HSUS Humane Society of The United States HSUS, TV Ad Claiming Support and care for animals, Internet

We know who she is and she's as big of a  liar as Pacelle himself

 the only reason HSUS got out of the indictment in Louisiana is because Foti lost the election. Pacelle was celebrating that day with his usual doses of cocaine and alcohol

 all of the Animal Rescue Community has turned against HSUS they can spew all the rhetoric they want but it's a waste of time. no one is falling for the lies anymore

this rescue is just as bad they had a thousands of missing animals after the hurricane they did not rescue for Gustav they are never allowed to rescue again in Louisiana only transport because of missing animals after Katrina. come to find out they were sent to New York where they were left in an abusive situation. don't let this rescue fool you. Just as bad as HSUS

Dubious Deals at HSUS
From the No Kill Blog 
While Gulf State shelter Tangipahoa Parish continues to kill animals, it will soon do so in a room built to kill animals paid for by the Humane Society of the United States. The nearly $30,000 price tag for the kill room will be paid for with monies HSUS raised ostensibly to help the animals of Hurricane Katrina years ago (an estimated $20 million of which is still unspent, not including interest and investment dividends).
Not only did HSUS provide political cover for the killing, not only did HSUS chief Wayne Pacelle deceive the public into falsely believing that there is "a new dawn" for the animals of Tangipahoa (which will never arise for over 170 of them because they are DEAD), his HSUS is paying for a room to kill even more of them.
If that is not enough, MuttShack Rescue recently completed a large-scale rescue of animals in Louisiana because of Hurricane Gustav. Instead of supporting the effort, HSUS claimed the rescue as their own. According to MuttShack: "[We] just completed the largest animal
www.nokillblog.comevacuation in the history of New Orleans. After its completion, HSUS drove their trucks up in front of the whole deal, shot some footage and has posted it [on their website] as their own rescue."
Still sitting on over $20 million dollars of unspent funds from Hurricane Katrina, using money earmarked to save the lives of animals to build rooms to kill them, HSUS then fundraises off of the success of others; and in doing so, diverts funds meant for the true heroes of Hurricane Gustav to its untold millions piling up in HSUS bank accounts.
This appears to be a pattern at HSUS going back decades and predates even their current CEO: Wayne "I don't have a hands-on fondness for animals" Pacelle. In the 1980s, HSUS ran into trouble for using funds earmarked for animal care to provide private perks for its executive team, including renting ocean front property. In the 1990s, they advocated for the mass killing of feral cats in Riverside Park, VA, only to tell the public that they were involved in making sure the cats were being treated humanely, ignoring the fact that lactating mothers were being trapped and killed, nursing kittens were abandoned, and that animal control was summarily putting the trapped feral cats to death.
So while Pacelle may have inherited that approach, the fundraising team under his reign at HSUS continues it. There is perhaps no better example of this then the misleading tactics used by HSUS to fundraise off of the Michael Vick dog fighting case. Shortly after the case broke, HSUS contacted the U.S. Attorney prosecuting Vick and asked if they could be "involved" and see the dogs (then being held at six animal control shelters in Virginia). The U.S. Attorney agreed but only on condition that they take no photographs and not publicly talk about the dogs (citing fears of compromising the case, sensitivities involved in the prosecution, and issues surrounding rules of evidence). HSUS agreed and then promptly violated that agreement. HSUS staffers took photographs of the dogs with people wearing HSUS shirts to make it appear that HSUS was directly involved in the case and their care.
They then sent out an appeal for money containing a photograph of someone wearing an HSUS shirt with one of the dogs. In the appeal, HSUS asks for money "to help The Humane Society of the United States care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case" and promises to take the money and "put [it] to use right away to care for these dogs." A caption underneath the photograph states: "This dog was one of 52 pit bulls seized from Michael Vicks propertydogs now being cared for by The HSUS..."
Wayne Pacelle himself reiterated this in his July 18, 2007 blog in which he stated that HSUS was "working with federal authorities from the start, and assisting with the care of 52 dogs taken from Vick's property."
The only problem with the appeal is that it wasnt really true. HSUS was not caring for the dogs as they claimed, they were not primarily looking for money to care for the dogs, and the money raised was not primarily going to be "put to use right away to care for these dogs."
