Humane Society of the U.S. CEO: “I don’t love animals”

Pacelle_NoLoveWayne Pacelle is CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, a group that deceptively raises money from animal lovers with images of cats and dogs while sending only 1 percent of the money to pet shelters. HSUS doesn’t run a single pet shelter of its own. Much of the money is plowed into overhead costs, and what is put to work pushes an animal liberation agenda—far different from the animal welfare advocate Pacelle portrays himself as.

We’ve written before about how Pacelle, not long before he joined HSUS, said “I don’t want to see another dog or cat born” and “I don’t have a have a hands-on fondness for animals…there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” Pacelle also wrote that eating meat is “speciesist,” which is to say you’re discriminating against chickens by eating them. Or something. (Yeah, it’s weird to us, too.)

It turns out Pacelle elaborated a bit on his philosophy. Browsing the archives of the Yale Daily News—he was openly a zealot while in college—we discovered Pacelle making the following statements:

  • I don’t love animals or think they are cute.
  • “We equate speciesism—the belief that one’s species is superior to all others—with racism and sexism.”
  • “Animals have their own rights. We’re animals too.”
  • “Animals are no one’s property, and they have the right not be ‘taken,’ ‘harvested,’ or ‘culled’ or any other euphemism for murder that wildlife managers use. They are no one’s property, just as you and I are no one’s property other than our own.”

This is radical stuff—no animals as property means no pet ownership—but actually fairly standard for the animal liberation movement. Animal liberation activists don’t want animals used for food, used for potentially life-saving medical research, used for clothing, etc. They think animals are modern-day slaves and think of their human owners as oppressors (or Nazis).

Now, to be fair, plenty of us said or did things in college that we may look back upon and wish we hadn’t. So does grown-up Wayne still hold these kooky beliefs today?

Speaking to the Los Angeles Times in 2008, Pacelle stated his belief that “Animals for the most part just need to be left alone” and that “The whole ‘rights’ thing is fraught with so much. I’m not sure I believe in any natural right.” The Times notes that Pacelle “never refers to himself as an animal rights activist, always an animal protection ‘advocate.’”

This is an interesting distinction in words. Pacelle knows how to play PR games, and “animal protection advocate” definitely has a better ring with the public than “animal rights activist,” which might conjure up images of some half-naked PETA activist handing out tofu dogs. Similarly, if he started ranting today about how animals shouldn’t be property, it wouldn’t be good for his fundraising and would tear down the façade he’s built for himself. Pacelle’s incentive to appear moderate seems to involve a little historical revisionism, too. The Times notes, “Pacelle said he has always loved animals.” Clearly that’s not the case, since Pacelle himself wrote “I don’t love animals or find them cute” in the Yale Daily News.

Pacelle’s statement that animals need to be “left alone” is something that his younger self espoused as well in arguing that animals have “rights.” In the same essay Pacelle admitted that he didn’t love animals, he wrote, “To leave [animals] alone and to allow animals to live their own lives in their appropriate environments…is to recognize their rights.” Logically applied, this means that we shouldn’t be using animals on farms or hunting them.

It seems “moderate Wayne” and “radical Wayne” have a significant amount in common. Certainly, Pacelle’s goals appear the same, whatever the exact philosophy behind them is. Pacelle doesn’t believe in using animals for food and wants to end animal agriculture. He wants to end hunting. He wants a “humane economy” that doesn’t involve eggs, hot dogs, cheeseburger, leather shoes, and silk shirts.

He should be honest about that to the public, instead of misleading people as to what they’re funding by giving money to HSUS. And while he’s at it, perhaps he’ll be kind enough to let us know whether he still doesn’t love animals or find them cute.

Posted on 07/11/2013 at 12:45 pm by Humane Watch Team.

Topics: Main

Permalink

  • Nina Paccione

    Fire his darn ass!!!! He makes $350,000.00 a year and the Humane only spends 1% on that for animal welfare. Cut his alary, better yet, fire his ASS.

  • Maryann

    I haven’t give anything to the humane society since I heard this a while ago. I feel really sorry for the animals by doing this. Can’t he be voted out or something like that? There has to be a way to get him out of there, and let a real animal lover take over so all or most of the donated monies go to the animals, and all the other humane societies all around the country.

    • Picca

      @Maryann

      Please, please, read my previous posts.

      Pacelle isn’t the problem. The dogma is the problem, and it has spread to the extent that if you brought down those ARA organizations tomorrow, nothing would change because those foot soldiers who buy their ‘animal abuse porn’ as reality will continue to carry the torch.

