I have to say, this is a shame, a real shame.  I think if people knew their donations were going to pension funds, they would be a little unhappy.  I am a rescuer, in the field and I don’t even get a paycheck, let alone a pension…

I’m new to your site and am not clear about your official ‘stance’ in general. If a meat packing plant is grinding up diseased cattle, and passing them along into the food chain, I DO want to know about it. Why would you be against an undercover sting like that? Ask any undercover cop if they ‘immediately’ arrest the first guy they see smoking crack. Of course they don’t, they gather more evidence and build a stronger case. duh.

It’s interesting that you don’t mention that this undercover investigation eventually led to a very successful legal case that helped end the abusive practices.

As your first poster said: “Ask any undercover cop if they ‘immediately’ arrest the first guy they see smoking crack. Of course they don’t, they gather more evidence and build a stronger case. duh.”

But because they are an “animal rights” organization, they aren’t allowed to use intelligent tactics? They have to immediately pounce on everything they see? What good would that have done? What would have been accomplished? Much less than what actually was accomplished through good strategic planning. Your whole point is based on one word in a copy of the by-laws. Your argument amounts to this “They should have been slaves to the language of their documents, and not actually taken the smartest tactics to end the most amount of suffering possible! It wasn’t immediate! It wasn’t immediate! How can they not have done something immediately! They are liars and scam artists because it wasn’t immediate!”

Now, i have no problem with fair criticism. Even as an HSUS supporter, I think the things you publish about their fundraising expenses and their overhead costs, are extremely fair, and deserve to be known. And I think HSUS can do a much better job than that C- grade. But when you jump down their throats because of ridiculous squabbles over language, when as someone who obviously has a reasonable capacity for intelligence, it should be obvious to you that they made some decisions to sacrifice short-term gains for bigger long-term gains, you just look like an angry nutcase.

David—good investigators and good attorneys weigh the value of collecting more evidence for a winning case against the preventable impact of current activities. There’s nothing really fancy going on here, let alone shady ulterior motives. It’s a simple decision of overall utility. Some temporary negatives had to be endured to secure a larger longer lasting positive. People have been making decisions like this since the beginning of rational thought.

Persons that have to deal with scrutiny of their evidence and conclusions by say, a judge, have to deal with things like substantiating evidence, documenting patterns of activity, and demonstrating that supervisors both know of and attempt to cover up employee abuses, etc.

You know, build a case. On the off chance that marching into Federal court with two days of evidence might not have worked.

As it happens, HSUS did an excellent job of building a case; the abuse stopped, suffering was alleviated, school children aren’t being fed potentially contaminated beef from sick, dying and otherwise nonambulatory animals, and the company had to make financial restitution on the government contracts for using that meat in the first place.

I highly doubt you disapprove of any of those outcomes. But then, I suppose eating beef from sick, dying, and contaminated animals is a “consumer freedom”?

Either way, it surprises me that you didn’t see fit to report the eventual outcome of the case to your readers. So that they know how much good work for both animals and school-children HSUS accomplished via this investigation. I guess that would detract from the overall strategy here - launch surface level attacks on personal and organizational reputations, to avoid meaningful discussion of actual issues.

The critics of this article seem to think the goal of the undercover investigation was to put people in jail or subject them to fines.  If that was the goal, then building a court case is an important thing.  I would imagine that the real goal of HSUS would be to prevent the mistreatment of the cows, though.  Even if no one were to go to jail, the presence of a USDA inspector would prevent some of those abuses.  If the USDA refused to intervene without stronger evidence, the investigation would need to continue.  I don’t think HSUS is disputing their failure to contact the USDA.

It takes some reaching to connect that behavior to Prop 2, but what else could the reason be for delaying (if you don’t buy the evidence-building claim, as I don’t)?  If the place was bad enough to be shut down, I think there were more than 2 or 3 instances of abuse over that 3 month period.  Consistent, daily abuses should provide enough evidence in a week.  If you don’t have enough evidence after a month, I can’t believe the place is that bad.

