The online game of Hide & Seek continues regarding the video of the WSB-TV investigation into HSUS fundraising practises.  The video appeared online for viewing last evening briefly, only to be removed again within hours.   It will be interesting to see whether attempts to suppress this video from viewing will be successful.  Does turning this video into the ‘forbidden fruit’ of the Internet really serve to make it less interesting? or to only increase the interest in seeing what ‘they’ don’t want you to see?

Meanwhile, the Center for Consumer Freedom has indicated that there has been a wave of citizen interest in re-opening the investigation into the use of the $34 million raised from the Hurricane Katrina campaign.  Parties interested in having this matter properly investigated are being encouraged to contact the Louisiana Attorney General’s office at 1-800-351-4889.

In another strange move for the HSUS, they have partnered up with Michael Vick for their Anti-Dog-Fighting campaign.  It is not such a strange move for Michael Vick.  If he was looking for a high-profile group to work on his image with, HSUS was really his only option since ASPCA was the group (link to original court documents) involved in the his conviction and PETA has publicly made taking a brain scan a condition of working with him.  I actually feel a little sorry for him in this situation,which I NEVER thought I could say, since the HSUS publicly used his high-profile arrest and court case as a repeating media opportunity and now are riding his coat-tails on his personal ‘road to redemption’

The timing of the Michael Vick partnership is incredibly odd since it will just bring further scrutiny to their fundraising practises surrounding Michael Vick’s dogs (see previous article), on the heels of the fresh scrutiny into their fundraising practises regarding Hurricane Katrina.  This is also a very risky move for the HSUS, since a number their Twitter followers have been VERY vocal in their ‘unhappiness’ with this new program.  I also wonder if Michael Vick’s public relations team have checked whether associating with the HSUS Animal Fighting Issues Manager, John “JP” Goodwin will affect the terms of Michael Vick’s probation. Not knowingly associating with convicted criminals* is a typical condition of probation agreements, and John “JP” Goodwin happens to have been convicted of criminal actions* from his days associating with the extremely radical Animal Liberation Front (ALF). 

Its getting weirder by the day.

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

*CORRECTION:  It appears that there may have been an error in my initial statement regarding John “JP” Goodwin’s convictions as felony level.  Although there have been convictions, the level (felony or misdemenor) requires further clarification.  This reference has been removed pending further investigation.

Its amazing how this story just keeps on rolling, and its really the Humane Society of the United States that is driving it.  A cone of silence continues to descend over the original WSB-TV story on HSUS fundraising practises that continues to support the rumor of the unleashing of the HSUS legal team on WSB-TV for their researched & fact-supported story. 

 As I previously mentioned, the original story been removed from the WSB-TV website.  When I wrote to WSB-TV that I was saddened to see the story removed from their website, I received the following response.  A response that has been sent out to others who wrote in to WSB-TV over their disappointment as seeing the story vanish from view.

“Thank you for writing to Talk2Us. We appreciate hearing that you were engaged by the report about HSUS. We put up and pull down stories as part of our daily editorial process. We are working on an additional story about HSUS.  – WSB-TV”

Its an odd response.  How often does a network pull a story after less than 24hrs where the viewing is accelerating and the comments are still being logged at a rapid pace.  (mostly supporting the article I might add. I have copies of the comments, just in case this is contested)  Furthermore, the Youtube copies of the WSB-TV video have all been taken down by WSB-TV request through a copyright claim.  Funny thing though, at last my count there were 254 Youtube video links that were WSB-TV video.  Yet the video that they have taken down is the one with the HSUS investigation?  Considering the current evidence, I fear a much less accurate follow up.  I hope to be wrong.

David Martosko of the Center of Consumer Freedom has not been immune from the attacks either.  Alot of people on Twitter were surprised to find that his accounts had been suspended for “Suspicious Activity”, allegedly at the behest of the HSUS.  Given that (a) his Twitter activity does not appear to violate Twitter terms of service and (b) the Humane Society Twitter users have the ability to block his messages if they don’t want to see them, it is difficult to interpret this as anything but a message that the HSUS doesn’t want anyone one Twitter to be able to see his messages.

I’ve been noticing a significant amount of activity on this website as well, with a minimum of 15 visits from the Humane Society of the United States server this morning already.  They are spending a lot of time on the two most previous blog articles as well as on the About AR-HR page.  I’ve publicly asked (via Twitter) if there is something in particular that they are looking for, but have not yet received a response

The usual recommendation to corporations facing this kind of media is to ignore it, since attempting to make it go away usually makes the process worse.  I’m becoming increasingly curious why they are actively choosing to forego this normal, and wise, course of action.  Why is fighting to make it seem like this report never happened SO important to them up to the very highest levels?

