrated by latest news link on her homepage,”"STRONGER ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS, PUPPY MILL REGULATIONS SET TO TAKE EFFECT“, includes the following, “Information that will be of use to municipalities that wish to impose stronger animal cruelty/puppy mill regulations will be distributed by Lawson’s office, the Humane Society of the United States and the Indiana Alliance of Animal Control and Welfare Operators in the upcoming weeks.”  She is also prominently displayed in the HSUS video made to proclaim the raid’s occurance.  (please note the CLEAN dogs, especially the ones with white fur)

This raid, which has raised serious questions regarding the conduct of the Attorney General’s office, would have required coordination between the Indiana Attorney General’s office, HSUS and its volunteers. Given Rep Linda Lawson’s previous history as a law enforcement officer:

• Did Rep. Lawson have knowledge of the terms of the search warrant?
• If Rep. Lawson had knowledge of the seize and hold clause, why did she not speak out regarding the sale of the seized dogs prior to court
• Considering Rep. Lawson’s efforts to involve the Board of Animal Health in dog related activities, why did she not question their absence from the action?  This is especially relevant considering Rep. Lawson’s comments to the media (WAVE 3 TV) on June 2, 2009. “Some of these dogs were covered in feces. So matted and so awful that they could barely walk,” said State Rep. Linda Lawson (D-Hammond), who helped with the rescue of the dogs.  If the conditions were so unsanitary, surely this would have been of concern on a dairy farm involved in the food supply?  These conditions were certainly not demonstrated in the HSUS video of the event with the exception of a dog that appeared to have mud needing removal from its coat.

 As a former police captain, surely Rep. Lawson should have known to avoid even the appearance of conducting personal business on the job and known better than to have supported this activity in light of the issues that have emerged.

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

It sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?  Yet pet owners & breeders are being subjected to this treatment in increasing numbers as a direct consequence of two factors: ambiguous legislation, often touted as “Puppy Mill legislation”  and the purposeful mis-use of powerful words such as ‘abuse’ & ’neglect’.  The combination of these factors can be devastating.

The previous and commonly accepted minimum standard of care for animals consisted of 3 things: food, water, shelter.  Not providing one of those items could result in charges of neglect or abuse. Yet this is a standard we don’t necessarily apply to humans.  People go hungry every day, people go without shelter everyday.

Now it is common to hear other items tossed into the definition of ‘neglect’ and ‘abuse’, as  in recent well orchestrated Animal Control animal seizures.

• “Insufficient veterinary care”  is neglect but people and children go without medical care everyday without us blinking
• ‘Bad teeth” is neglect, but people go without dental care everyday without our being bothered
• Long toenails, being ungroomed, dirty ears are neglect but people and children go unkempt all the time without us being disturbed except that it is not our choice
• Not being up-t0-date on every vaccine is neglect, yet for the most part vaccination is a personal choice for adults or parents beyond vaccines required for public health reasons
• Being confined is neglect, yet we restrict the freedom of adults and children all the time for their safety or our own
• And since “responsible pet owners S/N their pets”, owning an intact animal is a sure sign of neglect, yet we would be in an uproar of if surgery were mandated on ourselves or our children for social convenience

This is not a call to treat pets and other animals as children or people, rather to illustrate that many recent laws and many laws currently proposed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)  hold animal owners and breeders to higher standards than we hold the standards for humans.  Standards that we would be outraged by, if they were applied to humans.   I believe that is something that should give us pause.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

Its a phrase frequently tossed around in media, communications and especially in advertising.  Its also a concept that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has previously managed to leverage at an unprecedented level.  The overall public perception of the Humane Society of the United States often different dramatically from the actual activities of the HSUS.  Although the cracks in the HSUS shell have been around for a long time, but they seem to be growing more noticeable as the disparities between perception and reality grow.