It is more likely HSUS wants to use that evidence as evidence against the industry, in order to change public opinion (if they’re doing some minor bad things, now, we might be able to catch them doing one really bad thing that we can put into a montage video later).  I don’t like ulterior motives and there is too much evidence of HSUS having them to take anything they say/print/do at face value.

Where can i find a recorded phone call of some one calling hsus or lca or any other animal rights orginization to complain about animal abuse?  i need this so that i can present to my class how simple it is to call if they witness animal abuse or know of unsanitary conditions involving animals.

John, they don’t need to call HSUS or any other AR group…they need to call their local Animal Control or Law Enforcement agency that actually has the jurisdiction to enforce local animal welfare laws. Of course, it would be a good idea if the accuser actually knows what the actual laws are - “unsanitary” is a very subjective term.

“Ask any undercover cop if they ‘immediately’ arrest the first guy they see smoking crack. Of course they don’t, they gather more evidence and build a stronger case. duh.”

Bad analogy. A person smoking crack is only abusing themselves. Animal abuse is abusing another living thing. A totally different situation

I agree with David’s analogy. Preventing assault/abuse on an animal/human requires immediate action.

The drug investigation comparison would only work if there was a hierarchy of abusers and they needed to follow the abuse all the way up to the top level “Abuse Lord” (Drug Lord).

Doesn’t work that way in this situation…

The guy smoking crack analogy is totally wrong.  Drugs are SO illegal in this country that even an undercover cop will break cover to arrest even a marijuana smoker caught in the act…immediately.  There’s no “further collection of evidence” or the attempt to find a dealer.  There is the immediate arrest of the offender.  AR people don’t act as cops do.  Not in the least.  They are PR junkies, not enforcers (which would be vigilante justice and illegal in all states anyway) and want good, juicy, media air-able footage.  As much as they can get.  And this “sting” got it.

This article rather forcibly convinces me that my position that HSUS (and other animal rights organizations) happily exploit any animal abuse they find to the fullest possible extent, even at the expense of the animals they profess so loudly to be protecting, is correct. What animal abuse exists is their most useful tool in eliminating as much animal-human interaction as possible, and that exploitation is at least as bad, in my view, as the abuse itself, which is much rarer than any AR organization wants people to believe.

I agree absolutely with David and those who posit that if the issue was prosecution and ending the abuse, a week, or a month at most would have yielded sufficient evidence for that. Given the time frame, it’s just too coincidental that the film was not only held to the new political season, but also not turned over to the USDA or other legitimate authority, but published in the media. 

This is not the only instance where HSUS has delayed action to fully exploit some bit of animal abuse they have discovered. Recall the incident at the seal hunt, where they left a dying seal lying on the ice, while they recorded the ‘inhumane’ behaviour of the hunters.http://tinyurl.com/yqatnf

HSUS is a vegan animal rights organization, and is not in any way friendly to animals. The vegan goal is to eliminate all animal products and animals from human lives. All ... food, clothing, companionship, exhibition, working animals. All.

HSUS’ exploitation of animals is worse than all but the most egregious animal abuser out there. Their true position is ‘any means to an end’, and if animals suffer, well, it’s part of the cost of creating a vegan world. Can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, eh?

Michael, your points are well thought out. There is one thing that I am wondering, though, after reading your arguments here. If the HSUS finds it necessary to extent an investigation to gather more evidence, thereby promoting a more long-term solution, why don’t they change the wording?

With that said, I agree that this case cannot effectively be compared with government-mandated law enforcement or other agency endeavors. There are times when a policeman/woman or investigator will decide to use a “bottom feeder” as a source of information, or even as bait, to gain a better end result. However, if that crackhead was instead beating the crap out of another person, or attempting to murder another individual, the policeman/woman or investigator would be held up on charges if they did not put it to an end immediately.

Setting aside the assumption that animals are on equal ground, what if a person was to witness serious animal abuse on a large scale and not report it immediately? At the very least, that person could be held liable as an accessory to whatever charges pop up later on. If any school children or school staff had turned up sick from the meat, the investigator would have been crucified by everyone involved with that school in every possible way.