      The problem is that the ARAs have successfully obscured the very real differences between animal *welfare* and animal *rights*. The ARAs have successfully redefined many of the terms we use about animals and animal husbandry, and all the definitions are destructive. These definitions are those which are being used to legislate away our human rights to own or use any animals at all:

      Puppy mill – anyone who breeds any dogs at all, who has a
      kennel

      Back Yard Breeder – anyone who breeds any dogs at all who
      does not have a kennel

      [Note: those two terms are used interchangeably to some
      degree]

      Kennel – a structure designed to insure the neglect and
      abuse of its habitants

      Exotic – any pet other than dogs or housecats

      Factory farm – anyone who raises livestock at any level, for
      food or fiber. Bee keepers are not exempt.

      Dog fighter – anyone who has the temerity to raise any of
      the ‘bully breeds’, particularly if he owns a treadmill

      Hoarder – anyone who owns more than an arbitrary number of
      animals, any species or combination of species. In Illinois
      the number is seven. I recently saw a case where the
      local ordinance stipulated three.

      Animal rescuer – animal hoarder

      Responsible owner/breeder – a mythical figure which does not
      exist in real life

      Animal abuser – anyone who owns and uses animals for any
      purpose whatever.

      These definitions are probably not yours. However, these are
      the definitions that are used to ram anti animal legislation, statutes,

      ordinances and regulations down our throats in the bid to eliminate

      animal use of any kind.

      There are no ‘animal lovers’ as you think of it among the leadership of the AROs. They believe that death is preferable to ownership, and the animals can’t refute them, can they?

    • Diane Royall

      No need to feel sorry for the animals if you give your monies to your local agencies. The best we can do is be the alarm and get money redirected to the shelters that are doing all the hard work!

  • Kathleen A. Eastwood

    What would he propose to do with pets? Dogs, cats and birds for example. Does he want us to set them free so they can form packs? Does he want us to set them free so they could starve or get shot or hurt trying to find food? I don’t think you need to be an animal lover for his job, but it helps. He obviously doesn’t want the responsibility to be a pet owner. But his philosophy has set me off of the Humane Society.

    • WORSEKarma

      Kathleen, Wacky Wayne, like all other Animal “Rights” fanatics, wants to kill them. ALL of them. They actively hate domestic animals, although they put a mask on their hatred and call it “compassion”.

    • Alexander Richards

      Please note Humane Society of the US and the American Humane Society are not the same thing, so be careful which you think you are talking about

  • Neil Kimball

    Okay- I truly try to be polite and pretty much understanding in many cases. . . .BUT, IF. this is what this CEO stated and is factual- HE CAN GO STRAIGHT TO HELL AND BURN!!!! A-Hole!

    • Picca

      Some of us have even less socially acceptable fates in mind for him :-)

  • Linda Palma

    I gave up on the Humane Society when this piece of trash came out on Vicks side. He is just a “Politician” and is up for the highest bidder.

  • DC

    Kathleen, the animal rights abolitionists want to see the end of pet keeping but they acknowledge that pets are here now. So they advocate euthanasia for the homeless and mandatory neutering for those with homes until there aren’t any more. It’s not just pets, though. Seeing eye dogs, riding horses, and therapy dogs are also seen as disregarding the rights of animals to be in a “natural state”. The only thing the activists do not seek to guarantee animals is a right to life since it is their belief that some animals are better off dead than being “used” by people.

  • Antonio Nunez

    Financial failures aside (although VERY disappointing), I don’t see Pacelle’s views as being all that radical for an organization we expect to prioritize the well-being of animals. It seems his perspective is more at odds with our desire to commercialize animals. To generalize, of the two dozen or so pet owners I personally know, only a handful really meet the needs of their pets. The rest assume these animals are comfortable living as toys. Again, I’m generalizing, but dogs today are rarely given the fulfilling role that led to their domestication in the first place. We could do much worse than Pacelle, (although he needs a new CFO or Development Director), such as another CEO who sees animals as products and seeks to strengthen our consumer tendencies in regards to animals.

    • WORSEKarma

      See, here’s the problem, Antonio: Neither the H$U$ nor any other Animal “Rights” fanatics “prioritize the well-being of animals”. A lot – if not most – of them romanticize and “Disneyfy” wild animals, and actively hate domestic animals.

      Why is it, do you suppose, that PeTA kills nearly 100% of the healthy, adoptable cats and dogs terminally naive’ Useful Idiots turn over to them every single year? Why is it, do you suppose, that Wacky Wayne and the H$U$ spent nearly a year actively lobbying for Michael Vick’s dogs to be universally destroyed (while, of course, using their images for fund-raising)? Why is it, do you suppose, that the H$U$’s pseudo-LEO “rescue team” swoops in, confiscates people’s pets, takes lots of pictures and videos for future publicity, then quietly dumps the seized animals in high-kill “shelters” (or just abandons them outright in an empty field, as they did with one breeder’s horses)?

