HSUS: The ‘H’ is for Hypocrisy?

As most regular readers know, we’re not exactly HSUS’s biggest fans, but we’re hopeful that HSUS improves its practices and gives more money to hands-on pet shelters instead of lobbying campaigns and pension plans. But if there’s one fiercer critic, it’s Nathan Winograd, a “no-kill” activist with a no-holds-barred modus operandi. Look no further than one of his latest blog entries about HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle.

We fault Pacelle because he obfuscates HSUS’s motives and, as HSUS’s leader, is ultimately responsible for HSUS’s deceptive fundraising practices and the fact that HSUS gives less than 1 percent of its budget to needy pet shelters.

Winograd believes that Pacelle is “an embracer of killers [and] an apologist for killers.” Harsh words, no? Winograd, a former deputy district attorney, has laid out his case in a 10-count moral “indictment.”

What makes the cut? Regular HumaneWatch readers are probably familiar with one scandal: The day after Michael Vick was indicted, HSUS raised money on the promise that “your gift will be put to use right away to care for these dogs [seized in the case].” However, Pacelle told The New York Times two weeks later that HSUS didn’t know where the animals were and that HSUS was actually recommending that the dogs be killed ("put down").

Winograd also goes into detail on several other incidents, including HSUS’s (alleged) opposition to no kill in San Francisco. That’s ironic—HSUS was recently touting its no-kill credentials, pointing to an old blog post from Wayne Pacelle calling no kill “noble” and “essential.”

You can make up your own mind about Winograd’s “indictment.” But we’ll point out that Pacelle is fond of lecturing others and arrogantly self-anointing himself arbiter of what’s humane and inhumane. (According to his blog, “Few are in a position to speak for the animals like Wayne Pacelle.”)

Could it be that the emperor in fact has no clothes?

Posted on 08/12/2011 at 11:44 pm by humanewatch.

Topics: Pets

Permalink