And while the Federal Mail Fraud Statute (the oldest federal consumer protection statute in the United States) defines fraud as a scheme which uses the U.S. mail to obtain money by means of false or fraudulent representations, HSUS was careful to avoid it. Beneath the photograph with the dog and a person wearing an HSUS shirt is the statement that the dogs were being cared for by HSUS "and other shelters." In fact, it was "the other shelters" doing all the day-to-day caring.
The appeal also asked (twice) for money to help them care for the Vick dogs, but also "to support other... programs." In fact, aside from a few thousand dollars given to the shelters caring for the dogs out of the large sum purportedly raised, the funds raised from this appeal went ostensibly to these "other" programs. The Vick dog photograph, the talk of the Vick dogs, the part about caring for the Vick dogs was all part of the elaborate distraction. In reality, it was the "other" programs part that was operative.
In reading the appeal, replete with a photograph of one of the Vick dogs in the arms of a person wearing an HSUS shirt, and combined with statements made by Pacelle, it is arguable that people who donated to this appeal thought they were primarily supporting the day-to-day care HSUS was supposedly providing for the Vick dogs. To be fair, HSUS should divulge the names of all the individuals who gave money based on this appeal, how much they gave, whether they believed based on the appeals representations that HSUS was actually providing direct care and/or in physical custody of the seized dogs, and whether they thought the money they gave would go primarily, if not exclusively, to help care for the Vick dogs.
Taking peoples money under suspect pretenses is bad enough. Doing so at the expense of the dogs is simply unforgivable. Because HSUS violated the agreement with the U.S. Attorney, relations between the government agencies involved in the Vick prosecution and the humane movement were soured. According to humane participants in the case, HSUSs actions made it more difficult to work with the federal agencies, who now had reason to distrust these organizations. The outcome could have been disastrous for the dogs had the government refused to work with all humane groups as a result.
No oneincluding Pacelle himselfwould have likely lost any sleep over this because, in the end, HSUS itself lobbied the court to have all the dogs killed. According to Wayne Pacelle himself: "we have recommended to the [government], and believe, the [dogs] will be eventually put down."
The uproar among true dog lovers (people who actually do have a "hands-on fondness for animals") was swift and unending. As a result, HSUS back-pedaled. They stated the issue of Pit Bulls was "complicated." They said that complaints were being spearheaded by those hostile to animal protection (i.e., if you cant attack the message, attack the messenger.) They said they provided a few "thousand dollars" to the shelter actually caring for the dogs. And, their violating the agreement with the U.S. attorney notwithstanding, they stated that they wanted to help "but the federal government has decided to shoulder the burden on its own ..." (The ASPCAs subsequent involvement would put the lie to the latter claim.)
Thankfully, the ASPCA did step in. (As harsh a critic as I am about many of the ASPCAs policies, they did the right thing here). They told the government agencies that they would not violate any agreements. They offered to evaluate the temperament of all the dogs. They suggested that the court appoint a special master to oversee the placement of the dogs. And they succeeded. All but one of the dogs passed their evaluation. Two are now therapy dogs, with one of the dogs bringing comfort to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Some have been adopted into loving homes. And rescue groups across the country stepped up to the plate to promise lifetime care for the rest of themno thanks to HSUS, which once again did the least, potentially could have caused irreversible harm, advocated for the dogs to be killed, but took a lions share of the bounty.
And therein lies the rub. For HSUS, money appears to be the goal, not a means to the goal of saving animals. And on this score, they succeeded. The only problem is: that success potentially betrays the animals and the hard working rescuers who actually go the extra mile for them.

You're right, Rescue, these ad hominem attacks we've been engaging in are a distraction from the main issue.  I regret having been pulled down to HumaneWatch's level of discourse.

The real issue here is the Humane Society of the United States, and the false claims made in this report.

So, maybe we can bypass the usual sideshow with a few ground rules.