A recent example can be seen in the title of a recent blog article by the HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, “Our Very Own SWAT Team” discussing “investigative work by HSUS staff”.  One of the prime examples cited in this article pertains to a May 27 raid on a location breeding pure white American Eskimo dogs with conditions reported as “rusty pens caked with feces” and “of the dogs suffered from malnutrition, urine burns and overgrown claws”   Now, if you read these articles, you’ve probably stepped in dog poop at least once in your life and are familiar with (a) the odor and (b) the difficulty of removal from clothing/shoes and the staining.  So, ask yourself while looking at the slide-shows here and here, “What color are the dogs’ feet & fur?“  Its a little question but important, especially in light of a news article declaring, “All of the dogs will need  some medical care but some will need extensive treatment, Taylor said. All also need extensive cleaning.  Officials said some of the dogs suffered from malnutrition, urine burns and overgrown claws.”  I’ve looked at the photos myself.  Although the kennels are certainly not fancy (to say the least), the white dogs are all WHITE.   How do you have white dogs with white feet coming out of feces & urine soaked kennels? It’s simple, you don’t.   How often do you see people handling feces and urine-soaked dogs with shirts that remain clean and dry?  You don’t

Another example comes from HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle’s blog, where the iron fist under the velvet glove becomes clearly visible when talking about ”The HSUS, which is the object of sustained attacks, caricatures, and mis-characterizations by people who inhabit the domains of cockfighting, puppy mills, horse slaughter, trophy hunting, trapping, fur fashion, animal agribusiness, commercial whaling, and other animal exploitation industries.”   Its a disturbing statement when you look at the fact that the CEO of the HSUS refers to animal agribusiness in the same category as other industries whose eradication has been made a part of the HSUS mission.  Do you equate egg & chicken farmers with cock-fighting?  Now examine the inclusion of “puppy mills” in the light of the 2007 HSUS statement regarding “puppy mill” numbers in Virginia, “Commercial dog breeders in Virginia number nearly 1,000″ yet the actual number of commercial kennels was in the range of 22 according to USDA records. 

And what about the HSUS comments on the activities of HSUS State Directors, “Our state directors give us a leg up in learning of crisis situations and then allowing us to coordinate with local law enforcement agencies and local and national animal welfare groups,”  a statement substantially contradicted by interview and investigative information involving the HSUS GA State director in the WSB-TV report that HSUS is strongly suspected to have had forced off the air, by copies of email from the HSUS Illinois State Director and by written report from a NY HSUS meeting involving the NY State Director.  These are just three examples of the overt involvement of HSUS State directors in political and legislative activity, not in animal assistance.  There are significantly more.

Public perception is not the HSUS reality.  In the next article, I will look at further ways the HSUS tries to manipulate public perception and prevent evidence of its tactics from rising to greater awareness in the general public.

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

This is why I found it so fascinating that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was within my first dozen followers on Twitter.  It was as a direct result of the attention of the HSUS on Twitter that I followed them back, my first experience with the fact that if you talk about the HSUS then they will monitor you.   The HSUS Twitter presence shows patterns, like any individual or organization, and it is these patterns that I find as interesting as what HSUS does or says.

Last night on Twitter, the HSUS tried to go back in time, to the days before the WSB-TV investigation into how HSUS raises funds and how the funds are really used.   The HSUS tried to go back to the days where they could try to claim their most vocal critics all had an industry-funded agenda while the mysterious efforts to eliminate all traces of the WSB-TV report continue unabated. (See here for the latest group affected)

In this flashback, Wayne Pacelle takes the position that “our political adversaries”  fear the HSUS ”more than any other animal protection group because of our blend of political power, investigative and public relations capabilities, strategic thinking, and mainstream appeal.”  Even in December 2008, when this article was written, there were massive problems with this position.  The problems with this position have only increased since then.

• Problem 1: The HSUS has political adversaries?  Doesn’t this go straight to the heart of the questions raised regarding the validity the HSUS’ tax-exempt status?
• Problem 2: The adversaries of the HSUS INCLUDE members of animal protection groups.  Some of the strongest advocates of the No-Kill movement have been extremely vocal and public in their disapproval of HSUS policies and methods. Animal protection groups that work with ‘pit bulls’ have been in despair over repeated HSUS recommendations that increase the number of animals killed, including weeks-old puppies  (See here, here and here for examples) 
• Problem 3:  The HSUS continues to attack reputations of its opponents instead of demonstrating inaccuracy with facts.  This blog is a direct example of this.  I openly add corrections if I find or am notified of a demonstrable inaccuracy in my information.  I am extremely careful, but still human.  HSUS monitors the articles here regularly yet they have never once come forward to indicate that any information is demonstrably incorrect.  If it was, I would happily correct it and publicly note the correction. 

