Archive for June, 2007
By Christopher Aust
I was rather amazed at the number of people who wrote to me about my
opinions regarding the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) when I did my last
few articles. Then again, maybe I shouldn’t be. Before about two weeks ago,
I myself was rather ignorant as to the real goals of HSUS, and where their,
(actually your) money goes. As I always do though, I decided to edumacate
myself about them.
I also conducted a poll of 100 average people. Just the average Joe in the
street. 94% of the people thought HSUS ran the local shelters in their
community. 4% knew about their other programs and the remaining 2% had no idea who
they were. Of the 94% all said they would donate to HSUS based on what they
knew about them. I’m betting HSUS is banking, literally, on these types of
I also went online and found some rather interesting, at times quite
scary, information on several web sites. I would have interviewed a HSUS
representative, but after last week’s newsletter, I got an email from one that
was little more than hate mail and very offensive!
Founders Coleman Burke, then president of the American Bible Society,
Cleveland Amory and Helen Jones, founded HSUS in 1954. As far as I have been able
to tell, Mr. Burke served as their President until 1970 when John Hoyt, a
Presbyterian minister, took over as President and CEO until 1996.
Until just a few months ago, the President and CEO was Paul Irwin, a
Methodist minister. The current CEO and President is Wayne Pacelle who
admittedly has had ties with some radical (and I mean radical) animal rights
groups in the past.
Now, is it important I mention the religious background? Maybe and maybe
What I noticed though is the organization, at least to me, has an
evangelical feel. Is this a bad thing? No. I don’t see why unless you are
running the finances in a manner similar to Jim and Tammie Faye Baker! That
sure is the way it looks to me.
Officers and Directors
HSUS is an organization with their primary focus being animals. As I
reviewed the names and titles of the Board Officers and Directors, I found
it curious they had no DVM’s (vets) on either. They have three MDs’, three
PhDs’ and six attorneys. Am I the only one that finds this odd? Plenty of
lawyers, but no vet.
Hmmmâ€¦Maybe it’s just a typo.
Comparative Financial Operations Report
When I conducted my interview with Kathy Bauch a few weeks ago, she refused
to answer any questions regarding HSUS’ finances for a “newsletter. ” She did
offer to send me their 2003 financials though. This is what they send
whenever some one has questions about their finances. As I mentioned last week, if
it was similar to what they have online, it would be vague and difficult to
decipher. What I got was much more.
What I received is their 2003 Annual Report. It is a twenty-one page
“report” that was obviously very expensive to print. Tucked way in the back
is exactly what I expected.
A vague and difficult to read one page financial report. The rest
appears to me to be a very expensive sales letter and nothing more, complete
with a postage paid envelope to send in your donation.
Now you might say, “So what? They have to promote themselves.” I agree.
However, this publication has six pages of calendar quality photos of
nothing but animals. Two and a half pages of self-glorifying articles from HSUS
staff, none of which was necessary. How much donor money could have been saved
by deleting this junk from the thousands and thousands of these reports they
According to the Comparative Financial Operations Report for 2003, the HSUS
has $116,205,882. 00 in total liability and net assets. Over $5,000,000 of
that is in cash and cash equivalents, and another nearly five and a half
million in receivables. They also have nearly $93,000,000 in market value
investments. Not too bad.
In 2003, in revenue, additions and transfers, HSUS made $6,923,670. Of that
amount, sheltering programs received $10,551,527 and it was shared with
animal habitat and wildlife programs. Now, assuming it was an even split,
programs received $3,517,175.66 Now that’s a lot of money, but not when you
consider a good sized shelter can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a
year to run, three million is really a drop in the bucket. They spent
$21,145,769. 00 in fundraising and membership
Six times what they put into their shelter programs, which is what most
people I talked to think HSUS does with the money donated to them.
Providing Help or Selling It
I’m not sure what they spent the money on for their shelter programs, but I
will assure you they didn’t fund any shelters. In fact, they charge shelters
and Animal Control offices for their assistance and instructional material. I
have been able to find little and or nothing HSUS doesn’t charge for when it
comes to helping a shelter and their educational programs.
For instance, lets say you or your town runs an animal shelter that is
struggling for one reason or another, which most are, HSUS is ready to come
in and help.
For between $4000.00 and $20,000.00 they will send their experts to your
shelter through their Animal Services Consultation Program. The fee depends on
the size of the agency and the complexity of its programs, charged on a
sliding scale based on your agency’s resources. In other words, the more you have,
the more they’ll take.
Now, lets go back to our youth. You’re in middle or high school and want to
start a club to promote rescue and do things to help companion animals. HSUS
can help you with that, too. Just go to humaneteen.org. There you can buy a
package full of all kinds of propaganda and learn to be a full-fledged animal
activist. They will sell your child a club starter kit for $22.00 and then
give activity suggestions like their “Fight Fur” program.
