Report: #558995

Complaint Review: HSUS Humane Society of The United States

  • Submitted: Sat, January 23, 2010
  • Updated: Tue, July 01, 2014
  • Reported By: Tired of liars — Miller Missouri United States of America
  • HSUS Humane Society of The United States

    United States of America

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

I was looking at the TV commercials and thought this maybe a good idea tom give some money to help animals.  But then...

I looked into the financials and history of tis organization and what I found merits a warning for all who may consider any gifts to the HSUS. 

The HSUS has been investigated in several states for fraud concerning their advertisements.

It has been repoprted they do not follow the rules for a 501C organization

According to their financial report they spend pennies on what they receive in donations for the animals, If my figures are correct they spend 0.01 % of all money for the benefit of any animal,  roughly a 100,000 per 100 million in revenue   or less.

Do not support the HSUS you are just getting ripped off. 


Is this Ripoff Report About you?
Ripoff Report A business' first line of defense on the Internet.
If your business is willing to make a commitment to customer satisfaction Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation? Fix it the right way. Corporate Advocacy Program™

Set the record straight: Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/23/2010 03:22 PM and is a permanent record located here: The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 REBUTTAL Owner of company

no 1 believes HSUS lies anymore animal people have turned against them

AUTHOR: lela - ()

 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

Respond to this report!

#2 REBUTTAL Owner of company

mutt Shack rescue are liars also

AUTHOR: lela - ()

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

Respond to this report!

#3 REBUTTAL Owner of company

backing claims up-HSUS Fraud-Louisiana

AUTHOR: lela - ()

 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

Respond to this report!

#4 REBUTTAL Owner of company

just another paid employee of HSUS

AUTHOR: lela - ()

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

Respond to this report!

#5 Consumer Comment

HSUS Wayne Pacelle A Matter of Time Now Feds Are Coming

AUTHOR: Vic - (United States of America)

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.
Respond to this report!

#6 Consumer Comment

Back to the facts

AUTHOR: John Doppler Schiff - (United States of America)

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...

Respond to this report!

#7 Consumer Comment

For those who are interested.

AUTHOR: RescueVolunteer - (United States of America)

The original post that started this, dealt with the HSUS and it's less than honest commercials, it's habit of giving less than 0.5% of all the money it raises to actual hands on animal shelters, it's love of taking credit for the work of other people, and its questionable lobbying activities.

If you are interested in discovering the less than honorable dealings of the Humane Society of the United States you are welcome to join the conversation at or join us on our Facebook page of the same name. We aren't two-headed monsters, or animal abusers (despite what John desperately wishes you would believe) we're animal lovers just like you are and we believe that when HSUS says it is raising money to care for the Michael Vick fight bust dogs, all of the money should actually be used for that purpose. If the HSUS wants to raise money for lobbying and legislation, they should say that is what they're raising money for (and accompany it with pictures of sad faced lawyers and lobbyists locked in dirty too small cages) - otherwise it really does look like they are fundraising under false pretenses.

HumaneWatch has organized an extensive library of fact-checked documents that you can read at your leisure. John should come screaming in here any moment, but that's what he does. Do not believe me, do not believe John, do your own research.

If you want a good start on hypocrisy at HSUS google, the Wilkes County Massacre and read any of the articles written by Nathan Winograd (yes, I know John, you hate Mr. Winograd too, at least he wants to move the conversation forward for the animals, not talk on and on about why he got thrown off a Facebook page).

Google "Betrayal & Deceipt at the Humane Society of the United States" and read the articles posted on the PetConnection blog. John will be along to scream about how blogs aren't facts - and he's right. Except that this particular blog is one of the few that has proven to handle the HSUS quite even handedly. They agree with much of what the HSUS does, but in the case of Fay... well you need to read it for yourself to believe it. I think John's been blocked from commenting there as well if memory serves.

