Topic: From CCF

  • 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 03/16/2017 at 2:22 pm by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: Animal Rights ExtremismFrom CCFRadical ActivismSeafood

    Permalink

  • Do your research before you donate

    By Will Coggin

    Outlet: Roswell Daily News

    As we embrace the holiday spirit, many Americans will be looking to make a year-end donation to a worthy charity. But we should be careful of some household names in the nonprofit world that have a history of being grinches.
    Many Americans saw the news reports [auth] earlier this year about the wasteful spending at Wounded Warrior Project on company retreats. Consider also that the Humane Society of the United States only gives 1 percent of donations to local pet shelters, yet last year put $50 million into offshore funds in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed nearly 1,500 animals at its headquarters’ animal shelter in 2015 and had an adoption rate of just 3 percent.
    With Americans donating $265 billion to charity, there’s a lot of room for both good guys and unscrupulous players looking to make a buck. Be sure to do your research first — and for bad ones that pester you for undeserved donations, ‘tis the season to send them some coal.

    Posted on 12/13/2016 at 3:48 pm by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: From CCFUncategorized

    Permalink

  • America Becoming Hog (Eaters’) Heaven

    If you listened to the vegan activists at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) or their public cheerleaders like journalist turned hippie-food salesman Mark Bittman, you would think that bacon was over and granola was in. Well, the financial world—the people who actually put their own money where their mouths are—disagrees.meat_pork

    Fake meat might get the column inches in trendy East Coast newspapers, but the real McCoy—specifically, pork and its most decadent processed product, bacon—are where the money is. Bloomberg News reports that even as pork producers raise more hogs, the demand of people all over the world for delicious bacon, sausage, and pork chops is outstripping farmers’ ability to supply it:

    With Americans expected to eat the most pork since 2007, money managers are now the most-bullish since 2014 on hog futures, which already are at a nine-month high. […] Demand at home and abroad is rising faster than U.S. farmers are boosting output.

    And while it’s a sign the vegans are losing the debate where it matters, the popularity of pork might nudge prices a bit higher. That shows why it’s so important for food companies, the public, and officials to reject the demands of HSUS and other vegan groups to further drive up the costs of pork production with bans on maternity pens for pregnant pigs.

    While credible large-animal veterinarians hold that maternity pens provide for animal welfare, HSUS demands they be banned. Why? Because HSUS, like PETA, has a vegan agenda and wants to price bacon out of reach of the American consumer. And to that, we say, “Hands off.”

    Posted on 03/29/2016 at 4:29 pm by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: Animal Rights ExtremismFrom CCF

    Permalink

  • Chipotle Hypocrisy: American Antibiotics Bad, British Antibiotics Good

    We’ve written before about how misguided Chipotle’s so-called “Food with Integrity” principles can be on animal welfare. By prohibiting the use of any antibiotics—even to sick animals—and requiring farmers to allow pigs to be exposed to the elements, Chipotle’s requirements for its meat suppliers can reduce animal welfare.

    But Chipotle’s misguided “integrity” is almost entirely opportunistic. When meats that meet the company’s standards aren’t available, Chipotle doubles back on its principles by selling “conventionally produced” food.  And that explains why the company is okay with its latest pork procurement from a British company:

    Chipotle acknowledged that while Karro’s [their new pork producer] practices meet its animal welfare standards, their antibiotic use policy differs from the standard Chipotle demands of its U.S. suppliers.

    While Chipotle prohibits antibiotics use — even to treat illness in hogs — for the pork they purchase from U.S. suppliers, they allow such antibiotics use by Karro.

    Basically, Chipotle’s pig housing rules—which seem to mimic what the vegan activist group Humane Society of the United States advocates for—caused the company to run so short of pork for its (very large and high-calorie) burritos that it had to stop selling carnitas. Because most U.S. farms use individual maternity pens for pregnant pigs—which is banned by Chipotle—the restaurant chain apparently had nowhere to go, so it simply couldn’t serve pork at one-third of its locations. Reportedly  this hurt Chipotle’s profits—so it bent its  rule on antibiotics to get foreign pork. (Apparently it also shelved its principle of “local sourcing” with this decision as well.)