Dog fighting got the blood of many people boiling, and quite a lot was done in the first month after authorities discovered Michael Vick’s dog fighting ring. In less than three months, they had pressed charges. Vick was in court just four months after the ring was discovered:

http://football.about.com/od/teamsfalcons/i/Michael-Vick.htm

Now Michael Vick is a spokesman for the HSUS. Guilty or not, he was splattered all over the media, and people were so upset about the treatment of the dogs in that house that they wanted him to get the Death Penalty. Please explain to me how having that man as part of the HSUS team is not a publicity stunt. Vick may be sincere in his remorse, but his move to pair up with the HSUS is suspect. Yes, I read all about Vick “turning a new leaf” and how Mr. Pacelle was reluctant to pair up with him. I’m not buying it.

Is it a coincidence that the HSUS told Humane Watch they could attend, then did not allow them to enter? Not likely. When transparency goes out the window, the individual or company has something to hide. That is simple logic, and for some, instinct. Now I have some questions of my own.

1. If the HSUS was so concerned about the welfare of the animals, why did they go straight to the press instead of the government authorities that could have ended it immediately?
2. Why did the HSUS step into this situation as judge and jury when abuse was discovered instead of leaving the investigation and legal action to the authorities that they are required to submit to? It should have been the USDA’s decision to either investigate further or shut it down right then, not the HSUS’s.
3. Why does the HSUS insist on blaming everyone else for their faults, and publicizing the “negligence” of government authorities? The benefit of turning the public away from their elected government and joining in with the HSUS doesn’t seem to benefit anyone but the HSUS. Prove me wrong, and please, include any concrete data you can comparing the money that is donated to the HSUS to that which could be possible if people stuck to funding local endeavors with that same amount of money and time.
4. If the HSUS is so worried about the maltreatment of animals in big companies, why is Tyson - and others of the same ilk - still in operation?
5. Why aren’t the HSUS ads more focused on pictures and videos of big industry, which leaves animals in deplorable conditions for the sake of raising cheap beef for companies such as McDonald’s and Taco Bell?
6. Why doesn’t the HSUS advertise the local farmers’ efforts toward animal welfare and promote better treatment of animals with a more positive message? I’ve never seen a small town farmer that didn’t care very well for their livestock because if they didn’t, the production and quality would plummet.

Although no kids were injured, the fact is that by allowing them to be put in a position where they could have eaten diseased beef, is the same as if you put them in an abusive home. If you do either, and the potential is there, the children could have been harmed. Hence, why notices were sent home to the parents…to inform.

I am not a vegan, but I don’t believe in killing animals, needlessly, when we have so many alternatives available to us.

In addition, concerning the company…anything they’re doing to prevent needless killing of animals, is ok with me. Does this take funds? Yes! So, if they collect funds for it, that’s ok, too. It takes funds to do anything, especially in this day and age.

@ Natalie - I’ll take a shot at your questions -

- 1. If the HSUS was so concerned about the welfare of the animals, why did they go straight to the press instead of the government authorities that could have ended it immediately?

Because they are more concerned with fundraising and the value of the emotional blackmail they could use than with animal suffering. It’s about them, not about the animals.

2. Why did the HSUS step into this situation as judge and jury when abuse was discovered instead of leaving the investigation and legal action to the authorities that they are required to submit to? It should have been the USDA’s decision to either investigate further or shut it down right then, not the HSUS’s.

Because they are pathological control freaks who have been allowed to believe themselves above the law. In their minds, they hold the high moral ground. They are living the ‘moral lifestyle’. And because that wouldn’t have given them the emotional blackmail edge which finances their true agenda, which is a vegan world..

3. Why does the HSUS insist on blaming everyone else for their faults, and publicizing the “negligence” of government authorities?

Because they are engaged in extremist activism, not in animal welfare. The benefit of turning the public away from their elected government and joining in with the HSUS doesn’t seem to benefit anyone but the HSUS. Prove me wrong, and please, include any concrete data you can comparing the money that is donated to the HSUS to that which could be possible if people stuck to funding local endeavors with that same amount of money and time.

