Topic: Animal Agriculture

  • HSUS Dishonesty, Part 1,453

    One of the things people hate most about politicians and politics is the rank dishonesty that exists in how they speak—or double-speak—about issues. Look no further than a blog post this week from HSUS CEO and lobbyist Wayne Pacelle.

    Pacelle blogged about the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear an appeal from several state attorneys general and a governor who challenged a California law in court. The law, backed by HSUS, bans the sale of regular—that is, conventionally produced—eggs in the state. Most egg-laying hens are housed in cages, and the California law said that farmers in other states would have to use larger cages or no cages if they wanted to sell in California. The AGs thought this was overreach by California. Generally, states can only restrict interstate commerce if there’s a (legitimate) public health or safety issue.

    Pacelle’s angle was that these state AGs were violating states’ rights. California, he argued, should be able to set its own standards for eggs allowed to be sold in the state.

    Yet at the same time, Pacelle himself lobbied for a federal bill increasing regulations on egg production just a few years ago. The bill would have overridden California’s egg laws. Gee, what about California’s rights? Pacelle couldn’t have cared less, but now that it’s convenient—the federal bill died—he’s singing a different tune.

    The California law predictably caused massive spikes in the price of eggs—as it was intended. HSUS doesn’t support eating eggs (or bacon, or any other animal protein), and so it lobbies for laws that will raise the cost of these food items. These laws hurt the poorest members of society the most.

    It’s a shame the Supreme Court opted against hearing the case. HSUS’s case relied on claiming that regular eggs are “unsafe,” which is more dishonesty. The US produces nearly 8 billion eggs per month and yet last year the CDC reports tracing eggs to just a handful of illnesses.

    We suspect a similar HSUS-backed law in Massachusetts will come under legal challenge. Hopefully the Supreme Court won’t pass the second time around.

    Posted on 06/02/2017 at 10:11 am by Humane Watch Team.

    Topics: Animal AgricultureEggs

    Permalink

  • BREAKING: IRS Complaint Filed Against HSUS, Whole Foods, GAP

    Today, we filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against Whole Foods Market, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and Global Animal Partnership (GAP) for what we believe is an improper profit-driven effort to benefit Whole Foods.

    HSUS and surrogate animal-liberation allies are currently engaging in campaigns threatening restaurants and other companies to switch to GAP-certified meat. GAP was created by Whole Foods (its first address was the Whole Foods corporate HQ) and has been funded predominately by Whole Foods since its inception. Currently, Whole Foods is paying the salaries of three GAP employees, including the executive director.

    Why was GAP created? To create animal-welfare labeling that Whole Foods could use to promote its high-priced meats.

    So why did HSUS join in on the racket? Whole Foods CEO John Mackey is on the board of HSUS, while HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle is on the board of GAP. (Mackey was on the board of GAP until 2014 when he seems to have been replaced by Whole Foods President AC Gallo.)

    See why it smells rotten? HSUS and GAP are both non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations, yet the ménage á trois between the entities appears to benefit Whole Foods. Essentially, it sees HSUS being the “enforcer” pressuring companies to commit to only buying products certified by the Whole-Foods-employee-run GAP. That will drive up the costs for Whole Foods’ competition or cause them to face a public brand attack. It also tells consumers that GAP meat at Whole Foods is the only “humane” meat—because Whole Foods and HSUS are the ones who get to define what it means to be “humane.”

    Posted on 05/08/2017 at 4:32 pm by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: Animal AgricultureEggsMeat

    Permalink

  • Best in No-Show: HSUS Nowhere to be Found as Animals Die on the Plains

    With wildfires whipping across the Great Plains, a large number of people and animals have fallen victim to fast moving infernos. Around 1.6 million acres, so far, have been burnt.

    Unable to outrun the fast-moving blaze, several people lost their lives while others lost their livelihoods, their animals and crops. While people from the plains are known for rugged self-reliance in the face of natural disasters, many charities and the farming and ranching communities from around the country are rallying to help those afflicted.

    But what of the Humane Society of the United States? Surely this is a chance to step up. HSUS has gone to great lengths to posture as a friend of agriculture (even as it attacks regular farming and ranching practices) and as a charity that’s always “there” to help animals. Yet it appears to be standing silent and unmoved as animals are in dire need. As ranchers and farmers from across the country gather hay, fencing supplies, and bottles to feed calves to help the animals affected, we haven’t seen a single peep from HSUS about chipping in. (And given how many press releases HSUS puts out, its staff would’ve let the world know.)