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

Apparently the HSUS executive has not been content to stop with the rumored unleashing the HSUS legal team on WSB-TV. This is a rumor supported by the swift removal of both the text, viewer comments and video from the WSB-TV website by the afternoon of Friday, May 15th and the subsequent removal of the text article from Google’s cache system by Saturday, May 16th. The speed of this has been startling considering that images in Google’s cache can linger for days, weeks and even years in some cases. This process can be accelerated by website owner request.

Since May 14th, the number of personal attacks by both the HSUS executive and employees has been escalating and even some of their own supporters have not been safe from the spatter. Consider the following:

• The article posted on “Civil Eats” by the Senior Director of the HSUS factory farming campaign, Paul Shapiro. Aptly titled, “Lose Pretty or Win Ugly”, Mr. Shapiro proceeds to launch a series of attacks that could as easily describe HSUS tactics as the opponents named in the article. The comment, “When it comes to campaigning, CCF isn’t exactly known for its fidelity to the truth.” is particularly ironic after the admissions of HSUS Georgia Director Cheryl McAuliffe that most of her job entails activist planning and lobbying. With her further admission that all finances are controlled from Washington headquarters, it seems unlikely that Georgia is the only state with this proportion of political activity. It is even more ironic considering the HSUS ran an online fundraising campaign using the following soliciting statement beside the donation check box
  • Yes! I want to make a special gift to help The Humane Society of the United States care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case and to support other vital animal protection programs. (Click here to see the image) As I have written before, HSUS was not the agency caring for the dogs but instead it was the organization Bad Rap in association with the ASPCA, while HSUS was recommending the Michael Vick dogs be euthanized.
• HSUS Chief Operating Officer Michael Markarian and HSUS Internet Brand Manager Carie Lewis were actively forwarding the article “CCF Continues to Decieve Journalists, Public” from the blog, Digging Through The Dirt through the social networks via Twitter (pdf of image available in case Twitter post disappears) yet never acknowledge that the CCF statistics are independently confirmed through this website. This raises the question, if the CCF data is accurate (which it is) then why does HSUS continue to claim deception? The “Digging Through the Dirt” Blog even accused CCF of attacking HSUS with Craigslist postings. However, there is one problem with this accusation. Its not CCF, which I know for a fact. No, it isn’t me either but I’m going to leave it at that for now.
• HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle has attacked the Center for Consumer Freedom’s status as a 501(c) 3 tax-exempt charity despite the evidence provided by WSB-TV which throws the HSUS’ own 501(c) 3 tax-exempt staus into doubt.
• Andy Vance and I were called the “Limbaugh and Coulter of the meat industry” by HSUS employee Barbara Henderson. This was by far the mildest and most entertaining of the attacks to date for a couple of reasons. (1) I’m not certain that the meat industry really knows or cares much about either AR-HR.com or myself. (2) Didn’t Rush Limbaugh just do a couple of public service announcements for the Humane Society of the United States that he has taken ALOT of heat for? It probably isn’t good policy to use a celebrity supporter’s name as an insult attempt, even in jest.

WSB-TV may have pulled their very brave report from public viewing, but the awareness this story has raised has certainly struck a nerve up to the highest levels of the Humane Society of the United States. If there was nothing to the story or the questions it has raised, why are they waging a war of personal attacks instead of simply laying out the numbers and the data? Equally interesting is the question, “Why are the HSUS executive leveling accusations that match the HSUS as closely, if not more closely, than those they are attacking?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some examples of the workshops include:

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

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

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

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

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

The HSUS appears to be becoming much more comfortable with the label Animal Rights very recently.  It was only Easter Sunday this year when the HSUS Internet Marketing Manager, Carie Lewis, rejected the ‘Animal Rights’ label outright in conversation with me on Twitter.  Yet in the HSUS blog re-print  on Opposing Views titled “Humane Society Responds to Attacks on Animal Rights Record” the term seems to raise no alarm. The increase in acknowledgement of an Animal Rights position becomes more apparent with Schedule of Events at the upcoming HSUS run TAFA conference such as the lecture “Animal Rights as a Mainstream Phenomenon” and a sponsorship list composed of Animal Rights Industry members such as:

•  Farm Sanctuary
  • Animal Rights Anti-Animal Agriculture group
  • contributing a minimum $10,000 sponsorship to the event and 3 speakers participating on the agenda
• Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF)
  • Animal rights law organization based in California. Programs include civil litigation, working to enact state felony anti-cruelty statutes, and the Great Ape Legal Program, dedicated to winning legal rights for great apes
  • contributing a minimum $2500 sponsorship and 1 speaker to the event
• American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS)
  • Animal Rights group dedicated to ending experimentation on animals in research, testing, and education
  • contributing a minimum $1500 sponsorship to the event & contributing 1 speaker from  AAVS and 1 speaker from New England Anti-Vivisection Society
  • HSUS donated $500 to this organization according to their most recently available  tax forms