Why would anyone want to prove you wrong? You are perfectly correct!

4. If the HSUS is so worried about the maltreatment of animals in big companies, why is Tyson - and others of the same ilk - still in operation?

For the same reason we have more high volume commercial dog breeders now, and far fewer knowledgable, caring dog breeders than we had thirty years ago. If they went after Cargill and Tyson et al they’d have a very hard time winning, and people wouldn’t support them. 98+% of the population uses dairy products and eggs, if not meat. Their laws aren’t affecting Big Ag, (and Big Ag is turning the blind eye to them, if not outright supporting them), because they are really targeting the small farmers. When they get rid of those (and the hobby pet breeders), it will be much easier to wipe out the industrial producers, because the vast majority of the population are animal lovers. They may be ignorant about animal husbandry, but they’ve been rigorously trained to perceive animal abuse - even where it does exist. When HSUS *does* go after industrial production, HSUS may then have enough support to kill it.

5. Why aren’t the HSUS ads more focused on pictures and videos of big industry, which leaves animals in deplorable conditions for the sake of raising cheap beef for companies such as McDonald’s and Taco Bell?

See # 4. Killing off Big Ag is more than they can hope for - now.

6. Why doesn’t the HSUS advertise the local farmers’ efforts toward animal welfare and promote better treatment of animals with a more positive message? I’ve never seen a small town farmer that didn’t care very well for their livestock because if they didn’t, the production and quality would plummet.

Because animal welfare is a thorn in their side. If all animals were well treated, and they couldn’t claim rampant animal abuse on every corner, they’d be dead. Apart from having no interest in animal welfare, they badly need all the abuse they can find to suck in the ignorant who don’t understand their agenda and see only the pitiful puppies and kittens they are happy to exploit to achieve their own goals. And they use puppies and kittens because they can be SURE of the emotional impact; city people (who eat meat, dairy and eggs) can’t be counted on to contribute to the demise of their diet. They are familiar with dogs and cats, though.

HSUS is a vegan animal rights organization, and is not in any way friendly to animals. The vegan goal is to eliminate all animal products and animals from human lives. All ... food, clothing, companionship, exhibition, working anímals ... All.

And .. one last thought - if you want to see the small farmers proliferate and give us much higher quality, as well as animals not subjected to the abuse in the meat factories - petition the Feds to subsidize small (preferably organic) farmers, instead of Big Ag. The only reason the meat we are getting is so cheap is because your tax dollars are paying for it. Support your small local producers wherever you can. I iused to say ‘buy organic’, but actually, BigAg has coopted organic, at least so far as produce goes. Send the subsidies to the small producers of ALL food, which will be better for your health, better for the environment, and put industrial farmers out of business. Without HSUS participation.

@Angel - I think if you talk to people on the street, you’ll find that NONE of them want to see animals suffer needlessly or be needlessly killed. Animal abusers are very nearly as hard to find as actual vegans. Vegans comprise less than 1% of the population.

HSUS is NOT about animal welfare, though they have hijacked the term and want people to believe that’s their interest. It isn’t. But if they openly pressed their agenda, who would support them? They want to eliminate pets, service animals, meat, eggs, dairy, honey, wool, silk, leather, all animal sports .. so in this animal loving world, how much support could they hope to get if they were honest about their goals?

They are so unethical it boggles the mind to think about it. They abuse the legal system to steal animals which are not abused - unless you consider the fact that they have not been permanently, surgically sterilized and possibly used for breeding is abuse. The animals often go to worse environments than those they came from, and people are totally destroyed because of these actions - because they are animal lovers, not because they are animal abusers. To AR activists, animal ownership = animal abuse. For them, it’s that simple. They solicit funds under false pretense. They lie about what the legislation they support (and have often written) will do. They lobby in excess of their charter. 

Further, they are very far from being animal experts. Why would you believe that people who refuse to own animals could possible know more about them than the people who have given their lives to maintaining and breeding and training them? How does this make sense? Why on earth would anyone think they are fit to control all animal ownership and husbandry?