Rule #1.  No unsupported claims.  Information without documentation is hearsay, not fact.

Rule #2.  No personal attacks.  They're a distraction from the issues and they derail the discussion.

What do you say, Rescue?  Can you adhere to those guidelines and have an honest, factual discussion of the issues?  I'm game if you are...

John look. By your own admission you have been blocked from posting on HumaneWatch. It is clear to anyone who reads your writing style here that you find false accusations of animal abuse an okay way to debate, a mere tactic. Your comments on HumaneWatch were of the same variety. You are not a person of enough consequence that I took screen shots of everything you wrote in order to extract an exact quotation. So people can either believe me, or not. 

I made lots of offending comments?  Then you shouldn't have trouble identifying ONE, should you?

So, put up or shut up.  Which comment was offensive?

It was not a single comment and you know that. You regularly accuse people of the horrific crime of animal abuse because you don't agree with what they have to say. For you it's merely a tactic. Just like you've done here. 

Rescue,
Time to put up or shut up.

Since you've read my posts, what abusive comment got me banned?

I'll address your other points when you've replied.

Come on John, you can't say "I do not believe that anyone who has a viewpoint counter to mine is automatically wrong." and then also claim that 99% of the arguments used by HumaneWatch are wrong. It's also hard to believe that, when you make statements like, "...there's no evil they won't support to push their agenda against the Humane Society." Evil because why... because we don't agree with you? Or claiming that HumaneWatchers support animal abusers, look the other way when animals suffer, oppose all efforts to protect animals, are wading into the depths of slime, being ignorant of "the facts", sacrificing our ethics, justifying cruelty, are an irresponsible breeder, a puppy mill apologist, a hoarder - all because we simply don't agree with you. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you DO believe that anyone who has a viewpoint counter to yours is automatically wrong - at least that's what you've demonstrated here.

Rescue, you misread and misinterpreted my statements.  I specifically said that HumaneWatchers are not all animal abusers.  My complaint is that those members of HW who are not animal abusers are contributing to the problem by their acceptance and applause for the animal abusers in the group.  The pictures of Katie Dokken's neglected, filthy, abused animals are heart-wrenching.  And yet, the same people who claim to denounce animal cruelty click "Like" on her posts and cheer on her posts denouncing similar animal seizures.

"It does no good for the true animal lovers at HumaneWatch to keep the company of anyone who has been convicted of animal abuse."

Wrong.  It increases their numbers and adds more voices to the chorus singing "we hate HSUS"... and that's precisely why they're still active members of HumaneWatch.  HumaneWatch doesn't care where it gets its members from, or it wouldn't be purchasing those misleading puppy, kitten, and pony ads on Facebook.

HumaneWatch's creators don't care about fairness or truth.  They attack the ASPCA, MADD, CSPI, the CDC, labor unions, and any other public interest group they're paid to go after.  If corporations will cough up a couple million for it, Richard Berman is right there offering his services as a character assassin.

It's an amazingly sleazy operation: he sets up a phony charity, cherry-picks facts and cites discredited studies to give his phony charity the illusion of authority, collects millions in corporate donations, and funnels 92% of these "charitable donations" directly into his pocket.

It's absolutely reprehensible. 

And yet, here are the HumaneWatchers, a good number of which are fully aware of the depths of the slime they're wading into in order to attack the Humane Society.  They don't care that Richard Berman is an evil, profiteering liar whose own son publicly disowned him because he couldn't stand to be associated with that kind of sleaze.  They don't care that HW welcomes and encourages the participation of these convicted animal abusers.  They don't care that HW has been caught in lie after lie, one misrepresentation after another.

That's what astounds me about HumaneWatchers: these are supposed to be good, moral people, but there's no evil they won't support to push their vendetta against the Humane Society.

So, I'll repeat my question:
If you openly support animal abusers, if you look the other way when animals are suffering, if you slander the organizations who defend animals from cruelty, if you oppose all efforts to protect animals... how can you possibly claim to care about animals?