      A change of management won’t help. ALL Animal “Rights” fanatics think alike to the point where they might as well have cloned brains. To paraphrase: A Wayne Pacell is an Ingrid Newkirk is a Steve Roest is an ideologue parasite.

      To “generalize”, I know precisely NO pet owners who “assume their pets are comfortable living as toys”. I know precisely NO pet owners who don’t do their best to “meet the needs of their pets”. (The stink of smug self-righteousness is STRONG in this one).

      To further “generalize”, people who persist in believing, (despite the ever-growing body of evidence to the contrary), that Animal “Rights” fanatics care about anything beyond controlling PEOPLE; and imposing their own personal Wackado ideologies on the whole world by force; are either terminally naive, willfully ignorant, or entirely stupid.

      • Picca

        Thank you. Great post.

        Do you have a link to the breeder whose horses were dumped in an empty field ..? I seem to have missed that one, but that is certainly exactly what they did to Denisa Mallott’s stock. She was exceptionally lucky to get them back with only one damaged – a boarder was blinded in one eye.

        Denisa Mallott was not a breeder, though. She ran a hack line (dude string, whatever your neighbourhood calls it), and her stock was well kept. She was raided after 30+ days of rain, and her pens were flooded. However, *all* the horses had free access to dry footing and cover; livestock often prefers to be out in the weather than inside. Many horsemen make a point to give their animals free choice of shelter or weather – this is *good* husbandry.

        Raids are often organized after a bout of bad weather; photographs of mud characterized as ‘feces’ are rarely examined or challenged. They are also generally organized to occur late Friday, or late the last day before a holiday weekend. This insures their victim will have difficulty mounting a defense; in some states all assets can be frozen in conjunction with these raids, so that the victim also has no resources.

        The civil forfeiture laws which the AR lobby has inflicted on us means that they can accuse anyone of anything, seize not only all their assets, but their animals, which are frequently killed, s/n and shipped out before the victim can find an attorney. A good many rescues are working with the ARs; they obtain high quality stock for the cost of collecting them (mostly), which they can then sell at carriage trade prices. It is very profitable for rescues and even shelters to support AR, because effectively, AR demonization of breeders has given a big financial boost to those shelters. It is a huge irony that the money which goes to HSUS keeps the shelters poor, overcrowded, and far more lethal than they need to be, because pet lovers support HSUS above their local shelters. Then the animal lovers pay twice, because their slavish devotion to the AR tenet that buying a healthy, recorded dog from a breeder kills a badly bred dog from a commercial facility, or a carelessly bred product of an Oops! breeding from a pet means they will pay grossly inflated prices for a ‘rescue’. This strokes the public pet owner’s ego; he has done a Virtuous Thing. The fact that 20% or more of shelter dogs are ‘revolving door’ dogs, returned again and again for behavioural problems. Of course, pet owners no longer know how to raise or basically train a dog, because they have been carefully taught that traditional training methods are ‘harsh’ and ‘abusive’. I moderated a pet training list for a couple of years, and it was a most educational experience. Of the hundreds of people who turned up there over that time frame, I can only recall two dogs which were *not* ‘rescued abuse victims’. This is nonsense; abuse victims do turn up in shelters; I once took one in myself, but it is in no way common. The animals aren’t intractable because they’ve been ‘abused’, they are intractable because no one has ever effectively taught them anything. They don’t know how to ‘learn’. Some of them are prospects only for professionals, a few are lethal, because both shelter and rescue personnel can succumb to emotional judgement, and occasionally refuse to accept that a dog they hate to part with *is* a dangerous dog.

        However, the people on that list were overwhelmingly afraid of offending their animals by teaching them basic manners, with only a very few exceptions.

        AR dogma is persistent. It begins in the schools, with AR ‘educational’ materials. Of course, by now, those propaganda materials may simply confirm parental belief.

        Yes, they manipulate people, and are control freaks at the very least. I suspect that some of their pathologies are diagnosable, but somehow, however insanely people behave, if they have money and a degree from an Ivy league school, they must be credible. Smug self-righteousness describes them very well. *They* live the only moral lifestyle.

        Why does no one contest the morality of their actions?

  • Picca

    @ninapaccione:disqus – All firing him would accomplish would be to replace him with another rabid extremist, possibly one worse than he is. He is worse than the goon he replaced.

