Saturday, August 4, 2007

HSUS: Simple duplicity or fraudulent fund-raising in Vick case?

The Humane Society of The United States ( HSUS ) seems to have some explaining to do in regards to the Michael Vick alleged dogfighting case. The Center for Consumer Freedom, an effective animal rights watchdog, has uncovered some serious inconsistencies in HSUS's attempt to raise funds in the wake of the Vick allegations. After the Vick story broke, HSUS made the claim in a fund raising pitch on their website that they had been given charge of caring for the dogs confiscated in the Vick case, and they were soliciting funds from the public to facilitate that care. A screen capture of that web page, dated July 18, and which is no longer available available from HSUS, can be viewed here. Their current pitch, which now says nothing about caring for these particular dogs, can be viewed here. However, an article in The New York Times that ran August 1, shows that claim to be false. In that article, HSUS president Wayne Pacelle claims that in fact, the dogs should be euthanized, and that HSUS recommends that fighting dogs should be put down shortly after being seized! Pacelle also also made this statement: "We don't know how well they are being kept.". He doesn't know how well they are being kept? But just two weeks ago, HSUS told us they were "overseeing the care" ( direct quote from HSUS ) of these dogs and they were soliciting funds from the public to do so. Which of your two conflicting stories is true Mr. Pacelle? You can't have it both ways. You are either being duplicitous and intellectually inconsistent or intentionally misleading. If HSUS is not caring for these dogs as advertised, then they are lying and engaging in dishonest, fraudulent fund raising, and they ought to be investigated criminally ( and if found guilty, be fined and lose their tax-exempt charity status, IMHO ), issue a public apology, and should have to return the contributions gained by their false claims. I think CCF's analysis of this is spot on: this is a dishonest attempt by HSUS to exploit Americans' love of dogs to raise funds for radical goals that many of these contributors would not normally support such as their strict anti-meat, anti-research, and anti-hunting agendas. It will be interesting to see what happens here. It would be nice to to see the government hold HSUS's feet to the fire on this, but I'm not holding my breath. Kudos to Center for Consumer Freedom for astutely calling out HSUS on this.

8 comments:

Brat Zinsmaster said...

Pacelle is not having a good week. In addition to crying crocodile tears that CCF and NAIA are picking on him/HSUS, it was announced yesterday that Pacelle will NOT by the speaker at this year's annual banquet for the International Cat Writer's Association, Inc.

Pacelle was originally scheduled to speak on Saturday, 17 November, but there was so much protest and outrage when it was announced that he would be a keynote speaker that CWA has reversed their decision.

Grizzly Bear said...

Hi
I recently read Pacelle's little diatribe against CCF that he posted on his blog. It's an entertaining read as it is full of vitriol and fallacious straw man and ad hominem arguments, but of course short on actually addressing the specific concerns that CCF raises ( with strong supporting evidence I might add ). This isn't the first time Pacelle and HSUS have been caught being less than honest, and the only thing Pacelle is upset about is that he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Pacelle is just another empty suit pushing the radical AR agenda, and it's pretty funny to here him pout when he gets caught being dishonest or doesn't get his way. If he keeps going, he'll soon be every bit as entertaining as Ingrid Newkirk and all her sycophants at PeTA.

Anonymous said...

"there was so much protest and outrage when it was announced that he would be a keynote speaker that CWA has reversed their decision."

Thats great news. Here's to hoping more people become enlightened about the real nature of the HSUS.

Grizzly Bear said...

I agree, anonymous. It's great news that CWA has sent Pacelle packing. All pet lovers need to recognize that HSUS is a wealthy animal rights group, and is not a friend to them.

humanitas said...

Where do you guys get this stuff about the HSUS being anti-pet? From some old quote that has a dubious history and attribution? What about the millions of dollars the HSUS spends on pets? The organization has an entire department devoted to companion animals, giving pet care tips, helping animal shelters, fighting to support pets in housing measures, working on TNR, funding programs to rebuild shelters in the Gulf Coast states after Katrina, promoting companion animal health, and much more.