The reason is that they are perfectly willing to use emotional blackmail to keep from thinking abuot those things. They have demonized pet breeders to the point where people think that adoption of animals from dubious sources is the ‘moral’ way to acquire a pet - which destroys the market for well bred, healthy, socialized pets and actively supports the high volume commercial producers.They are now doing the same to livestock producers. At least when we buy meat, eggs and milk, we now have a choice; it IS still possible to buy those things from small, humane producers. If they can’t be exposed for what they are, that choice is going to disappear.

They are no friends to animals, nor to animal lovers. They just pretend to be.

Actually, your percentages as to how many people are vegan and how many people are abusers are WAY OFF!

Your statistics come from where?

In fact, veganism is becoming VERY large because people are starting to realize how they’re slaughtering the animals.

Maybe you should see what’s happening in our world, today, and then stick by your stance that they think these things horrible? Maybe they know something you don’t?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

This report was issued in June of 2010. If we don’t stop doing things like this, we won’t have a world in which to live, much less fight. So, it’s easy to say, we have a choice, but our choices are KILLING US and our environment.

@Angel - Here’s my source:

http://www.vegetariantimes.com/features/archive_of_editorial/667

If you read it, you will find that I have actually overestimated the percentage, though in fact, if I were to go by my personal experience of vegans I have actually met, I’d put it lower.

There are others, but I would expect this one to be the most credible. The highest estimate I have seen is still less than 2%.

The source you cite is from the UK. The Guardian is a UK publication, and it’s possible that there is a slightly higher percentage of veganism in the UK, but again, self reporting is less than 100% reliable on these issues. I see that the Guardian is also pushing the idea that the vegan lifestyle will save the environment, and the world in general from starvation. This is pure AR propaganda; assuming that it was possible, it would destroy the land and create more famine than the world has ever seen. There is not enough *arable* land to feed even the population we have now; unless you suppose the only way to raise meat (or eggs or dairy) is to feed the animals grain, which is neither practical nor a sustainable model. Grain is not a good staple for meat animals, and traditionally - not over the last 100 years or so, but over the millions of years of human history - meat animals have been grown on land which can not sustain agriculture. Agriculture based on petroleum support - fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides - is destructive and must fail over time. However, this is no reason to throw away the baby with the bath water. A sustainable diet and sustainable agriculture for humans must include animals.

The vegans I know personally eat a vegan diet, but do not subscribe to the whole lifestyle. They keep pets and though they believe they are supporting animal *rights*, in fact, what they support is animal WELFARE. The two ideals are diametrically opposed, and in fact, upper management of the major AR organizations have admitted, among their peers, that they are opposed to animal welfare, because it slows the accomplishment of their goals. Animals treated well are of no use to them, they need the abusers to further their interests. If the vast majority of the population world wide didn’t deplore animal abuse as they do, the AR movement could not have gotten so far as they have; it’s the commitment to end animal abuse which has driven such success as they have achieved to date. However, people are beginning to see that their commitment to animal WELFARE is not being served by supporting the AR movement.

If you care about animals at all, abandon the extremist radicals who have led you astray. No one is forcing you to eat meat, or even eggs or dairy. The problem is that in supporting the AR position, you are destroying the humane management of animals, because their legislation is resulting in the persecution of those who know the most about humane management.

Lynn, thank you for the response. It is more than I ever get from the HSUS zealots who are so full of propaganda that they can’t address a straight question with an honest answer.

@Angel: First off, you didn’t answer so much as one of my questions. Secondly, you BUTCHER plants. Is killing an innocent plant, or abusing it, any better than killing an animal? Would you rather eat plants that were grown with Agent Orange-laden chemicals than eat a grass-fed animal that everything it could have desired before it died? I would go with the latter any day of the week. How dare you presume to dictate what any other individual should have the right to choose of their own volition. If you or your ilk ever tried to force your beliefs on my children, I would make HSUS and PETA look like a bunch of pansies.