Google "They Shoot Horse (Owners), Don't They" by Jolley to read an account of HSUS conducting an unreasonable seizure of a woman's horses and then abandoning them in a field without food or water. The owner quickly found her horses and begged HSUS and local authorities to either feed the horses or allow her and/or her friends to feed them. Local vets, drove by to see the horses and agreed that at the time they were seized they were healthy "good looking" horses. Eventually a judge ordered the victim, Ms. Malott, to tend to the health and welfare of her horses still in HSUS custody because after months in HSUS custody, the horses were beginning to starve. There is additional information at if you're interested.

Google "In Bed with Monsters" for Nathan Winograd's take on all things HSUS, like what happened to all the money they raised in the gulf region after Hurricane Katrina, why HSUS is fighting to discredit No Kill, and why HSUS would partner with convicted dog-killer Michael Vick. Remember as you read this that Nathan Winograd is an animal welfare attorney, he understands what constitutes slander, the truth is never slander.

John will no-doubt be back to claim that after the Michael Vick fiasco, HSUS turned over a new leaf and stopped killing pit bulls. Except that AFTER the Vick fiasco, HSUS got themselves embroiled in another fiasco... The Wilkes County Massacre where foster parents were told to return puppies born after the bust, puppies that they were being raising with love and socializing, return those puppies to the shelter so that they could be killed because HSUS "expert" recommended it. HSUS recommended the killing of puppies - and all of the puppies were killed.

There is a lot more out there and the fondest wish of those of us who support HumaneWatch is that HSUS can return to it's root, where it actually did help small shelters without charging them an arm and a leg for every little thing. Imagine what programs would benefit hand-on care of animals if HSUS released more of their $100+ million savings account than 0.5%
Respond to this report!

#8 Consumer Comment


AUTHOR: RescueVolunteer - (United States of America)

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. 

So many of you rabid HSUS supporters want to get tied down in ridiculous minutia. You have repeatedly been offensive here, which is a pretty good indication of why you were blocked from HumaneWatch. I don't know the exact comment that got you booted because I personally blocked you before that happened, which is why I said I was actually surprised that the moderators let you go on for as long as they did.

This is so like so many HSUS fanatical believers. You don't want to discuss the facts about HSUS, you want to argue about silly things that have zero bearing on HSUS. You intentionally deflect the conversation away from HSUS because you have no explanation for how their behavior fits into your narrow dogma.

If you want to discuss fraud and deceit in the HSUS, I'll be more than willing to oblige you. But if you want to talk about you... you'll have to do that on your own.
Respond to this report!

#9 Consumer Comment

Um, uh, um, uhhh

AUTHOR: John Doppler Schiff - (United States of America)

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?
Respond to this report!

#10 Consumer Comment


AUTHOR: RescueVolunteer - (United States of America)

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. 

But if you don't want to continue to debate, I understand. You ran out of facts a long time ago. Enjoy your weekend.
Respond to this report!

#11 Consumer Comment

Back up your claims, Part I

AUTHOR: John Doppler Schiff - (United States of America)

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.

Respond to this report!

#12 Consumer Comment

More falsehoods from an HSUS supporter

AUTHOR: RescueVolunteer - (United States of America)

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.

It's also hard to take you seriously when you claim, "I respect everyone's right to have their own opinion, and to draw their own conclusions from the information available to them..." and then you assume that the information is "suspect" and the conclusions "faulty." You make an assumption that HumaneWatchers get all their information from HumaneWatch. Which is ridiculous because despite your campaign of spamming HumaneWatch supporters, you can't possibly have spoken with a statistically significant number of them. I know that since you've been banned from the Facebook page for misconduct you can't see all the discussions, but that doesn't mean they aren't occurring. Posting links here in an earlier comment to HSUS supported puff pieces and "news" written by HSUS staffers and calling it "independent". You aren't being intellectually honest here.

I get that you hate Rick Berman, the Center for Consumer Freedom, HumaneWatch and all their employees and anyone and everyone that has a single negative thing to say about HSUS regardless how justified. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. You've demonstrated that you're a one trick pony. Facts do not become lies because you hate the messenger. One question, do you know why CCF does not support MADD. If you said it's because CCF supports drunk driving you'd be wrong.