    Action—or inaction—speaks louder than words. “Flyover country” apparently doesn’t matter to HSUS enough to withdraw one penny from its multimillion-dollar Cayman Island funds.

    Posted on 03/24/2017 at 11:15 am by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: Animal Agriculture

    Permalink

  • Will HSUS Campaign Against Eating Lobster?

    The Washington Post recently reported on a situation in Australia whereby a seafood company was convicted of animal cruelty for preparing a lobster in an inhumane fashion. The piece quotes three—yes, three—people employed by HSUS-affiliated groups, and it got us wondering: Will HSUS campaign against eating lobster? We think HSUS will, and here’s why.

    The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the big brother of PETA. We have often noted that the difference between the two groups is style, not ideology. HSUS feigns moderation, while PETA performs naked street theater and takes strident positions against eating meat, visiting zoos, and even owning pets.

    Since HSUS employs a number of high-profile PETA alumni, we can usually use PETA as a marker for the direction HSUS is moving.

    In 2009, PETA launched the “Sea Kittens” campaign in an effort to re-brand fish as cute and, therefore, inedible. Now, Jonathan Balcombe – Director for Animal Sentience at the HSUS’s so-called Institute for Science and Policy – has picked up the baton and argues in his book that “each fish is a unique individual, not just with a biology, but with a biography.” Heaven forbid a sushi chef serve up Nemo.

    PETA has also launched a “lobster liberation” campaign arguing that we shouldn’t eat this particular seafood. Expect HSUS to make the case for PETA by repeating similar points as Balcombe is using to lay the groundwork against eating fish.

    The logic here is fishy, to say the least. But vegan advocacy groups are beginning to rally around these talking points about “sentience” as scientific gospel. These efforts are designed to sway public opinion. Will they work? It’s a heavy lift. But that doesn’t mean HSUS won’t try.

    Posted on 03/17/2017 at 1:24 pm by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: Animal AgricultureHunting & FishingMeat

    Permalink

  • Why Does the Humane Society Want Animals to Get Sick?

    There’s been a lot in the news about antibiotic resistance and how that might affect the medical community’s efforts to fight bacterial illness. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about one-third of antibiotic prescriptions in humans are unnecessary. And it’s this misuse of antibiotics that is helping drive resistance.

    But you wouldn’t hear that from the Humane Society of the United States. Instead, HSUS and environmental activists are trying to blame farms. Farmers, with approval from veterinarians, can use antibiotics to treat or prevent disease in animals. And HSUS is trying to ban preventive use of antibiotics, which makes as much sense as banning the flu shot.

    At CuriosityStream—a new-ish streaming-documentary venture—HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle appears in a short video discussing antibiotic resistance. And Lyin’ Wayne tells some real whoppers. So much so that we produced the video below dissecting what he says.

    After you watch it, ask yourself this question: Why is a “Humane Society” advocating for a ban on antibiotic use that will result in more animals getting sick? Hint: The answer lies in understanding HSUS’s real agenda.

     

    Posted on 02/23/2017 at 12:00 pm by Humane Watch Team.

    Topics: Animal AgricultureAudio & Video

    Permalink

  • New Parody Video: I’m PETA, and I’m HSUS

    Most Americans understand that PETA, with its lettuce bikinis and gross “unhappy meals” for kids, is a radical organization. Its president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has called pet ownership an “abysmal situation” and said, “Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” PETA also has killed 35,000 animals at its headquarters since 1998, according to animal custody records it files with the state of Virginia.

    If a bunch of PETA employees went to work at a different animal rights group, would you expect this organization is just as radical?

    Probably so. And that’s exactly the situation with the Humane Society of the United States. Consider that HSUS’s food policy director has trivialized the Holocaust by comparing modern farms to Nazi concentration camps. Meanwhile, HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, who has said, “I don’t want to see another cat or dog born,” also once mused about a merger between HSUS and PETA.

    What’s the real difference between HSUS and PETA? Our new ad gets down to it:

    Looking for more videos from us? Check out our YouTube page.

    Posted on 01/18/2017 at 9:56 am by Humane Watch Team.