As for HumaneWatch not stifling the truth, that's flat out incorrect.  I've been banned from the HumaneWatch pages, and the discussion I was involved in was nothing but courteous and factual.  The factual content I posted didn't mesh with the HumaneWatch smear campaign, so I was immediately banned and labeled a "troll".  That mirrors the experience of dozens of people on the Stop HumaneWatch group.  There's a post on humanewatch.info that describes one such incident, and we have screenshots of others that were courteous and respectful throughout.

It's HumaneWatch's group, and they have the right to operate it as they see fit... but don't tell me that the only people they ban are "are those who are unable to be civil", because that's provably false.  They ban anyone who doesn't stay on message -- an extremely one-sided view of the situation.  You will never hear a fair appraisal of HSUS on the HumaneWatch pages; only negative comments about HSUS are permitted.

"No one on HumaneWatch supports crush videos."

Except when they do.  This is a perfect example of HumaneWatch hypocrisy!  When a SCOTUS ruling overturned penalties for distributing crush videos, HumaneWatch was openly jubilant about it.  Nevermind the suffering and horror that would stem from the SCOTUS decision -- it was a setback for HSUS, and so HumaneWatch celebrated on their site, and HumaneWatchers applauded on Facebook.  Animals are suffering -- but who cares, it looks bad for HSUS!


"Most HumaneWatchers do their own research and think for themselves."
 
Really?  Then why are 99% of the arguments repeated by HumaneWatchers discredited myths and outright lies?  "HSUS is a radical vegan organization that wants to confiscate your pets!"

How many times have we heard this delusional conspiracy theory repeated, despite the utter lack of proof and all evidence to the contrary?

Oh wait, they do have "proof": a thirty-year old quote from Wayne Pacelle, taken out of context and selectively edited.

Yes, those HumaneWatchers do their research -- but they do it on the HumaneWatch website, which is full of misinformation and misrepresentations.  That's NOT thinking for yourself.  That's just parroting propaganda.

Truly, I do not believe that anyone who has a viewpoint counter to mine is automatically wrong.  I respect everyone's right to have their own opinion, and to draw their own conclusions from the information available to them, even if the information is suspect and the conclusions are faulty.

What I cannot accept and cannot understand is that people who claim to be "animal lovers" would join an organization funded by corporate animal abusers; that they would identify with a group that eagerly welcomes convicted animal abusers into its ranks; that they would celebrate every setback for animal welfare because it harms an organization they don't support.

I find that appalling.

I will agree that of the people you've listed Kattie Dokken, Barbara Hoffman and Fred Lulling have been arrested for animal abuse (I had to google them, as I had not heard that). I have blocked the individuals and have sent an email to HumaneWatch asking for them to be removed from the site. It does no good for the true animal lovers at HumaneWatch to keep the company of anyone who has been convicted of animal abuse. As to Lori Barva Rogers, I couldn't find enough information online to substantiate your claim, so I'll have to give her the benefit of the doubt until that changes. As I've said before. Most HumaneWatchers do their own research and think for themselves. I simply do not have time to run background checks on all of the 170,000+ fans of HumaneWatch. Have you run background checks on your 3,000 fans?

Rescue Worker is claiming that HumaneWatch disavows the animal abusers among them.  There's a post by Kattie Dokken -- a convicted animal abuser repeatedly exposed by the Stop HumaneWatch group -- on the HumaneWatch page this very morning (Friday, October 1st).  Lori Barva Rogers, convicted animal abuser, remains a HumaneWatch supporter.  Barbara Hoffman and Fred Lulling, convicted animal abusers, remain active and vocal on HumaneWatch.  Google the names, there's plenty of official information (and horrific pictures) that outline their crimes. 

To the best of my knowledge, HumaneWatch has NEVER removed any animal abuser from their group.  They've only removed those who mention HumaneWatch's origins or who question why the people who put up the cute pictures of puppies and kittens are applauding the repeal of penalties for crush videos, or advocating for the slaughter of wild horses or wild geese.

Prove me wrong, Rescue Worker.  Show me an animal abuser that HumaneWatch has willingly removed from their ranks.