    It’s an ideology. They believe deeply in their ’cause’, however insane you and I find it to be. They aren’t going to change their minds, or back off. They’ve been at this since the late forties. They are patient and persistent, and now they have the advantages of technology at their fingertips.

    These people will never spend a cent on animal welfare, if they can possibly avoid it. They could afford to build functioning no-kill shelters in every state in the Union, but they don’t. They actively oppose no-kill sheltering, and they are the ones who have written the policy and kill manuals used by many if not most public shelters.

  • Colette Jones

    It never ceases to amaze me what comes out of the mouth of an ignorant person. These same people make tons of money, asking for our money to pay him with, while he’s representing a company that is supposed to care about the welfare of animals. I’m sure The Humane Society knew all of this before they hired him. Disgusting once again.

    • Picca

      The Humane Society of the United States hasn’t been an animal *welfare* organization since shortly after its inception. It has been an animal *rights* organization for most of its existence. Pacelle was hired to do exactly what he has done, because he was perceived to be the best man for the job. Certainly he is a brilliant marketer. He’s also a brilliant liar, and conceiver of marketable lies.

      HSUS runs no shelters at all. They have nothing whatever to do with your local Humane Society, which nonetheless may purchase HSUS’ policy and kill manuals. Most local Humane Societies, ASPCA shelters (also not supported in any way by ASPCA) are supportive of AR policies, because they are *profitable*. Animals which can’t be sold for a substantial amount can be killed under those policies, under one pretext or another. Most have also bought the AR dogma that says that breeders are abusers by definition.

      These people are no friends to animals, and no friends to animal owners, either.

    • sybil

      I say Mighty Mutts and Ollies place and of course Best Friends to name two are the ones who need our help ~ they truly put their money toward the care and assistance of the animals 100000%

  • mark

    What an a**hole!

  • Picca

    @

    Kathleen A. Eastwood

    • – Well, will out of the horse’s mouth do for you?

    “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. . One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” Wayne Pacelle, CEO of Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Animal People, May, 1993

    Most of our pets are domestic animals, mm? And the vast majority of the exotics are domestically bred, a few might reasonably be called domesticated, I suppose. In any case, wild caught exotics have become very rare, except in zoos. Even in zoos, it’s rare.

    “Our goal is to make [the public think of] breeding [dogs and cats] like drunk driving and smoking.” Kim Sturla, former director of the Peninsula Humane Society and Western Director of Fund for Animals, stated during Kill the Crisis, not the Animals campaign and workshops, 1991

    All the above mentioned organizations are smaller, some regional, most more obviously radical than HSUS has ever been, nor ever meant to be. HSUS is full of laundered ex-radicals. In some cases, not so laundered, really, but they are in positions which don’t require public personas. HSUS itself is the public front of the AR/veganism movement. Pacelle is the poster boy for the lot of them, but he is even more dangerously deceitful than his associates.

    When you factor in their vehement opposition to no-kill sheltering (though the major proponent of same is one of their own, a black, black sheep! lol!), their publication of the most widely used policy and kill manuals in public shelters, their coyness about their goals among the public … their persecution of the bully breeds, and those who own them. Their persecution of anyone who breeds anything, actually. What would you project the result of allowing them to make those policies might be?

    They have no interest in animal welfare. Their goals and dogma both point to eradication. I can’t think of a kinder way to put it. That’s the goal. That and the ever tightening of the regulatory noose, so that anything animal becomes very, very expensive, and also publicly scorned. I can see it going in that direction now. Not all at once, but here and there, a little bit at a time. When they got Sarah Conant, from HSUS’ pool of attorneys, into the USDA (run by Vilsack, an AR sympathizer) to head up the new APHIS enforcement division. That decimated a bunch of rabbitries … rabbitries that regularly won prizes, and were well respected among their peers who understood the husbandry. They hit some dog breeders, too, but dog breeders are no longer the high priority targets they were. They’ll come aroud again, but they have enough law emplaced in most places that local authorities enforce their laws with or without their representative present. To a very large extent they have influenced the shelter industry, which has embraced their contempt for animal owners, and is willing to serve as a system of pet abbattoirs.

    Likewise, we have allowed them to have their way almost unopposed for decades; if you could bring down the major AR organizations right now, you’d still have their foot soldiers enthusiastically carrying the torch for them.

    If we want to keep our pets, sporting animals, diet, animal fibers, we *must* stand together and fight them. We are losing our human rights to these things every time we try to appease them, every time we allow ourselves to succumb to their emotional blackmail, which says, ‘if you don’t support us, you support animal abuse’.