    And while Chipotle says that they’re just endorsing European Union antibiotics rules, that’s a meaningless diversion from their hypocrisy. Both European and U.S. farmers use antibiotics in accordance with veterinary guidance and government regulation, which ensures that antibiotic residues are eliminated from the final meat supply.

    This isn’t the first time that Chipotle’s “integrity” proves to be sensitive to their stock holders. Their program is little more than a marketing ploy—made obvious by the company’s position against genetically modified foods, which a scientific consensus holds are just as healthy or safe as  conventional foods.

    In honor of Chipotle’s longstanding hypocrisy and reliance on bovine excrement in its marketing, we’ve put together a little graphic on just how to speak “Chipotle.” Keep it handy the next time you want to buy a burrito.

    Bowers Burrito

    Posted on 07/15/2015 at 3:19 pm by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: Animal Rights ExtremismFood ScaresFrom CCF

    Permalink

  • “Beneath the Surface” Sinks to the Bottom

    Screen Shot 2015-04-13 at 3.42.14 PM (1)Looks like the animal rights fringe is in need of a new spokesman. This week former orca trainer and current PETA shill John Hargrove’s well-publicized downward spiral descended even further, as sales of his book Beneath the Surface continue to slide.

    Hargrove has been the subject of media scrutiny ever since a video was released that showed him using the n-word several times during a phone call. Despite Hargrove’s attempts to sweep the incident under the rug—and his allies’ attempts to play it down—it is obvious that the video has significantly damaged the public’s perception of him. According to Amazon.com, Hargrove’s book Beneath the Surface has now dropped to #1,499 in book sales rankings.

    To get an idea of how low his book sales have fallen, Beneath the Surface is currently below books such as Dork Diaries 8: Tales from a Not-So-Happily Ever AfterAdult Coloring Book: Stress Relieving Patterns, and 10-Day Green Smoothie Cleanse. Worse still, Hargrove’s book also ranks #4,559 in the Kindle Store. This must be saddening news for PETA and other animal rights extremists, who had been banking on Hargrove’s book making a splash. But it’s not rock-bottom—that might be a better descriptor for Wayne Pacelle’s The Bond, which sits at #173,686 on Amazon—below Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Technology 5th Edition and Sunday Morning Quilts: 16 Modern Scrap Projects

    As we reported last week, the animal rights fringe has previously gone to extreme lengths to defend its spokesman. Despite attempts to distract from Hargrove’s scandal, it is apparent that Americans are siding with civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King III who stated, “Mr. Hargrove has compromised his moral authority as an animal rights advocate when he shows so little respect for his fellow man.”

    Posted on 04/14/2015 at 2:22 pm by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: Animal Rights ExtremismFrom CCF

    Permalink

  • Sea Shepherd is a Sinking Ship

    Explosive BreachThe Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, the violent environmentalist group behind the Discovery Channel show “Whale Wars,” is now the subject of a major Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) civil complaint. A few of the outlaw organization’s donors aren’t happy with its fundraising tactics, and are demanding damages. (We’re rooting for massive financial injuries.)

    The plaintiffs, Ady Gil, Vince Dundee, and Faast Leasing California, allege that the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and its leader Paul Watson (a man who is wanted in two countries and was kicked out of Greenpeace for being too radical) intentionally sank a boat that was donated to them in order to solicit donations for financial gain.

    The lawsuit claims that the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society blamed the loss of the deliberately-sunken vessel, which was donated by Gil, on Japanese whalers. (The ship had been damaged in a collision; Gil and his co-plaintiffs allege it was repairable when Watson scuttled it.)

    The Sea Shepherds then proceeded to host a fundraiser asking for money to replace the ship. According to the complaint, this manufactured PR stunt doubled financial contributions to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society within a year after the hoax was perpetrated. The plaintiffs allege that the money that was raised was not used to replace the boat as promised.