And then there's the bow hunters, the backyard breeders, the animal testing technicians, the furriers, the horse slaughter advocates... the list goes on, and on, and on.  Sure, this one here is a veterinarian (who works for a commercial puppy mill in Missouri).  This one here is a dog lover (who breeds her dogs as often as possible and ships to any buyer with a credit card, no questions asked).  This one is a Nature lover (who uses a rifle to splatter the brains of deer onto the grass on weekends).  You need only look at the interests and professions of HumaneWatchers to get an idea of the true makeup of the group.

That's not to say that all HumaneWatchers are animal abusers.  That's clearly not the case.  Some are ignorant of the facts.  Some are willfully ignorant when the falsehoods support their goals.  Some are willing to sacrifice their ethics and the well-being of animals in their pursuit of a personal agenda.  Some value profits over the health of the animals in their care.  Some oppose animal welfare on the grounds that animals are "here to be used by Man", as if that justifies their cruelty.  And they focus their attacks on the most prominent, effective, and powerful animal protection organization on the planet.  They may not be animal abusers themselves, but they are willing participants in the fight against animal welfare.

And that's my key objection to the group in general.  These are people who have demonstrated a willingness to accept any lie, embrace any evil, in pursuit of their selfish vendettas against the Humane Society.  Many are aware of Berman's agenda to slander the HSUS, and they don't care that the claims are untrue.  They're aware of the crimes of some of the darlings of HumaneWatch, and yet they've made a conscious decision to side with these animal abusers.  They're become part of the problem.

HSUS supporters, on the other hand, donate their time and effort and money solely because of their love of animals.  We receive no compensation.  We have no profit motive.  We have no political agenda.  We do this because we care about animals.

The bottom line is this: if you openly support animal abusers, if you look the other way when animals are suffering, if you slander the organizations who defend animals from cruelty, if you oppose all efforts to protect animals... how can you possibly claim to care about animals?

Gracious how did I miss this whopper?

John has "debunked" nothing. He is merely giving you his opinion. John has indeed provided news articles that he alleges support his opinion. Before we jump in, ask yourself, why do so many animal lovers, shelter directors, animal control officers, rescuers, shelter volunteers, fundraising coordinators, puppy raisers, foster homes, vets, former HSUS donors, and the very people who work in the trenches of animal welfare support HumaneWatch.

"Rescue Worker", are you conscious?  Didn't I say up front that I was the webmaster for humanewatch.info, and that I am a dedicated supporter of HSUS because I have investigated and debunked those bogus claims?

If you will note, most of the links I posted are from respected news organizations.  Your links are from bloggers flogging the anti-HSUS agenda of HumaneWatch.

Which sources have more credibility?

I agree that folks need to do their own research, but they need to obtain that information from neutral, third-parties, and not from the HumaneWatch smear campaign and its followers. 

Now, let's discuss your bogus claims.

Who has HSUS sued for talking trash?  Please, provide us with some names and case numbers, that would be useful information for everyone.  Otherwise, I must be forced to conclude that you are making up more lies about the Humane Society of the US, which is Standard Operating Procedure for HumaneWatchers.

HSUS doesn't waste its time and resources going after the HumaneWatch liars.  That's a distraction from its mission to help animals, and HSUS won't fall for it. 

There are exceptions, of course, like when HumaneWatch made the over-the-top claim that HSUS funds terrorism.  HSUS lawyers stepped in, and HumaneWatch backpedaled frantically to avoid the lawsuit that would have crushed them.

Since then, they've been much more careful about crossing the line into libel.  Instead, they provide innuendo and cherry-picked facts intended to mislead, and rely on their supporters to spread the real libel.

Trying to sue every moron who repeats HumaneWatch-inspired smears and lies would be a full-time occupation for HSUS that would bleed it dry of resources, and at the expense of the animals HSUS protects.  Meanwhile, HSUS' enemies would gleefully claim "Look!  HSUS is trying to cover something up!"

HSUS can't waste its resources countering the flood of HumaneWatcher misinformation.  That's why I donate much of my time to exposing it for the ridiculous crap it is, and why I encourage animal lovers to learn the facts and speak up in defense of the Humane Society of the United States. 