    Topics: Animal AgricultureAudio & VideoMediaVideo

    Permalink

  • Rapid Reaction: Ringling’s Rollback

    Over the weekend news broke that Ringling Bros. is shutting down its circus in May, after a storied 146-year existence. This is obviously a loss for animal lovers who enjoyed the Big Top shows, as well as the company itself, which has been harassed for years by animal liberation extremists at the Humane Society of the United States and PETA. Ringling fought the good fight for years—even winning a $25.2 million settlement in litigation against HSUS and other activist groups—but the news that the circus is shutting down isn’t surprising. It was only a matter of time.

    Why? Because the elephants are gone. In 2015, Ringling phased out elephant acts from its shows due to pressure from activists and local elephant bans. According to the company, ticket sales declined precipitously afterward, leading to this weekend’s decision to shut down the traveling show altogether.

    That teaches us two things: One, at the very least a large segment of the public has not bought into the animal rights extremists’ claims that circus shows are bad for animals. People wanted to see elephants. When the elephants were gone, so did their reason for going to the circus.

    Two, local legislation can cripple a national business. The HSUS/PETA contingent lobbied for localities to pass bans on elephant guides, a tool needed to safely handle elephants. These were effectively bans on Ringling coming to town, and contributed to Ringling’s decision to phase out elephant acts completely.

    While a lot of political matters are best dealt with at the local level, what constitutes proper elephant handling isn’t one of them. Neither is what animals pet stores can sell, or what kind of eggs and pork supermarkets can sell. HSUS and PETA can’t get their legislation passed at the federal level, so they’ve turned to states and localities to do their bidding for them. Perhaps more preemption bills are needed, starting with the King Amendment, which would override HSUS-backed state laws that interfere with common agricultural practices.

    For years, activists at PETA and HSUS did everything they could to stop Ringling Bros. from having elephants and often claimed that capitulating would be good for the circus business. In this case they were obviously wrong–but then again, PETA and HSUS don’t care. Their goal is total animal liberation and they don’t mind shuttering businesses and putting people out of work to do it.

    These radicals are moving on to their next targets. These people don’t believe in zoos and aquariums either, so we expect them to ramp up their attacks on these institutions. Everyone from a farmer to a pet owner should make sure to take notice. At the end of the day, anyone who owns an animal is an HSUS/PETA target.

    Posted on 01/16/2017 at 4:20 pm by Humane Watch Team.

    Topics: Animal AgricultureCircuses

    Permalink

  • Maine Governor Slams HSUS Inhumanity

    Speaking Monday, Maine Gov. Paul LePage had some choice words for HSUS. Speaking at an agriculture event, LePage unleashed on HSUS for its hypocrisy in conducting farm investigations—while not reporting the results of the investigations in a timely manner.

    LePage’s beef is specifically with an undercover investigation HSUS did at an egg farm, which it used for a political campaign last fall in neighboring Massachusetts. State authorities investigated the farm following HSUS’s claims, and found no evidence of animal cruelty, they announced this week.

    Speaking about the situation, LePage said: “They [HSUS] hired a gentleman to come in (and) take care of the chickens. So what did he do? He brought his camera and he was watching chickens doing things where they were being hurt. And he never lifted a finger. In fact, he was cruel to animals. And then [HSUS] used the whistleblower laws to protect themselves. I don’t think that political organizations that are nonprofit that claim to be doing something while they do something else should get protected by the whistleblower act.”

    It is quite hypocritical. The idea that HSUS can conduct vigilante undercover filming and then withhold evidence from authorities for weeks or months (while it prepares a media campaign) is preposterous. If HSUS wants to stop animal cruelty, then it should report it immediately. Even kindergarteners can understand “See something, say something.”

    In fact, we’d argue that withholding evidence of animal cruelty—perhaps allowing it to continue while a self-appointed activist keeps filming—makes HSUS complicit.

    HSUS is not a law-enforcement or investigative agency. It’s a vegan advocacy group. Since HSUS is betraying the public trust and the animals HSUS and Wayne Pacelle claim to speak for, LePage is right to seek legal reforms to correct these shenanigans.

    Posted on 01/13/2017 at 12:58 pm by Humane Watch Team.

    Topics: Animal AgricultureEggsGov't, Lobbying, Politics

    Permalink

  • Another Animal Care Center Shut Down by HSUS?

    For those who were disturbed to learn about the Humane Society’s plan to shut down the Cape Wildlife Center, we have bad news: It appears HSUS is shutting down another animal care center.