    The reality is that *NO ONE* supports animal abuse. That is why they have been able to get as far as they have. Everyone, and in particular, those engaged in animal enterprise considers animal abuse to be despicable. The devil is in the details though – who defines the term ‘animal abuse’?

    The ARAs are selling the idea that animal ownership IS animal abuse very successfully.

  • Picca

    I wanted to point something else out about the way HSUS operates.

    Their goals are actually separated into two discrete programs, one for animal lovers, and one for vegans.

    Many street-level vegans have no idea that their ‘superior, natural, healthy and *moral*’ diets are in any way associated with Animal Rights. Many of them are true animal lovers, who should be as horrified as any other animal lover at the way the ARAs treat animals. They believe that the ARAs are as committed to animal welfare as they are, and if they are willing to see an end to livestock agriculture, well, it’s immoral to eat anything with a face anyway. To those vegans, maintaining remaining livestock until it dies a natural death seems a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem of meat livestock, fur bearing livestock, research animals or any other animals whose lives are sacrificed to human use. They don’t object to animal companionship, though some of them disapprove of working animals of any kind.

    On the other hand, the AROs work pretty hard at keeping their commitment to the Global Vegan Lifestyle pretty quiet. The vast majority of their supporters are pet owners who know nothing about livestock, and precious little about the pets they keep, for the most part. They are overwhelmingly omniverous, and would *not* support the idea of giving up their animal protein, nor should most of them. Some 98% of us *need* animal protein in our diet, and that includes the vegetarians among us who use dairy at a minimum. Some vegetarians also use eggs, and/or seafood, but ‘pure’ vegans, like Pacelle and the upper management of most of the AROs neither use nor wear animal products.

    Yes, I’m aware that it is unavoidable to use the many industrial products which include various animal products, but if they are successful in eliminating livestock agriculture, those products too will have to be swapped out for non-animal products. Elimination of livestock agriculture will enable to meet *all* their goals, with the exception of medical research. Their solution to that is simply to hammer the abuse accusations and turn a blind eye to their more radical associates acts of terrorism. This they support quietly by providing legal services to vandals and terrorists.

    But to a large extent, the pet owner percentage of AR foot soldiers are unaware that they are supporting an end to their steaks, cheese, eggs, honey …

    These people aren’t just basic liars, they are perfectly willing to tailor their lies to garner support from the various different sectors of the population which are basically at odds. This nicely supports their policies of ‘divide and conquer’ among the animal owners themselves. We are *all* targets in this effort – even those pet owning vegans, who are *certain* that AR doesn’t mean death to their pets.

    For the rest of us, how ever fanatically we spoil our stock, there is NO husbandry, traditional or contemporary or yet to be invented that will satisfy these people. They are truly insane; their position is ‘all or none’ and ‘any means to an end’.

    No morality there whatever.

  • Kelley M Gaither

    If those and others like him think pets are ‘enslaved’,they should come to my house..3 dogs and 6 cats that eat better than I do,and go to the doctor more often. It’s amazing that ppl like the HSUS want to ‘save all animals’..except bully breeds,which they believe should be put down,and want to stop ppl from drinking cow’s milk(which would cause the cows incredible suffering even if you let their calves stay with them,bc they make *way* too much milk.

  • CwbyT

    It is CRITICAL people be informed that this asshat and the HSUS is NOT the local Humane Society. Animal liberation is a horse of a different color ALL TOGETHER and they use people’s confusion to prey on their charitable nature! I am so glad to see this posting!

  • ZINA

    IS THERE ANY SOCIETY OUT THERE THAT I CAN DONATE THAT WILL GO AND CARE FOR THE ANIMALS?

  • sybil

    All this MV and him is bull shit They are two of a kind

  • Adrienne Moore, DVM

    I just discovered last night that the greedy SOB lures donors away from local & state rescues claiming that their money is better spent lobbying (and lining his pocket)!!!! He talked a primary donor out of making her promised donation to an incredible equine rescue where unlike the HSUS the CEO doesn’t make a dime (actually uses her OWN money to save horses) & over 93% of donations go directly to the rescue, care & rehabilitation of the horses. His greedy evil manipulation has put a TREMENDOUS strain on the rescue & I find it unforgivable. I will NEVER give another dime to the HSUS & encourage others to find & help local rescues & shelters. If you want to give to a national organization, the SPCA is a superior choice.

  • Cathy King

    he has a MONEY in his own pocket agenda…he cares nothing about animals…or people who really love and care for thier animals…so sad…for anyone who really loves thier pets…and wants to keep them safe.and also for people who work hard for conservation of wild animals?…this man is a total hypocrite…with his own agenda for profit on the back of the american publics soft heart.!