There are beliefs all over the world that all living things have some sort of conscience and feeling. So why don’t you explain to me, after you answer my previous questions from the 24th above, that is, how you are any better than someone that chooses to eat whatever the hell makes their body more efficient? If you think that you’re better than me, my family, or my friends because we all eat meat, you’re definitely wrong. The vegan diet actually could have killed me. Some people actually NEED meat to survive. That is a fact. So go on with it then, answer my questions with honesty, and in full, instead of talking a lot of crap that you can’t seem to back up with facts. For an admittedly “peaceful” group of people, the HSUS zealots do seem to be rather hateful and violent.

In the meantime, I’m going to provide some facts here. Here is a link to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism

It states, “A 2002 Time/CNN poll found that of the 4% of American adults who self-identified as vegetarian, 5% self-identified as vegan, which implies that 0.2% of American adults self-report being both vegetarian and vegan.[4][nb 3] In 2008, Harris Interactive conducted a survey for Vegetarian Times, which indicated that approximately 0.5% of Americans identify as vegan.[40] Harris Interactive also conducted surveys for the Vegetarian Resource Group in both 2006 and 2009. The survey listed specific foods and asked respondents to indicate which items they never eat, rather than asking respondents to self-identify as vegetarian or vegan. In 2006, 1.4% of respondents reported never eating meat, poultry, fish, seafood, dairy products, or eggs and were thus essentially vegan in their eating habits.[8] In 2009, 1.3% of respondents reported never eating these products, including 0.8% of respondents who also avoided honey.[41] The 2006 survey found that about 1.4% of men and 1.3% of women have vegan diets.[8] According to an Aramark survey, one of every four college students in the U.S. is seeking vegan options on campus.[42]”

This is a link to the vegan research panel regarding the number of vegans in the U.S. up until 2008:

http://www.imaner.net/panel/statistics.htm#reveal

It states, “The available research puts the figure at around 1% of the USA population.

2008: 0.5% of the population (6)
2006: 1.4% of the population (5)
2003: 1.8% of the population (4)
2000: 0.2% of the population (3)
2000: 0.9% of the population (2)
1997: 1.0% of the population (1)”

Obviously, the interest in this lifestyle is growing as the years pass, but there are a number of factors involved. Please, Angel, try and tell me how wrong these numbers are. I’m looking forward to more of your BS. Any other HSUS cronies that care to grow a pair and answer some questions, please feel free. It would be nice to finally get something more than the run around, and blind accusations that are clear examples of red herrings and smokescreens.

@Angel: Yes, we are killing our environment. In fact, the HSUS is actually partially funded by the people and companies doing it! We shan’t forget, either, that these money-grubbing millionaires and billionaires like Wayne Pacelle don’t seem to mind half an ape’s ass that there are children starving everywhere. We’re either being poisoned, abused, or just plain starved to death. All of that going on, and the extremist zealots of the United States are doing their part by grocery shopping at Trader Joe’s and trying to force people to live their standards. Quid pro quo, I say. Live a month in my shoes, and I will return the favor.

This is a link to the animal abuser statistics for the entire USA for the year 2010, thus far:

http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/yearly_animal_abuse_report.php?state=&year=2010&search=go

The percentages per state range from 0.3% to over 8%. Florida is the highest for this year at 8.43%. Why haven’t I been hearing more about the HSUS’s valiant endeavors there? I wonder. This information does need to take into consideration the differing laws, willingness and ability to report abuse and have it handled appropriately, varying degrees, how many people were involved, etc. However, the USA average percentage for animal abuse violations is extremely low in comparison to most other countries in the world. That fact is more profound when you consider that a lot of countries don’t bother to enforce anything of the sort.

What is not such a low percentage, on the other hand, is the amount of HSUS lobbying and activism going on in this country that includes cruelty toward HUMANS. How is it right and HUMANE to treat humans in such a way? Humane is not a word that belongs to the HSUS, let alone anyone else. Least of all a bunch of self-righteous bigots who don’t know the meaning of the word in the first place.