    The Doris Day Equine Center has been an integral part of the Black Beauty Ranch for about 5 years. Founded with a $250k grant from the Doris Day Animal Foundation, and subsequent support of around $450k the Equine Center has helped care for and adopt hundreds of mustangs. But we’re hearing HSUS has quietly shut it down in recent weeks.

    The apparent closing of the Equine Center comes weeks after HSUS revealed its plans to shut down the Cape Wildlife Center in Massachusetts, which cared for 1,500-2,000 wildlife a year on a budget of $750,000. The announcement of that shutdown arrives at a time when HSUS is in the midst of a $2.4 million push for a ballot measure that would ban most eggs and pork from being sold in Massachusetts.

    This pattern of choosing politics over animal welfare reveals the true agenda of HSUS leadership. In their obsession with taking animal protein food choices away from consumers, they’re willing to throw animals in need of help under the bus.

    The depths that HSUS will go to further its political goals is outrageous and an insult to the people who trust them to use their donations to protect animals. We’ll be sure HSUS donors know to take their well-intentioned money elsewhere.

    Posted on 11/09/2016 at 2:19 pm by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: Animal AgricultureFundraising & MoneyGov't, Lobbying, PoliticsHorsesVeterinarians

    Permalink

  • Where’s HSUS on the Ballot this Year?

    Every time you look up it seems as though the Humane Society of the United States is spending money –except on pet shelters. With Election Day fast approaching, let’s take a look at some of the ballot initiatives that has HSUS reaching for its checkbook or media rolodex.

    OK Question 777

    One of the initiatives HSUS is pumping money into is Question 777 in Oklahoma. This amendment would make any law “restricting or regulating” the farming industry in the state  more vulnerable to lawsuits, which would likely result in fewer government regulations over the industry. This amendment gives farmers a fighting chance and HSUS a headache as it allows farmers to defend themselves against unjust laws.

    HSUS, which wants to put farmers who use animals out of business, has contributed at least $100,000 into the campaign to oppose the amendment. The most recent polls have Question 777 passing, but don’t let that fool you into thinking that HSUS won’t throw donor money at it till the bitter end.

    MA Question 3

    The initiative HSUS is most concerned with is Question 3 in Massachusetts. This initiative would ban the sale of eggs, veal or pork produced in what HSUS claims is an inhumane fashion—about 85 to 90 percent of eggs and pork produced today.

    The Humane Society has paid a king’s ransom in support of this bill, donating over $2 million to pass the measure. But is this veganist push good for the consumers? A recent study conducted by Professor Kaiser at Cornell University, showed that the price of a dozen eggs–after the law in California passed–rose by about 18% “due solely to the new state egg law.” In the end, this measure is nothing more than the Humane Society bullying businesses and consumers to live HSUS’s approved lifestyle.

    MT I-177

    Montana Initiative I-177 deals with prohibiting individuals from using animal traps and snares on state public lands. This initiative seems to miss the mark as it punishes all trappers for the crimes of a “few bad apples” according to the Great Falls Tribune. Another concern with this initiative is that it may encourage more poison being used to control predators, something that HSUS has been strongly against.

    CO Amendment 71

    Colorado Amendment 71 would make it more difficult for initiative petitioners like HSUS to qualify a constitutional amendment for the ballot without allowing citizens from all over the state to have a say in which measures are placed on the ballot. This law would make it more difficult for out of state interests to change the foundational document of the state. HSUS opposes it, but if you believe in protecting local democracy against carpetbaggers, it’s probably a law you’d like.

    OR Measure 100

    A “yes” on Oregon Measure 100 would prohibit the sale of products and parts of several different rare animals. Anti-poaching measures are something everyone should support in principle, but this measure is more a waste of money (almost a million dollars from HSUS) and time than anything, as most of the animals that would be covered in measure 100 are already covered by various federal and international laws.

    Robert Mitchell, a member of the Elephant Protection Association, argued against Measure 100 suggesting that “If you’re going to try to protect elephants, focus the limited resources where they’re going to do the most good. Don’t create a new class of criminal (offenses) because you’re frustrated you can’t reach the poachers in some other country.”

    Given that poaching is occurring between Africa and Asia—and not Africa and Oregon—the measure appears to be a symbolic waste of money as it will hardly do anything in a practical sense to stop poaching.

     

    Posted on 10/31/2016 at 2:02 pm by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: Animal AgricultureEggsExecutive StaffGov't, Lobbying, PoliticsHunting & FishingMeatWildlife

    Permalink