Here they encourage kids to make flyers and hand them out in front of
businesses to protest against shoppers buying fur. HSUS will also give your child
cards to distribute at such events. They’ll show your child pictures of dead
animals in traps and direct them to other sites where they can see pictures of
hunters beating seals over the head.
They will also promote vegen/vegetarian lifestyles to your child. Just
go to the message board for kids and you can read how many of the kids are
distressed, after reading the material HSUS SOLD them, because their parents
will not let them go vegen. You will also see posts promoting PETA!
Now I want to be fair here. They do have some decent material that is age
appropriate and educational in nature. I think it’s overpriced; for instance,
your child can rent a video to show their class for $25.00, but some of it is
However, there is little promoting appropriate training, grooming or
responsible ownership of companion animals. It seems to me the whole focus
is turning our children into activists, vegens and extremists.
Now if I want my child to be a vegen, or an activist, I will make that
decision and not HSUS. Our kids have enough on their plate without having to
be weighed down with this information or agenda. Additionally, kids are kids
and don’t always make appropriate decisions. When dealing with complex
issues like activism and protesting, it would be easy for them to get into trouble
Doesn’t PETA target children too?
Ethical Financial Practices
Let’s get back to the money: Former President John Hoyt once instructed his
members on becoming more humane: “We begin, I suggest, by living more simply,
more sparingly.” Let’s see how he did. He made around $200,000.00 in the
late 1980′s running HSUS. In 1986, HSUS bought his house in Maryland for
$310,000 and allowed him and his family to live there, free of rent, until 1992.
When he retired as CEO, HSUS gave him a $1,000,000.00 bonus.
Paul Irwin, another former President, while making $300,000.00 from HSUS,
was given an $85,000.00 interest free loan to renovate his cabin in Maine. The
cabin was held in trust by HSUS, however his family continued to use it until
he died. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Makes me wonder.
Guilty by Association
Let’s look at some of HSUS’ associations: In April of 2000 HSUS sent
J.P. Goodwin as its emissary on an anti-fur mission to China. Goodwin is not
just any animal rights zealot, he was an avowed member of Animal Liberation
Front (ALF), a group once called one of the biggest domestic terrorist
organizations by the FBI. He had been convicted for vandalism of several fur
retailers and their property. Less than a year later, he was formerly identified as
a HSUS legislative staff member.
If you don’t know about ALF you should check them out. They truly scare the
heck out of me. They are, in my opinion, every bit as much a threat to people
as Al Quiada. I cannot believe HSUS would hire such a person. When asked
questions about an arson fire at a slaughter house in Petaluma, California, and
a Utah feed co-op that nearly killed a family, Goodwin stated, “We’re
Then, there is the PETA connection …
HSUS has repeatedly hired PETA employees in their organization. Their head
of investigations, several investigators, a computer programmer, just to name
Sorry folks, my opinion is, once a terrorist, always a terrorist. When
HSUS hires these people, they appear to support the crimes these individuals
may have been involved in.
In 2003, HSUS VP Martin Stephens was asked to recommend three people to
serve on an EPA “pollution prevention and toxics” panel. Two of his three choices
were PETA employees.
All Talk and No Action
While HSUS will admit they don’t run or fund any shelters, you usually find
it at the bottom of the page or tucked away somewhere near the end of a
As I mentioned before, they don’t put their money where their mouth is.
Get this â€¦
In 1995, when the Washington DC animal shelter was going to have to close
due to a budget shortfall, HSUS (based in DC) offered to build and operate a DC
shelter at its own expense to serve as a national model. There were, of
HSUS wanted the city to give it 3-5 acres of land and tax exempt status for
all of its real estate holdings in the District of Columbia. (Remember, they
buy some executives homes to live in among other property holdings.) The DC
government offered a long-term lease but HSUS refused to proceed unless it
would “own absolutely” the land. The district declined, and the only HSUS funded
animal shelter never materialized.
HSUS, who makes and has enough money to fund a shelter in every state, as
well as subsidize spay/neuter programs, declined to help the dogs in its own
Why? Money is all I can think of. Perhaps they were afraid they would
soil their Armani suits by actually working with a dog.
The New CEO
Rather than go on a tirade about the new President and CEO of HSUS, I have
put some quotes from him below. Read them, and you decide.
“I think they wanted the aggressive approach,” he says. “They wanted someone
who was going to think things up. And they got him.” June 2004, Washington
Post when asked about his selection as CEO.
“We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are
creations of human selective breeding.” Quoted in Animal People, May, 1993
I could go on for days about HSUS, but I will stop here. In my opinion, they
are little more than an organization whose main agenda is filling the
coffers and pushing an extremist agenda through misinformation and exploitation.