You listed what you try to portray as a representative sample of HumaneWatch supporters.  Let me tell you the rest of the story.  Every HWer I've met has an ulterior motive for hating the Humane Society.  There are insane conspiracy theorists who are fighting against the "vegan agenda".  There are irresponsible breeders and puppy mill apologists who resent HSUS trying to mandate humane treatment of dogs.  There are ranchers who resent HSUS exposing disgusting, unhealthy, inhumane practices like ramming "downer" cows with forklifts to get them to the killing floor -- and into our food supply.  And most appalling, there are convicted animal abusers, puppy millers, and hoarders who HumaneWatchers openly applaud -- we uncover more of them every week, we expose their court records and horrifying, truly horrifying pictures of their abuse, and still HumaneWatch embraces them as peers. 

That one fact alone is perhaps the most damning indictment of HumaneWatcher ethics and motivations.  Can you really claim that these people are working for the benefit of animals, when they so eagerly side with known animal abusers?

And of course, there are thousands upon thousands of people who simply clicked on the deceptive Facebook ads of puppies and kittens without exploring what the group is really about.  (The folks at the Stop HumaneWatch group on Facebook take the time to enlighten several of those folks every day.  As soon as they learn that Rick Berman is behind it and what he really stands for, they can't distance themselves from the group fast enough.  They now comprise a significant portion of the Stop HumaneWatch group.)

So please, don't try to tell us that HumaneWatch is some noble grassroots organization that actually *helps* animals!  It is an astroturf organization that receives its funding from corporate animal abusers.  (92% of those funds are funneled into the pockets of its creator, Rick Berman, according to their Form 990 filings.  Check out (((Redacted)))for some shocking information about Berman and his other nonprofit scams.)  Its numbers are grossly inflated by the number of people duped with misleading ads.  It is supported by cruelty apologists, people who put profits ahead of animal welfare, and people with a personal vendetta against HSUS, all of whom pursue the less-than-noble goal of destroying animal protection organizations in general, and HSUS in particular.

And don't try to deceive readers into thinking that only 3000 people are opposed to HumaneWatch.  The Stop HumaneWatch group is a true grassroots organization.  It doesn't aggressively promote itself like HumaneWatch does.  It's not run by a P.R. firm, like HumaneWatch is.  It doesn't have multi-million dollar corporate sponsorship like HumaneWatch does.  And it doesn't take out deceptive ads like HumaneWatch does.

But more importantly, HumaneWatch is not the antithesis of the Stop HumaneWatch group.  It's the enemy of the Humane Society of the United States and every other animal welfare organization that fights to protect animals from their abusers... and I guarantee you that those organizations have a LOT more supporters than HumaneWatch ever will, despite the cheap tricks and sleazy tactics of HumaneWatch and its shills.

CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.

John Doppler Schiff is a well known, hard-core supporter of HSUS. He is the webmaster or major contributor to multiple websites all of which are militantly pro HSUS. Lisa is likewise a well-known, rabid supporter of HSUS.

I am a long time supporter of the HSUS, both financially and philosophically.  I am not employed by them or affiliated with them,  Simply put, HSUS is the most effective animal protection organization out there and no other agency, government or otherwise, has been as effective as HSUS in improving the lives of all animals, not just dogs and cats.

But I would like to point out some facts about the possible motivation and timing of the original complaint.  You see, currently in Missouri (the original posters home state and the well known puppy mill capital of the US) there is a measure on the ballot for November (Proposition B) which seeks to require minimum humane standards for commercial dog breeding operations (commonly known as puppy mills).  HSUS is a major backer for this initiative and as a result has been subjected to this backlash from disreputable breeders and other agribusiness groups who are fighting against it.  This of course is nothing new.  HSUS has been attacked by breeders and agribusiness in every campaign they undertake to improve the lives of these animals.  These groups are simply concerned with increasing their numbers and their profits, with little to no regard for the well being of the animals upon which they depend for their earnings. 