The focus on legislation, lobbying, influencing public opinion and manufacture of message is even higher, which can be easily seen be examining the schedule of events.  Due to the massive number of items to examine on the agenda, I will be breaking these items down into a series of articles looking at the conference’s focuses on combating Animal Agriculture, combating Animal Research, Legal/Legislative involvement & manipulation of the media.  These will be presented leading up to the actual TAFA conference start and through the HSUS guiding attendees in participation in the Lobby Day on July 27th on Capitol Hill.  Wait a minute, isn’t this exactly the kind of action that is in violation of the terms of the HSUS 501(c) 3 status?  I thought that HSUS didn’t have any employees or volunteers participating in attempting to influence national, state or local legislation, including any attempt to influence public opinion on a legislative matter or referendum?

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

The online game of Hide & Seek continues regarding the video of the WSB-TV investigation into HSUS fundraising practises.  The video appeared online for viewing last evening briefly, only to be removed again within hours.   It will be interesting to see whether attempts to suppress this video from viewing will be successful.  Does turning this video into the ‘forbidden fruit’ of the Internet really serve to make it less interesting? or to only increase the interest in seeing what ‘they’ don’t want you to see?

Meanwhile, the Center for Consumer Freedom has indicated that there has been a wave of citizen interest in re-opening the investigation into the use of the $34 million raised from the Hurricane Katrina campaign.  Parties interested in having this matter properly investigated are being encouraged to contact the Louisiana Attorney General’s office at 1-800-351-4889.

In another strange move for the HSUS, they have partnered up with Michael Vick for their Anti-Dog-Fighting campaign.  It is not such a strange move for Michael Vick.  If he was looking for a high-profile group to work on his image with, HSUS was really his only option since ASPCA was the group (link to original court documents) involved in the his conviction and PETA has publicly made taking a brain scan a condition of working with him.  I actually feel a little sorry for him in this situation,which I NEVER thought I could say, since the HSUS publicly used his high-profile arrest and court case as a repeating media opportunity and now are riding his coat-tails on his personal ‘road to redemption’

The timing of the Michael Vick partnership is incredibly odd since it will just bring further scrutiny to their fundraising practises surrounding Michael Vick’s dogs (see previous article), on the heels of the fresh scrutiny into their fundraising practises regarding Hurricane Katrina.  This is also a very risky move for the HSUS, since a number their Twitter followers have been VERY vocal in their ‘unhappiness’ with this new program.  I also wonder if Michael Vick’s public relations team have checked whether associating with the HSUS Animal Fighting Issues Manager, John “JP” Goodwin will affect the terms of Michael Vick’s probation. Not knowingly associating with convicted criminals* is a typical condition of probation agreements, and John “JP” Goodwin happens to have been convicted of criminal actions* from his days associating with the extremely radical Animal Liberation Front (ALF). 

Its getting weirder by the day.

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

*CORRECTION:  It appears that there may have been an error in my initial statement regarding John “JP” Goodwin’s convictions as felony level.  Although there have been convictions, the level (felony or misdemenor) requires further clarification.  This reference has been removed pending further investigation.

Its amazing how this story just keeps on rolling, and its really the Humane Society of the United States that is driving it.  A cone of silence continues to descend over the original WSB-TV story on HSUS fundraising practises that continues to support the rumor of the unleashing of the HSUS legal team on WSB-TV for their researched & fact-supported story. 

 As I previously mentioned, the original story been removed from the WSB-TV website.  When I wrote to WSB-TV that I was saddened to see the story removed from their website, I received the following response.  A response that has been sent out to others who wrote in to WSB-TV over their disappointment as seeing the story vanish from view.

“Thank you for writing to Talk2Us. We appreciate hearing that you were engaged by the report about HSUS. We put up and pull down stories as part of our daily editorial process. We are working on an additional story about HSUS.  – WSB-TV”

Its an odd response.  How often does a network pull a story after less than 24hrs where the viewing is accelerating and the comments are still being logged at a rapid pace.  (mostly supporting the article I might add. I have copies of the comments, just in case this is contested)  Furthermore, the Youtube copies of the WSB-TV video have all been taken down by WSB-TV request through a copyright claim.  Funny thing though, at last my count there were 254 Youtube video links that were WSB-TV video.  Yet the video that they have taken down is the one with the HSUS investigation?  Considering the current evidence, I fear a much less accurate follow up.  I hope to be wrong.

