Animal Abusers Hate Humane Society Because We Hurt Their Bottom Line
If you were to describe the work of The HSUS, you probably wouldn’t call it subtle or indirect.
The HSUS’s member magazine is called All Animals. Our mission statement is “Celebrating Animals, Confronting Cruelty.” The HSUS has program departments devoted to animal research issues, companion animals, equine protection, farm animal welfare, and wildlife and habitat protection. Our website is a compendium of information on our animal care centers, our veterinary programs, our global work on spay and neuter and the wildlife trade, our disaster response deployments in Haiti and other parts of the world as well as across the United States, our advocacy campaigns (puppy mills, factory farming, animal fighting, seal killing, wildlife abuses, and the exotic pet trade), and so much more. I write a daily blog about all of these issues. We have a national advertising campaign promoting adoption of animals from shelters. We have a separate national advertising campaign that chronicles our work and calls Americans to join us, with images of animals coming from actual HSUS rescues, field response, and undercover investigations.
Yet, there are people within animal abuse industries and their allies who keep trotting out the canard that Americans think they are giving to animal shelters when they donate to The HSUS. We’ve never said we run animal shelters—just that we help them run better with our many programs. But we’ve always been more than that. For more than a half century, it’s been the mission of The HSUS to work for all animals.
When I was in Iowa last week announcing our latest investigation into mistreatment of laying hens at factory farms, I shouted it from the rooftops. Whether you look at our work to pass Prop 2 in California (covered on "Oprah" and featured in the New York Times Magazine, among thousands of other outlets), our investigation into downed animal abuses at the Westland/Hallmark plant (which was covered by every major news outlet in America after we broke the investigation, and in the national news regularly for about three months), or all the information on farm animal welfare on our website, we proclaim unapologetically that we care about farm animals. There’s no mystery about that work—just an intense desire to see reform, and to push for more humane farming, transport, and slaughter practices.
Our teams are now up on the ice floes in Canada, bearing witness to the cruel killing of baby seals—and generating outrage in civilized countries around the globe.
Our staff are working tirelessly in Missouri to help qualify an anti-puppy mill ballot initiative. We raided 16 mills last year, rescuing more than 3,000 dogs from lives of misery, and we told our story in each and every case.
Our animal fighting team is working tirelessly with law enforcement to raid dogfighting and cockfighting operations. We had a touch with 250 raids of these operations last year.
I could go on. And on and on. Yes, we are the nation’s leading advocate for animal shelters, but where is it written anywhere that that’s all that we do? You’ll never find such language anywhere in our magazines, annual reports, direct mail, blogs, letters to the editor, opinion pieces, our founding charter, or anywhere else. It doesn’t exist.
This whole fanciful argument by our critics is a fabrication and a false framing of the issues. If there are folks within agribusiness who believe it, either they just don’t want to let facts stand in their way, or they just haven’t taken the time to look at our materials. They can find out more by going to www.humanesociety.org and getting our magazine and other materials that members receive.
Let me say again for their benefit, and everybody’s benefit: We are for all animals. We despise all cruelty. If you are involved in cruelty of any kind, you’ll find anything but an ally in The HSUS.
Our critics can find a naïve or inattentive journalist from time to time, or they can get their press releases reprinted in trade publications with a very decided point of view, or they can spread lies on Facebook or in other social media. But reprinting false claims time and again won’t make it come true. The fact is, there are people in this country not interested in the truth. Rick Berman and David Martosko of the so-called Center for Consumer Freedom are such people. When people like David Mastio of The Washington Times give them platforms to spread their lies, or simply regurgitate that material in their own opinion pieces, they do no credit to serious journalism.
It comes down to two closely related points. Animal abusers don’t like The HSUS because we threaten their bottom line. And they want an unfettered opportunity to do what they want to do with animals.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Nothing funnier than a vivisector and a humane meat proponent arguing about animal abuse . Only the two of you mud-wrestling could top this Hard to say who does more damage. Vivisectors or meat industry sidekicks pulling the wool over the public's eyes? Let's call it a tie.
Damn, Hillary. Wayne has you working overtime these days. Try to get him to come out and speak for himself. He's responsible for his own actions, not his employees. He takes a dump, he should wipe his own ass. He sure wasn't lazy about rendering that AgriTalk podcast silent, so I'm pretty certain he could drop by here for a minute. Or is he really too busy, hatching new ad campaigns with John Mackey to pump up humane meat sales?
My parents raised a few chickens when I was a kid. Just with a handful of chickens they can get quite aggressive with eachother and they also produce a lot of excrement. I can't imagine they have a better life being free to peck eachother bald and lay eggs in piles of poop that a worker would have to dig around in to gather the egg. Sounds pretty gross. Granted a cage is not a great life but I would think a bigger cage versus just having a free-for-all would be a more stable existence. Instead of an agressive bird having access to 100 birds they would only have access to maybe 2-6 (guessing)? Then it would be easier to pick out the agressor from a pen of 2-6 than a house of 100-1000+.
Also, birds run right over the tops of each other, I can't imagine a whole barn of chickens getting spooked and trampling eachother to death . In a bigger cage they would only get piled on by a few instead of by hundreds? It seems your heart is inthe right place but I just can't imagine how this is a happier and healthier existence for chickens let alone sanitary.