As a devoted animal person, rescue volunteer and an unswerving supporter of responsible animal management, I would love to be in a position where I could side with the HSUS.  I would love to be able to say that the Humane Society of the United States is still dedicated to the welfare of animals, but I can’t.  I can’t support an organization that:

•  Throws its weight behind mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) legislation in the face of statistical evidence that MSN increases killing of healthy animals instead of decreasing it.  In fact, I don’t know of a single location that has implemented MSN legislation where killing has gone down.  In addition, there can be serious health risks associated with spay/neuter that are completely disregarded.
• Throws its weight behind Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) in the face of evidence that BSL increases killing of healthy animals instead of decreasing it, even after the HSUS participation in the Las Vegas No-Kill Conference where there was an agreement to revise HSUS policies with respect to breeds associated with BSL. (See here)
• Throws its weight behind changes to agricultural legislation that has resulted in increased disease, injury and accidental death to chickens (See here) while  demonizing family-run farms with terms like ‘factory farms’
• Throwing their weight behind ‘puppy mill’ legislation while refusing to acknowledge that their data is based on including EVERY dog breeder as a ‘puppy mill’ as demonstrated the HSUS campaign in Virginia in 2007. 

Despite Wayne’s love of positioning the HSUS as the embattled underdog, it simply isn’t the case.  The embattled underdog is the one the HSUS has a history of having silenced: through legal pressure and character assassination if human, through lethal injection if dog.   There is an old saying, “Power corrupts”.  The more power the HSUS has gained, the more they seem to have lost their way. 

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

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

Dr. Kohl was quoted in an article on PRNewswire, “”In breaking his pledge to adopt a dog, the President not only made a mockery of the book he’s currently featured in on the subject of puppy mills and adoption, he will also be contributing to a pet overpopulation epidemic that’s costing us billions each year. In these terrible economic times, when so many Americans are tearfully turning in their dogs to shelters because they can no longer afford to feed them, it’s particularly insensitive and out of touch for Senator Kennedy and the President to have gotten a dog from a breeder instead of choosing one from a shelter.”

This kind of outrage from Dr. Kohl is disturbing on a number of levels, for a variety of reasons.  First and foremost is the utter disregard for the health and safety of President Obama’s children.  Dr. Kohl is a clinical psychologist. (Disclosure: I am unaware if she is or has been licensed by the American Psychological Association)  For a health professional to have such a lack of consideration for the importance of child’s health as the prime factor in the Obama’s decision is troubling.  For a mental health professional to have so little regard for the guilt, sorrow &  loss a child would experience over the potential gain and loss of a series of dogs subsequently sent away due to the child’s own allergies is shocking.  Secondly, Dr. Kohl  has spent a significant amount of time working in the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies.  She has spent significant time surrounded by the devastating effects of racial hatred and bigotry.  In combination with her extensive psychological training, how could she be blind to the sheer offensiveness of the expression of such ‘ownership’ over the future actions of the first African American president of the United States?  This is hard to interpret as anything but outrage over actions Dr. Kohl considers bought and paid for, actions that are believed to extend even to President Obama’s own children.  Thirdly, the air of entitlement  in this statement is outrageous.  Dr Kohl has already benefited financially by having Baby, her adopted & 3-legged miniature poodle, photographed in the arms of the now President of the United States.  This has doubtlessly increased the sales of her book, A Rare Breed of Love, the proceeds of which Dr. Kohl is free to use as she sees fit.

But when it comes to choosing a pet for his children, President Obama is owned by no one, indebted to no one and will hopefully never lose a moment’s sleep over the outcry.  Dr. Kohl, heal thyself, you go too far.  One with your credentials should surely recognize it.

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