The poster is correct in saying that HSUS does not fund local animal shelters.  Their very founding mission was to undertake the work that local animal organizations didnt have the resources or the ability to do.  They were founded to be the national voice on matters of animal welfare and cruelty and that is exactly what they do.  Their commercials are not misleading as the poster would have you suggest.  Nowhere in their ads to they claim to fund or operate local shelters and the images shown in the ads all come from HSUS missions (raids of dog fighting rings, puppy mill operations, hoarding situations).  HSUS typically does not initiate these missions on their own but they are asked to come in by local authorities and shelters because of their unmatched expertise in dealing with large scale cruelty cases. 

Find out more about this and other unsubstantiated and misleading attacks on the HSUS at www.humanewatch.info.  Find out more about Proposition B at www.yesonpropb.com. 

The Humane Society of the United States is the world's largest and most effective advocate for animal protection.  Because of its tremendously successful track record in exposing and fighting cruelty, it's come under attack by industry-funded groups who want to protect their "right" to abuse and mistreat animals for profit. 

The smear campaign against HSUS is headed by an astroturf group, HumaneWatch (HW), which is a project of the deceptively named Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF).

You may have heard of CCF: it's the organization that attacks the CDC and advises pregnant women to consume more mercury-laden fish (on behalf of the seafood and restaurant industries), attacks MADD and fights penalties for drunk driving (on behalf of the liquor industries), attacks the CSPI and fights healthy eating initiatives (on behalf of the fast food industries), and so on.

Their current project, HumaneWatch, targets the Humane Society of the United States.  According to its founder, Rick Berman, its goal is to "shoot the messenger" -- to discredit animal protection agencies so as to weaken their influence.  This is so that HW's million-dollar corporate sponsors (puppy mills, factory farms, furriers, and other animal abusers) can evade public scrutiny and continue to put profits ahead of minimal humane standards of treatment for animals.

They pursue this agenda by publishing official-looking websites overflowing with lies and misinformation, by providing false information to any media outlet foolish enough to not check their sources, by mischaracterizing and sneering at every charitable act the HSUS performs, by rallying support among animal abusers and their allies, and by publishing misleading ads on Facebook, in newspapers, and even a billboard in Manhattan.

That's HumaneWatch, the entity behind the daily attacks on the Humane Society of the US.  You'll find a reference to this post on their Facebook page, presumably placed there by the originator of this phony "complaint".

But enough about them.  Let's talk about HSUS.

HSUS is an incredible force for animal welfare -- not "animal rights", as HWers would have you believe.  The HSUS consistently works to confront cruelty, not to "take away your pets", not to "force you to become vegans", not to "outlaw meat".  (Those false claims are just a few of the ridiculous conspiracy theories HumaneWatch likes to repeat at every opportunity.)

The Humane Society's mission is not to fund local shelters, despite what HumaneWatch would like you to believe.  The HSUS does support shelters in the form of disaster relief, shelter advocacy, shelter promotion, training for animal care professionals, and much more -- but operating and financing local shelters is not the focus of the organization.  Their focus is significantly broader: public education, wildlife sanctuaries, free veterinary services to under-served areas, assisting law enforcement in uncovering dogfight rings, shaping humane legislation, spay and neuter programs, and much, much more.

HSUS tackles the long-range, national issues that shelters cannot.  They address the causes of animal cruelty.
Shelters provide the ground-level, day-to-day support that HSUS cannot.  They perform damage control.

Both play a vital role in animal welfare.

So yes, the HSUS spent "only" half a million dollars on funding animal shelters in 2008, because that's not really their purpose.  But the HumaneWatch crowd doesn't want you to know the other side of the story: that HSUS spent over *$71 million* in that same period to fight animal cruelty and protect animals from abuse.

Finally, I'll offer a bit of information about myself to head off the inevitable mud-slinging and accusations.  I am the webmaster for the humanewatch.info website, which is dedicated to countering the lies that HumaneWatch spreads.  I'm not an employee of HSUS, I am not an affiliate of HSUS, and I never have been.  I like animals.  I have a pet cat, Wicket, a "special needs" shelter rescue with asthma.  I am not a vegan or a vegetarian -- I eat meat (though I'm trying to cut back on my consumption).  