"HSUS is a radical vegan organization that wants to confiscate your pets!" Yes, HSUS is a radical vegan organization - that much is crystal clear and I came to that opinion by reading the HSUS website. That HSUS wants to confiscate our pets - they have made moves that make me wonder if that is their end goal, but it deserves more investigation. So I would call that, the jury is still out.

NO ONE on HumaneWatch supports crush videos. Absolutely, 100%, no one does. No one supports the crushing of small animals so that a depraved individual can get some sort of sick thrill. No one. We were glad to hear that SCOTUS rightly overturned an overly broad, badly written piece of legislation and to be honest HSUS should have been glad as well because the case could have been made that HSUS's misery for fundraising videos and hidden camera "investigations" could have also been ruled in violation of the old law. So the law was rewritten to exempt legal activities and the law is working its way through Congress. I don't understand how replacing a weak law with better law that people who make crush videos won't be able to wiggle out of is a bad thing? 

I know that being banned for your behavior on HumaneWatch was probably embarrassing, or perhaps inconvenient as certain content is now blocked for you, but there are opposing viewpoints presented all the time. You have to be abusive to get banned. If you are going to accuse people you have never met of the crime of animal abuse, an allegation you have absolutely no proof for, you have to expect that the moderator is going to block you. I read some of your posts, I was actually surprised that the moderators let you go on for as long as they did. 

Your whining about Rick Berman is getting old. Should we discount the information of every individual who has had a falling out with a son? How is that even relevant. The information I was able to independently gather about Mr. Berman's son... not such a stellar character in his own right. Someone claiming to be Wayne Pacelle's Aunt has been posting all over the internet about what a horrible person Mr. Pacelle is. Should we believe that as the gospel truth because it came from a relative. (I personally don't buy the Aunt's story anymore than I buy the story written by Berman's son.)

As to your claim that "HSUS supporters, on the other hand, donate their time and effort and money solely because of their love of animals." Where were your supporters when that mid-West shelter needed money. HumaneWatchers turned out in droves, donating what they could and raising thousands of dollars in hours. The same story posted to your little group got a mere 4 comments. One from a moderator complaining about what kind of car Mr. Berman drives. I couldn't read the other 3 comments because they must have come from people I've blocked as being to radical. I've had to block hundreds of people from "your side of the tracks" for foul language, making unfounded criminal accusations, or inciting violence.

Until your next post...
Respond to this report!

#13 Consumer Comment

HumaneWatch hypocrisy

AUTHOR: John Doppler Schiff - (United States of America)

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 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.
Respond to this report!

#14 Consumer Comment

John, John, John

AUTHOR: RescueVolunteer - (United States of America)

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?

Let us contrast that with your Facebook page's support of animals abusers who intentionally injure animals to "preserve their cover" as "investigators." Who abuse animals for months, encourage others to abuse animals, and then tell no one as the abuse continues. Apparently if you are on the "correct" side of the camera or the issue, jabbing animals with pitchforks and beating and stomping helpless baby animals is a-okay. Of course over on HumaneWatch we rightly called for all of the admitted abusers to get maximum sentences. 

The only people HumaneWatch moderators remove from the group are those who are unable to be civil. There are plenty of naysayers and folks from the animal rights side contributing to the debates. Your little Facebook page does the exact same thing.

No one on HumaneWatch supports crush videos. No one except the animal rights trolls. Our discussions were about the potential ramifications on first amendment rights as they relate to legal hunting videos and an interesting side discussion on whether HSUS and other animal rights groups would be able to continue with their misleading fundraising videos since they basically are made to show misery for fundraising purposes. I'm sorry if you can't grasp the nuances of the conversation.

The horse slaughter debate continues and encompasses what to do with all of the abandoned, starving, homeless horses being found all over the country, and how the laws do nothing to protect horses from being shipped to Mexico where there are no humane standards for slaughter or transport. Again, I'm sorry if you can't grasp the nuances of the conversation.