    That’s probably a good thing, legal niceties aside.

    The Sea Shepherds have been engaged in piracy on the high seas, and you don’t have to take our word for it—Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals called the Sea Shepherds pirates in a 2013 ruling. The longer they’re tied up in court, the safer the global sea lanes will be.

    Posted on 03/18/2015 at 4:16 pm by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: Animal Rights ExtremismFrom CCF

    Permalink

  • Animal Activism Hurts Families

    eggs in cartonIf you’ve bought eggs lately, you’ve no doubt noticed they’ve become a bit more expensive. What’s worse, prices will likely only continue to rise. And no matter where you live, the blame all points back to one state: California.

    On January 1 of this year, California’s Proposition 2 went into effect, forcing egg producers to adopt costly new standards for their operations. At the urging of animal liberation groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), voters passed Prop 2 in 2008 to impose new allegedly “humane” mandates on egg producers. It was widely assumed that the law required egg producers to use larger cages in their operations—Prop 2 only made general requirements but didn’t mandate a specific space requirement. Many farmers invested heavily in revamping their operations to be in accordance with state regulations requiring hens to be housed in cages at least 116 square inches in size.

    A 2010 companion measure went into effect simultaneously, extending Prop 2’s cage requirements to all out-of-state egg producers that wish to sell their products in the nation’s most populous state as well. Thus, all Americans are forced to pay for a measure passed in a single state.

    Now that the laws have been implemented, however, HSUS is throwing its weight into arguing that producers should use no cages at all—just to be totally sure they comply with the law. If HSUS’s argument is successful, expect prices to rise even further.

    All this has caused egg prices in California to jump 66% higher than in other parts of the West, while wholesale egg prices jumped 35% in the lead up to Prop 2’s implementation.

    Worst of all, the price increases resulting from Prop 2 and its companion measure will cause the greatest harm to the most disadvantaged segments of society. As a recent report from Iowa State University points out, low-income individuals will be disproportionately harmed by the legislation, as they often rely on eggs as an affordable protein substitute in lieu of pricier meat-based options.

    What’s more, these measures were sold to Californians as a more humane way of raising hens or “food safety.” However, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association, cage-free operations have higher rates of internal parasites and hen mortalities than traditional cage systems. Manure management may also not be as advanced in cage-free systems.

    But when you’re a group of animal liberation extremists who think ice cream is a form of animal cruelty, caring about low-income Americans won’t take precedence over your ideology.

    Posted on 02/06/2015 at 12:04 pm by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: Animal Rights ExtremismFrom CCFOrganic Activists

    Permalink

  • What’s Really in PETA and HSUS’s Kitchens?

    Boot on RoachIt seems that the owner of a vegetarian restaurant in Australia has taken his love of animals a little too far. The cleverly named Kingsland Vegetarian Restaurant was recently fined $16,000 for eight different food safety violations, including the presence of cockroaches. Khan Hoang, the restaurant’s owner, admitted that he was aware of the roach infestation, but failed to do anything about it because he was morally opposed to killing the bugs.

    In order to have the restaurant reopened, Mr. Hoang relented and has since decided to regularly use a pest control team. Mr. Hoang’s actions may seem strange, but he would likely fit right in with radical animal rights groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Both set aside their dogmatic beliefs that animals are owed the same rights as humans when it is sufficiently inconvenient—even bugs.

    These groups would sooner see a child die from cancer or AIDS than have a cure be developed through the use of animal testing. As Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s president, infamously said, “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” While PETA may not want animals to be used for potentially life-saving drugs, the group is more than happy to kill animals itself instead of spending the resources to find them forever homes. (Those lettuce-bikini street stunts don’t pay for themselves, after all.)

    PETA isn’t the only hypocritical animal rights organization. The vegan activist group HSUS also has no problem with animals being killed as long as it benefits the organization’s agenda of veganism. Perhaps the best example of this is California’s recently implemented Proposition 2. The ballot measure bans egg farmers from using conventional cages and was heavily financed by HSUS. A corresponding measure extended this requirement to all egg producers wishing to sell their products in the nation’s most populous state.