I have pored over every line and every page of every public tax document the HSUS has filed since 2003.  And before launching humanewatch.info, I investigated virtually every claim, every myth, every vague innuendo I have encountered from HumaneWatch and its supporters.  "HSUS pays its directors exorbitant salaries."  (False.)  "HSUS wants to outlaw all pets."  (False.)  "HSUS is going to confiscate your grandmother's seeing eye dog."  (Ridiculous and false.)  "HSUS wants to force everyone to be vegans."  (Insane and false.  Honestly, I've never met a group of people more terrified of a carrot stick or a piece of tofu than the average HumaneWatcher!) 

The end result of all this investigation?  I found that HumaneWatch is a sleazy, deceptive campaign that thrives on ignorance and misinformation.  I found that HSUS opponents rely on that misinformation for nearly all of their bogus claims against the Humane Society of the US.

And most importantly, I am now an enthusiastic donor and volunteer to the Humane Society of the U.S. 

Don't fall for the myths and misinformation spread by Missouri puppy mill apologists.  HSUS is a great organization whose accomplishments over the last 50 years are undeniable, and whose motives and actions are consistently geared towards protecting animals from cruelty.  I encourage you to learn more about their incredible programs to help animals. 

You can learn more about HSUS programs at their website, www.hsus.org.

You can learn more about Rick Berman, CCF, and the HumaneWatch smear campaign at www.humanewatch.info

Or read about them in the news:
Star Tribune: Humane Society Fighting A Smear
http://www.startribune.com/local/96226034.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

NY Times: Non-Profit Advocate Carves Out For-Profit Niche
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/us/politics/18berman.html

ABC News: Lobbyists Hide Behind Non-Profit Fronts
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=4140447

CBS News: Meet Rick Berman: A.K.A. "Dr. Evil"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/05/60minutes/main2653020.shtml?source=search_story

Citizens for Reponsibility and Ethics in Washington, complaint filed with IRS
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/25601

Support your local shelters, and support the HSUS.  Both fill a crucial role in preventing animal suffering.

Hillary is an employee of HSUS who works in their emerging media department. It is her job to post the HSUS party line on every blog post that comes up on her news finder in an attempt to burnish HSUS's rapidly tarnishing reputation. She has posted here a comment full of factual inaccuracies.

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary.  As their damage control employee, you of all people should know H$U$ now has a 3 start rating with Charity Navagator.  H$U$ was downgraded several months ago. 

"For four years, the HSUS received a four-star rating from Charity Navigator, but in 2010 was downgraded to three stars. The HSUS's international affiliate, Humane Society International, has a one-star rating from Charity Navigator.^"

"The American Institute for Philanthropy, in contrast, rated their financial practices a "D" grade."  (Which is incidently lower than PETA's rating.)

Could this be yet another example of the H$U$ deception?  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, we usually assume it is a duck.  Remember that word assume.  I am sure we have all heard the cleshay for the word "assume".  Be informed, don't be victimized.  The truth is out there, just Google it.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has consistently received a four-star rating (the highest available) from Charity Navigator. In addition, the HSUSs efficiency ratios exceed the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance standards. The BBB WGA requires that program expenses as a percentage of total expenses be 65% or greater. The Societys program expenses as a percentage of total expenses is 75%. Further, the Society meets all BBB WGA standards which include financial and others. More recently, the HSUS was named one of the ten most fiscally responsible charities by Worth Magazine.

Our annual reports and financial statements are readily available on our website for anyone to view: http://www.humanesociety.org/about/overview/annual_reports_financial_statements.html.

The mission of the HSUS can be summed up in one phrase: "celebrating animals, confronting cruelty". We work on a variety of animal welfare issues including puppy mills, dogfighting, factory farming, canned hunts, and animals used in research. Our organization also provides support to the animal sheltering field in areas such as professional development, large-scale cruelty cases, and disaster response.

Readers can find out more about our work at www.humanesociety.org.