The wild geese debate has been interesting and enlightening because HSUS supporters have actually hinted that the deaths of people in the air and on the ground in bird strike plane crashes is a cost of flying. If you're worried about being in one of those crashes they suggest, don't fly. They have also suggested that perhaps people could simply move away from where the geese are - because moving major urban areas and airports to accommodate an unchecked overpopulation of non-endangered birds is so doable. And you wonder why we don't take your side seriously.

I find it interesting that you can speak with such "authority" about the make up of the followers of HumaneWatch. On what do you base your information? How many of the 170,000 fans have you personally interviewed? I do see that you are anti-hunter though. Last time I checked, as long as you follow the rules, hunting is legal. You've left out the HumaneWatchers I know personally. The woman who rehabilitates fight bust pit bulls, the people who do rescue transport, the vet who is a wildlife rehabilitator, the tortoise raiser who is working to protect an endangered species, the shelter volunteers, the trainers who work with people to help them keep their dogs instead of turning them over to the shelter for fixable behavioral issues, the foster families, the puppy and kitten raisers who take in newborns, the behavioral evaluators who act as doggie matchmakers, the man who manages three feral cat colonies, another trainer who turns shelter animals into 4-legged movie stars. I know you only like to see the worst in people, but so many of the HumaneWatch fans are true animals lovers and put in the time, the effort and the funds to prove it every day.

And then comes the positively laughable assertion that because we don't believe exactly as you believe we are somehow ignorant, willing to accept "evil" and don't care about animals. Really. Is that all you've got? We don't believe like you believe so we must be animal exploiters and animal abusers. There you go, taking the low road again.

Nice try, but you could not have presented a weaker argument.

Respond to this report!

#15 Consumer Comment

Rescue Worker won't face the facts

AUTHOR: John Doppler Schiff - (United States of America)

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?

Respond to this report!

#16 Consumer Comment

More story telling from Mr. Schiff

AUTHOR: RescueVolunteer - (United States of America)

Gracious how did I miss this whopper?

Mr. Schiff would have you believe that everyone that supports HumaneWatch is an animal abuser of some sort. We hear this all the time. Even Wayne Pacelle indulges in this sort of name-calling from his blog on the HSUS website. "If you don't have the same opinion as us you must abuse animals." Animal abuse is a very serious issue and it's also a crime (often times with insufficient penalties). Those of who have seen actual abuse would never be so casual as to throw the term "abuse" and "abuser" around so casually. And considering that animal abuse is a crime Mr. Schiff and those who support HSUS think it's okay to falsely accuse people of a horrible crime simply because they do not agree with him. Talk about taking the low road.

And here in his latest screed, John lies and says that just because a few people who were indeed abusive to their animals, who were also were members of the HumaneWatch facebook page, that we stand behind those individuals. What John doesn't tell you is that the people who have been discovered as true animal abusers and criminals, they have been removed from the group. Really, no one wants to interact with a convicted animal abuser, certainly not the animal loving members of HumaneWatch. The truth doesn't matter to John.

I have met tons of hardworking, animal lovers through HumaneWatch who donate freely of their time, energy and money to the cause of animal welfare. I have invited all of my animal welfare savvy friends and they've all joined as well. Together we have formed local coalitions to work toward improving our local animal shelters - something you will never see HSUS do. HumaneWatch has been good for the animals, very, very good.

It's an old tactic, when you have run out of facts to back up your position, play the kill the messenger, or suggest that your opponent abuses animals. The fact is that HumaneWatch on Facebook grows by about 1000 members a day with hardly a slowdown while John's tiny group struggles to add a literal handful of members a day. Sometimes they go days without adding a single member, sometimes their numbers actually go down. So the people who John is alleging are quiting HumaneWatch in droves, it's a lie. Go to the Facebook pages and watch the daily counters.

When the call went out to help a midwest shelter, HumaneWatchers generously opened their wallets and thousands were raised in a few hours. What did John's HSUS supporters do. The same thing HSUS does. They complained about what kind of car Mr. Berman drives and donated nothing according to the woman at the shelter coordinating the fundraising. John is all talk and no action.
Respond to this report!