As for the Vick case, the animals have have been seized by the federal government, which decided to assume the full burden of housing and feeding the animals. The HSUS initially offered to pay for the costs of care of the dogs while Surry County had the dogs, since the initial seizure was conducted by officials of Surry County. The HSUS donation form that mentioned the care of the dogs (but also mentioned support for our larger anti-dogfighting campaign) was up for a short time, and then replaced with a general anti-dogfighting donation request form that omitted any mention of care for the dogs,after it became clear that the federal government had seized control of the dogs from the state.

The HSUS is better positioned than any organization in the country to use funds for anti-dogfighting activities, with the most robust campaign in the nation, with a fully staffed and active animal fighting campaign, an active rewards program, a major federal and state legislative program, a 50-state law enforcement training program, undercover operations, and much, much more. HSUS, in fact, was the architect of the federal law that two of the three counts in the indictment identified in the Vick case, and worked this year to upgrade that law and make violations of the federal anti-animal fighting law a federal felony.

I don't know what the cat writers were thinking, but this guy has done a lot for cats so it's very shortsighted of them.

Grizzly Bear said...

"Where do you guys get this stuff about the HSUS being anti-pet?"

For one, they often seek to impose draconian, unnecessary regulations on responsible breeders and owners such as the recent California spay/neuter bill. Secondly, they are opposed to the keeping of some kinds of pets such as reptiles and parrots. I own two large parrots that I know how to care for responsibly. I don't need animal rights ideologues at HSUS telling me what I can and cannot select as a companion animal.That is MY choice and my liberty, and they have no business interfering. Make no mistake about it, if you choose to own anything other than the usual dog or cat, the HSUS is looking to regulate your choices.


"The HSUS initially offered to pay for the costs of care of the dogs while Surry County had the dogs, since the initial seizure was conducted by officials of Surry County. The HSUS donation form that mentioned the care of the dogs (but also mentioned support for our larger anti-dogfighting campaign) was up for a short time, and then replaced with a general anti-dogfighting donation request form that omitted any mention of care for the dogs,after it became clear that the federal government had seized control of the dogs from the state."


Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. If that is the case, then why did HSUS not offer a complete clarification on this matter when they changed the donation form, as well an opportunity for those who donated under the original pretense to get their money back if they so chose? To not offer such clarification that the conditions had changed is irresponsible and shows contempt for the donating public, and at the very least gives the impression of dishonesty.


"The HSUS is better positioned than any organization in the country to use funds for anti-dogfighting activities, with the most robust campaign in the nation, with a fully staffed and active animal fighting campaign, an active rewards program, a major federal and state legislative program, a 50-state law enforcement training program, undercover operations, and much, much more. HSUS, in fact, was the architect of the federal law that two of the three counts in the indictment identified in the Vick case, and worked this year to upgrade that law and make violations of the federal anti-animal fighting law a federal felony."

That sounds as if it's taken directly from an HSUS ad campaign. Did you have an original thought of your own there?


"I don't know what the cat writers were thinking, but this guy has done a lot for cats so it's very shortsighted of them."


The reason they dumped Pacelle is because of HSUS's support of the recent draconian California spay/neuter bill that would have adversely effected responsible owners and breeders. It is not short-sighted of them at all, in fact it shows vision and foresight. The CWA has perhaps come to realize, like many other people, that HSUS is an animal rights group with a radical agenda that has its sights set upon more and more regulation of our lives and our relationship with animals.

Animal Chaplain said...

Why do you hate animals so much? What did they ever do to you?

Grizzly Bear said...

"Why do you hate animals so much? What did they ever do to you?"

Just because one disagrees with the silly notion that animals are entitled to rights, doesn't mean that one hates animals, now does it? Many people who like and care about animals, dismiss the notion that animals are entitled to be rights-holding entities. Do you think I'd own a dog and two parrots if I hated animals? Do you think I would have spent 4 years of my life studying wildlife biology if I didn't care about wildlife? Your reasoning is fallacious, bordering on the inane.