If I rescue an animal, get the animal medical care, give it a warm bed and homemade food every day, and that animal appears to be very happy all of the time, you people have absolutely NO RIGHT whatsoever to come into my home or business and take that animal away. Period. If you did, I would sue your asses to kingdom come. Then I would work for the rest of my life, if need be, to destroy the HSUS and every other cult that threatens my loved ones. Including my animals.

Yet I continue to hear about this and that pet owner and/or breeder that is losing all of their animals, having them thrown in some shelter that can’t care for them, and causing those animals to DIE, when they were in a safe, loving home before they interfered. It’s easy for the HSUS to raid a property and seize a bunch of animals, dump them on the local shelter, and refuse to provide help in order to properly care for those seized animals, isn’t it? Get them out of the abuse, but send them to the slaughter, is it? Every single HSUS zealot is a terrorist as far as I’m concerned. Only a terrorist would plague the airways with images of abuse and neglect to gain an emotional reaction from ignorant individuals. As long as the HSUS is okay with treating good humans like fodder, I’m not going to support anything they’re doing.

http://animals.change.org/petitions/view/contact_hsus_for_the_deaths_of_146_pitt_bulls_incl_79_pups19_of_them_born_after_the_rescue

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?cat=9

http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/5_million_federal_lawsuit/

http://www.humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/when_hsus_comes_a_knockin/

@Natalie - do you think those animal abuse figures are worth anything?

As you say, they keep confiscating animals from those who know how to care for them, dumping them on facilities where they frequently get WORSE care - but the victims often plead guilty to abuse charges because they can’t get an attorney to defend them, and others are convicted for the same reason. The ABA is decidedly biased in favor of animal rights, regardless of the fact that the law in all but a few places states clearly that animals are personal property. Finding an attorney who will actually rigorously defend you against animal abuse charges gets harder every day, and that assumes the victim can afford a private attorney.

Since these victims are all included in the statistics for ‘animal abuse’, I think we can assume the numbers are materially lower than those published.

And .. thanks for the kind words, and for your posts on 11/29. Am waiting impatitntly for Angel’s rebuttal ..

You have to tell the truth, not your truth, THE TRUTH!

Look, lots of injustices are done, but did any of you think about the injustices of the animals? People do keep them, take good care of them, but many also starve them or treat them inhumanely. And, there are so many of them that many are put down, because they can’t be taken care of, financially, by the places that try to rescue them.

Dogs that have been trained to fight, well…many are not adoptable, sadly. That’s just a reality. And, if one of them turned on an owner, the place that allowed the initial adoption (HSUS) could be up for a massive suit. HSUS would know that, obviously, and would not want to take any chances.

Vegetarian Times
Study Shows 7.3 Million Americans Are Vegetarians and an additional 22.8 Million Follow a Vegetarian-Inclined Diet.

Vegetarian Times Study Shows
7.3 Million Americans Are Vegetarians

Additional 22.8 Million Follow a Vegetarian-Inclined Diet

The just-released “Vegetarianism in America” ‘study’, published by Vegetarian Times (vegetariantimes.com), shows that 3.2 percent of U.S. adults, or 7.3 million people, follow a vegetarian-based diet. Approximately 0.5 percent, or 1 million, of those are vegans, who consume no animal products at all. In addition, 10 percent of U.S., adults, or 22.8 million people, say they largely follow a vegetarian-inclined diet.

Now, if you take the statistics from a larger group of people, you will find that this 2008 ‘study’ doesn’t even come close to the numbers that are in 2010. In fact, there are enough that not only did CNN do an entire report on the growing trend, but so did several other television stations. Hence, the reason various Burger Kings, McD’s, Walmart, and Taco Bell’s started selling veggie burgers and other vegetarian products.
The poll surveyed ‘only’ 5,050 respondents

And, it seems you forgot to mention this part:

The 2008 study also indicates that of the non-vegetarians surveyed 5.2 percent, or 11.9 million people, are “definitely interested” in following a vegetarian-based diet in the future. Oops! Seems like lots of people are INTERESTED!

Shame on Peta, in regards to the animals killed for no good reason.