#17 Consumer Comment

When you have no facts...

AUTHOR: RescueVolunteer - (United States of America)

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.

The Star Tribune article is written by Janelle Dixon. Ms. Dixon is the president of an HSUS satellite organization started by Wayne Pacelle. Wayne Pacelle currently sits on that organization's board. Not an independent source.

The New York Times article written by Stephanie Strom was a puff piece commissioned by HSUS. At least that's what Stephanie told reporter Sarah Longwell when she contacted Ms. Strom and invited her to sit down at CCF's offices and ask any questions that were on her mind. Ms. Strom is hardly an independent source.

The ABC "news" article written by Mark Matthews fails to even mention HSUS and the watchdog role that HumaneWatch plays. It laments that CCF is a not-for-profit lobbying firm. What John fails to tell you is that HSUS is also a not-for-profit lobbying firm. Sort of a pot calling the kettle back situation.

The CBS piece, which is basically a transcript of a 60 Minutes interview begins with name calling. This hardly makes it a piece of journalistic independence. Berman stands firm that CCF is against the current nanny state mentality - and I agree. Berman's group for example, supports exercise as a way to burn calories instead of having food cops ban certain foods. I'm not sure how this paints HumaneWatch in a bad light.

The CREW complaint asks for CCF's tax exempt status to be revoked. What John fails to tell you is that HSUS is doing the exact same sort of prohibited political posturing and lobbying in violation of their own charter. More pot calling the kettle black.

John has apparently only done enough research from biased sources to confirm his own tightly held beliefs, rather than uncover any truth. He's entitled to his opinion, but not to his own made up on the spot facts. If you look over the mountain of documents on the website, it's easy to see that everything posted there has been fact-checked. I encourage people to go there and see for themselves. I've been to John and Lisa's "independent" websites and you don't have to wade in very far to come up with dozens of easily proved factual inaccuracies.

As to HSUS's alleged "mission" not to ever fund local shelters. That is patently untrue as well. From its beginning, HSUS desired to be "deeply involved" with pet sheltering and aimed to be a true "national" humane society. Until the early 1970s when John Hoyt became HSUS's president, HSUS's policy was to share approx. 60% of its revenue with the state-level HSUS affiliates that worked on direct animal care. Hoyt would later brag about demolishing HSUS's relationship with local humane societies and keeping the money inside HSUS corporate. This can all be found in the HSUS archives, if you know where to look - or if you have someone looking for you. Apparently not everyone at HSUS walks lock step beind Mr. Pacelle.
Respond to this report!

#18 Consumer Comment

Consider the Source

AUTHOR: John Doppler Schiff - (United States of America)

"Rescue Worker", are you conscious?  Didn't I say up front that I was the webmaster for, 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.
Respond to this report!

#19 Consumer Comment

John Doppler Schiff not quite telling the truth

AUTHOR: RescueVolunteer - (United States of America)

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.

They have excused HSUS policy of puppy killing in the case of the Wilkes County Massacre. They have excused the fraudulent fundraising practices that surrounded the Michael Vick dogs. They supported the later disproved HSUS version of events surrounding an injured parade horse (the real story came from the horse's owner, rider and the people who actually cared for the animal). They gleefully support every single policy of HSUS that makes animal use or pet ownership harder, less common, less fun, or less successful.

But here's the thing, despite running multiple websites and Facebook pages full of false information, their following is small. Tiny actually. If we look at the Facebook numbers only, the HSUS watchdog group HumaneWatch has over 170,000 members. The anti-HumaneWatch group, which has been active for the same amount of time has barely been able to scrape up 3,000 members.

And who are these HumaneWatch supporters. Animals lovers, animal welfare supporters, rescuers, shelter volunteers, fundraising coordinators, puppy raisers, foster homes, animal control officers, vets, former HSUS donors, the very people who get down in the trenches and do the work that HSUS so often does not. As a prime example a midwest shelter was facing closure. HumaneWatchers jumped into action and raised thousand of dollars to help keep this shelter open, and the money continues to come in from the animal lovers at HumaneWatch. The HSUS provided no funds to help this shelter. The folks over on John and Lisa's Facebook page simply complained about HumaneWatch.