Also. getting rid of crates for hogs seems a bit "off" as well. Don't pigs have a tendency to eat thier own young or the young of other pigs?
this is full of a lot of false information about animals ...
you have no real knowledge of animals...
I have quite a bit of knowledge of animals in a small farm setting. I have no knowlege of chickens in a large scale operation. That is why I don't understand how cage free is better. Cage free as an alternative does not seem acceptable in my eyes. From the HSUS reading it seems that management is more the issue in mortaility in either situtation. Why not just have more people available to check on management instead of forcing everyone to switch over thier facilities and make more laws ? I think it makes more sense to have more enforcement of the current laws if there is a problem (and I'm not convinced that there is).
I don't think anyone is saying that "cage-free" is an ideal system, but when well-managed, it's far preferable to battery cages. You mentioned the sanitation issue of removing eggs from fecal matter, but eggs from caged birds actually have a higher risk of Salmonella contamination . As far as crates for pigs, the HSUS's focus has been on gestation crates that house pregnant sows for months at a time, not farrowing crates, which play a role in protecting piglets from inadvertently being crushed by their mothers .
How about mortality rates? Battery cages vs. cage free. I would really like to read some facts about it.
Thanks
Sure, the HSUS has provided a summary of this issue entitled "Understanding Mortality Rates of Laying Hens in Cage-Free Egg Production Systems": http://bit.ly/b7QWDe . There are lots of citations provided, so you can also check out original source material.
This excerpt speaks to the importance of good management: “There is little question that alternative
housing systems require considerable management effort, however high productivity, low mortality,
and a safe working environment are all achievable, and management skills will continue to develop as
experience is gained.” (p.3)
Recall what you said in the AgriTalk interview with Mike Adams in June 2009. http://www.bovinevetonline.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=677&ed_id=5203 I'll let your own words speak for you. Please explain how speaking of farm animals as commodities helps end animal suffering. Why refuse to recognize animals as individuals capable of experiencing pain, joy, and bonds with family members?
Animal welfare laws that get passed are only effective or meaningful if they are enforced. And we see the federal government 's lackluster record on that quite clearly.
Is it a lie that HSUS promotes mythical humane animal products? C'mon, Wayne, answer me this: humane slaughter exists, true or false? I'm asking you straight and I'd appreciate a direct answer. No more media spin. Or misdirection. You're supposedly an animal activist, not a a magician working the stage at The Mirage in Vegas.
As long as self-proclaimed demigods of animal welfare endorse (and Sweet Jebus, promote) humane animal products, this misleads the general public to believe that there is a humane choice when there isn't. If you were calling for a reduction in animal consumption as people made the transition toward other food alternatives, I wouldn't be on your ass about any of this. But you insist on promoting a lethal lie. You compromise the animals. You compromise the health of the people and the planet by promoting animal agriculture that's responsible for over 51% of greenhouses gases. See the latest Worldwatch Institute report. Your deception prevents countless people from tapping into their own potential for extraordinary health--the mental and physical vitality they desire—by easily enjoying tasty vegan foods.
Animal activists protect the animals, right? This can't be done when you have a severe conflict of interest happening. You can't serve the animals when you ALSO serve the meat , egg, and dairy industries. These animal exploiters promote humane animal product labeling to make the public think by paying more, they are eating animal products that are not cruel at all. HSUS endorsing these deceptive labels is an obvious problem. No problem here if you were an employee of Tyson's or Smithfield's marketing department. But you're the president and CEO of one of the largest animal protection organizations. How do you expect to end exploitation by participating in it? To advocate less exploitation instead of none, as an animal activist, is not being practical. You're only waving a white flag of surrender and standing down with a whimper in the true fight against the injustice of animal exploitation.
Gandhi didn't have half the financial resources HSUS does but he peacefully booted the imperialistic Brit invaders out of his beloved country. How? By staying true to his quest for justice and never compromising.
Re: Dario's comment
Cheap shot, dude. The faux science of animal research isn't about fighting disease. It's about making billions of bucks for Big Pharma at the expense of the American people and the animals. If anything, it threatens human health and delays true medical advancement (funds are siphoned away from clinical studies and real research ). Again, I say if science is on your side, come out and debate Dr. Ray Greek live. Dr. Greek is eager to debate you. Don't you want to debunk his false science and prove he doesn't know what he's talking about?
I must ask. Given that HSUS policy statement clearly states an opposition to the use of animals in biomedical research , with the ultimate goal of completely eliminating animals in research. Does Wayne Pacelle and HSUS define biomedical researchers "animal abusers" as well? Doesn't HSUS see any difference between dogfighting and fighting against disease? Is it really all the same in your eyes?
The goal of phasing out animal research / testing does not mean the HSUS views biomedical researchers as "animal abusers". There is no comparison between dogfighting, which is a felony in all 50 states, and biomedical research , which has played an important, if contested, role in advancing science . The focus of our organization's work on lab animal welfare includes ending severe pain and distress for research animals , phasing out invasive research on chimps, and promoting non-animal alternatives, especially in the area of toxicity testing.