Again, my opinion, they have done nothing but profit from the contributions of
people who don’t know any better. I have tried to see it otherwise, I simply
can’t. I highly recommend you go to activistcash. com and see what they have
there about HSUS and their connection with PETA. There are several other
sites I found interesting, as well as many stories about HSUS in the archive of
the Washington Post.
Would I give anything to the Humane Society of the United States? Yes I
would. A pooper-scooper, they can use to go clean my yard. At least then we would
know they actually have done something for a dog this year.
This article may be republished using the following attribution box:
Copyright Â©2004 Christopher Aust, Master Dog Trainer Creator:
The Natural Cooperative Training System (NCTS) for Dogs
The Instinctual Development System (IDS) for Puppies Subscribe to the
BARK ‘n’ SCRATCH Newsletter: _subscribe@Master- Dog-Training. com_
VISIT NOW: _http://www.Master- Dog-Training. com_
The following comments were posted on Sign-on San Diego regarding Assembly Bill 1634(Levine). It seemed that these were both local and germain to the issues brought to light by the bill. While the author no longer resides in the area, he still is as active as possible in Bahia Sur Kennel Club and has , perhaps, the strongest personal interest in the goals and perseverance of the club. We thank him for permission to cross-post.-ed.
I am a founding member of Bahia Sur Kennel Club of Chula Vista. This weekend we will produce our annual shows. If this bill passes we may very well find it impossible to have any further shows.
Bahia Sur has worked long and hard to raise the condition of all dogs in our community, as have most other dog clubs in the state of California. I happened to be president in 1995 when the Chula Vista Animal Shelter came under attack by the San Diego Humane Society. An ad hoc committee was formed by some socially active people and citizens rallied to improve conditions that had been allowed to develop due to the terminal disease suffered by the previous supervisor of the shelter. The situation became critical for the city when the newly appointed police Captain simply asked the humane society for advice on ranking the apparent problems as to order of correction. The humane society then brought in media to exploit the criticism of the situation. This in itself was simply aggrandizement by the humane society, and made this citizen aware of underhanded tactics sometimes employed by such organizations.
The resulting committee of both citizens and organizations was initially very enthusiastic and got a lot accomplished. However the ebullience of the first meeting at city hall was dashed when I reminded them that the shelter could never be a place of total joy, as the very nature of it entailed the end of the line for many animals. As reality set in, the group vowed to reduce the number of animals entering the shelter as well as making the shelter a much more efficacious adoption point, to bring to a minimum the number of animal deaths.
While not yet at the optimum point, a tremendous reduction of animal deaths has been achieved, and is still occurring. Those totals are reducing annually at the Chula Vista shelter and ALL OVER THE NATION as well as ALL OVER CALIFORNIA. This is despite the fact that the human population is burgeoning rapidly. The per capita animal death per human population is about 25% of the rate in 1995.
So why do we have this outcry and legislative effort? Two reasons: 1. the work for the shelter workers is one with no future. Killing animals takes a terrible toll in spirit and human optimism. Only the type of people you would not want to be neighbors to would thrive in such an environment, and 2. The animal rights organization of PETA and HSUS have cleverly increased their tax free dollars to the point they can safely create PACs and invest heavily in politics to advance their agendas. HSUS outspent the NRA in the last general election. I believe the zeal with which Lloyd Levine has pursued this bill’s passage is partly personal and of his own belief, and partly payback for campaign contributions, past or future. Isn’t re-election the goal of all politicians?
There are published quotes of Wayne Pacelle saying the goal is “one generation and out, that is what we want.” and PETA has always been for non-ownership of pets, since that is a form of “slavery”. Pacelle has also said there is no obligation to continue the breeding of purebred animals, as they are the creation of man. Such an attitude speaks only of his disdain of the accomplishments of his fellow man. And this attitude is rampant among the animal rights crowd-they hate both the country and mankind.
Yet, their tax exempt status continues. There would not be such proposed legislation, if their money were taxed. Nor would there be such legislation if their cause were recognized for what it is-a religion, complete with stated beliefs and goals. As such the traditional wall between church and state would shield us from this form of mass suicide.
Why mass suicide? The comfort of pets relieves much tension in life. Interaction with lesser intelligent species reminds us to be kinder, gentler and more forgiving. We all do that when our dependent dog or cat comes to us for solace, food, or just our company. Loss of these outlets for humane expression will drive up tensions within families and society. Violence may erupt in previously stable homes. Society will suffer.
And the loss of pet related commerce will diminish the incomes of everyone in the state. Further there will no longer be the good examples of pet keeping, as the responsible owners will meekly obey this lousy law and their pets will eventually disappear, never to be replaced due to higher driven costs. Society in California stands to disintegrate over this.
Big brother is screwing you!