HSUS has dozens of lawyers on retainer and has a penchant for suing anyone that they believe "wrongs" them or talks trash about them. HSUS has not sued HumaneWatch. You can not sue someone for telling the truth. That alone should be telling.

Regardless of where you get your information from the reputable folks at HumaneWatch, or from the naysayers with the tiny Facebook following, or from John or from Lisa - I urge you to do your own research. There is a ton of information out there that will convince you that HSUS most certainly needs a watchdog to get them back on the straight and narrow.

Some suggested reading: Google "Betrayal & Deceit at the Humane Society of the United States" and read the article from Nathan Winograd

Google "HSUS fund-raising pitch raises hackles" over on the PetConnection Blog.

Google "They Shoot Horse (Owners), Don't They" to learn about the Malott case where HSUS abandoned a group of horses with no food or water.

Those should get you started.

Respond to this report!

#20 Consumer Comment

Don't buy the lie...there is more to this story.

AUTHOR: LBeadle - (United States of America)

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  Find out more about Proposition B at 

Respond to this report!

#21 Consumer Comment

Don't Fall for the Smear Campaign!

AUTHOR: John Doppler Schiff - (United States of America)

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 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, 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,

You can learn more about Rick Berman, CCF, and the HumaneWatch smear campaign at

Or read about them in the news:
Star Tribune: Humane Society Fighting A Smear

NY Times: Non-Profit Advocate Carves Out For-Profit Niche

ABC News: Lobbyists Hide Behind Non-Profit Fronts

CBS News: Meet Rick Berman: A.K.A. "Dr. Evil"

Citizens for Reponsibility and Ethics in Washington, complaint filed with IRS

Support your local shelters, and support the HSUS.  Both fill a crucial role in preventing animal suffering.
Respond to this report!

#22 Consumer Comment

Not so fast Hillary HSUS

AUTHOR: RescueVolunteer - (United States of America)

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.

HSUS was down-graded by Charity Navigator from their 4-star rating several months ago. They have an overall rating of 3-stars. Their "Organizational Efficiency Rating" is 1-star. Hillary is aware of this and yet continues to post this misinformation everywhere she can on the internet. She is also misrepresenting program expenses. Independent evaluation of HSUS financial records suggest that less than 0.5% of all the money HSUS raised actually goes into animal care, and more than 50% of of the money they raise goes into raising more money. 

If indeed HSUS's mission is to celebrate animals and confront cruelty, perhaps Hillary can come back and explain why HSUS demanded that puppies born after a dog fighting bust in Wilkes County be returned to a shelter to be killed. Puppies. More information can be found by googling the "Wilkes County Massacre."

In the area of dogfighting HSUS has been a leader in raising money to "care" for fight bust dogs, even though HSUS has no dog shelters, is not actually caring for the dogs, and is not sharing any of the money with those actually caring for the dogs. I recommend this article: ((((Redacted)))and this article: (((Redacted))) for an overview of how HSUS "helps" the canine victims of dog fighting.

The support for animal sheltering that Hillary speaks of, comes at a cost - more than $20,000 for a shelter evaluation and a boiler plate list of recommendations. Which begs the question, since HSUS runs no dog and cat shelters (not a single one), how is it that they are considered an expert at sheltering?

As to HSUS's "disaster response" please read the following: (((Redacted)))

If you would like more information on the HSUS I recommend visiting: (((Redacted)))

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.
Respond to this report!

#23 Consumer Comment

It is no longer 4 star.

AUTHOR: NoH$U$ - (United States of America)

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.

Respond to this report!

#24 UPDATE Employee

HSUS is a reputable and fiscally responsible nonprofit

AUTHOR: HillaryHSUS - (United States of America)

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:

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

Respond to this report!
Ripoff Report Recommends
ZipBooks Accounting Software

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.