David Martosko of the Center of Consumer Freedom has not been immune from the attacks either.  Alot of people on Twitter were surprised to find that his accounts had been suspended for “Suspicious Activity”, allegedly at the behest of the HSUS.  Given that (a) his Twitter activity does not appear to violate Twitter terms of service and (b) the Humane Society Twitter users have the ability to block his messages if they don’t want to see them, it is difficult to interpret this as anything but a message that the HSUS doesn’t want anyone one Twitter to be able to see his messages.

I’ve been noticing a significant amount of activity on this website as well, with a minimum of 15 visits from the Humane Society of the United States server this morning already.  They are spending a lot of time on the two most previous blog articles as well as on the About AR-HR page.  I’ve publicly asked (via Twitter) if there is something in particular that they are looking for, but have not yet received a response

The usual recommendation to corporations facing this kind of media is to ignore it, since attempting to make it go away usually makes the process worse.  I’m becoming increasingly curious why they are actively choosing to forego this normal, and wise, course of action.  Why is fighting to make it seem like this report never happened SO important to them up to the very highest levels?

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

Apparently the HSUS executive has not been content to stop with the rumored unleashing the HSUS legal team on WSB-TV.  This is a rumor supported by the swift removal of both the text, viewer comments and video from the WSB-TV website by the afternoon of Friday, May 15th and the subsequent removal of the text article from Google’s cache system by Saturday, May 16th.  The speed of this has been startling considering that images in Google’s cache can linger for days, weeks and even years in some cases.  This process can be accelerated by website owner request.

Since May 14th, the number of personal attacks by both the HSUS executive and employees has been escalating and even some of their own supporters have not been safe from the spatter.  Consider the following:

• The article posted on “Civil Eats” by the Senior Director of the HSUS factory farming campaign, Paul Shapiro.  Aptly titled, “Lose Pretty or Win Ugly”, Mr. Shapiro proceeds to launch a series of attacks that could as easily describe HSUS tactics as the opponents named in the article.  The comment, “When it comes to campaigning, CCF isn’t exactly known for its fidelity to the truth.” is particularly ironic after the admissions of HSUS Georgia Director Cheryl McAuliffe that most of her job entails activist planning and lobbying.  With her further admission that all finances are controlled from Washington headquarters, it seems unlikely that Georgia is the only state with this proportion of political activity.  It is even more ironic considering the HSUS ran an online fundraising campaign using the following soliciting statement  beside the donation check box
  • Yes! I want to make a special gift to help The Humane Society of the United States care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case and to support other vital animal protection programs. (Click here to see the image) As I have written before, HSUS was not the agency caring for the dogs  but instead it was the organization Bad Rap in association with the ASPCA, while HSUS was recommending the Michael Vick dogs be euthanized.
•  HSUS Chief Operating Officer Michael Markarian and HSUS Internet Brand Manager Carie Lewis were actively forwarding the article “CCF Continues to Decieve Journalists, Public”  from the blog, Digging Through The Dirt through the social networks via Twitter (pdf of image available in case Twitter post disappears) yet never acknowledge that the CCF statistics are independently confirmed through this website.  This raises the question, if the CCF data is accurate (which it is) then why does HSUS continue to claim deception?   The “Digging Through the Dirt” Blog even accused CCF of attacking HSUS with Craigslist postings.  However, there is one problem with this accusation.  Its not CCF, which I know for a fact.  No, it isn’t me either but I’m going to leave it at that for now. 
• HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle has attacked the Center for Consumer Freedom’s status as a 501(c) 3 tax-exempt charity despite the evidence provided by WSB-TV which throws the HSUS’ own 501(c) 3 tax-exempt staus into doubt.
• Andy Vance and I were called the “Limbaugh and Coulter of the meat industry” by HSUS employee Barbara Henderson.  This was by far the mildest and most entertaining of the attacks to date for a couple of reasons. (1) I’m not certain that the meat industry really knows or cares much about either AR-HR.com or myself. (2) Didn’t Rush Limbaugh just do a couple of public service announcements for the Humane Society of the United States that he has taken ALOT of heat for?  It probably isn’t good policy to use a celebrity supporter’s name as an insult attempt, even in jest. 

WSB-TV may have pulled their very brave report from public viewing, but the awareness this story has raised has certainly struck a nerve up to the highest levels of the Humane Society of the United States.  If there was nothing to the story or the questions it has raised, why are they waging a war of personal attacks instead of simply laying out the numbers and the data?  Equally interesting is the question, “Why are the HSUS executive leveling accusations that match the HSUS as closely, if not more closely, than those they are attacking?”

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