    The law immediately caused egg prices to rise drastically—all part of HSUS’s plan. However, according to an agriculture economist at Iowa State University, the law could cause 40% of all hens in Iowa (the nation’s leading egg producer) to be killed. This is equivalent to 24 million hens. HSUS’ response? Silence.

    So, the next time an animal rights activist tries to feed you a fundraising appeal, ask yourself if you can trust the kitchen it was cooked in.

    Posted on 02/05/2015 at 3:06 pm by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: Animal Rights ExtremismFood ScaresFrom CCF

    Permalink

  • Latest Loony Animal-Lib Idea: Hamsters as Citizens

    CCF_FacepalmA Canadian professor and animal liberation activist is proposing a “radical” (read: ridiculous) approach to protecting animal welfare: Legal citizenship for animals. It’s more of that “only in academia” nonsense.

    According to the activist, domestic animals—like pet dogs and cats—are part of our society, and accordingly deserve citizenship as legal recognition of their equal status. We suppose that means that dog treats and a scratching post won’t cut it for your pet’s “wages.”

    The odd professor describes a bizarre, interspecies society where humans are apparently supposed to guess the preferences of different animals in order to accurately represent their political interests in government. (Are donkeys Democrats? Elephants Republicans? Porcupines big-“L” Libertarians?)

    In this ludicrous alternate universe, animals that contribute to human industries would be taken seriously as employees, and granted workers’ rights—such as “the right to a retirement [and] the right to disability pensions.” We still can’t figure out exactly what an animal disability pension would look like. Perhaps a little extra hay in the animals’ trough? A fixed rate of free dog bones for life?

    For someone whose preferred political system is based on the ability to correctly intuit the thoughts of animals, the Canadian professor could use a refresher course in mammalian biology. He explains that implementing these so-called “workers’ rights” would be complicated in the case of dairy cows, since “you only get milk from cows when they’re pregnant.” Um, no. A cow won’t start to produce milk until her first calf is born. After that, the cow will usually continue to produce milk for as long as she is milked.

    As you might expect, this radical animal rights agenda ultimately demands a policy of universal veganism. (No surprises here).  After all, “We can’t go around eating our co-citizens.”

    The plan for a vegan world takeover might seem too ludicrous to gain any traction. But prominent—albeit no less ridiculous—animal liberation groups like the deceptively-named People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) hold equally outlandish views. (Remember when a director of HSUS insinuated that farmers are running concentration camps?)

    Here’s an easy solution to brain-dead ideas: Make sure you get enough Vitamin B12 in your diet.

     

    Posted on 12/18/2014 at 3:53 pm by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: Animal Rights ExtremismFrom CCF

    Permalink

  • CCF Hits Back Against Animal Liberation Noise Machine

    130430_HW_LogoAmerica’s favorite meat and poultry dishes have come under sustained attack recently from vegan activists claiming they are cruel. But that view isn’t supported by the evidence or sound philosophy, and we’ve been fighting to get the truth out in the nation’s newspapers. We’ve also hit back against foolhardy proposals to repeal laws that protect farmers, researchers, and retailers from violence by animal liberation extremists.

    In the New York Daily News, we offered a rebuttal to the anthropomorphic assertions of ex-PETA hack Bruce Friedrich — a man who once said that “I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow” — that chickens are as intelligent as children. As our Senior Research Analyst noted, “A four-year-old not only talks, but will develop into a mature adult capable of higher cognitive processes. A chicken, though, will remain a chicken, pecking at the dirt.” We’ve come to expect such misanthropy and moral backwardness from the kinds of people who assert “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy” and seek to ban lifesaving medical research.

    Meanwhile, we called “fowl” on an effort by the so-called Humane Society of the United States (which gives only one percent of its budget to local pet shelters) to attack a Congressional Farm Bill amendment that would prevent California politicians from dictating animal agriculture practices beyond the state’s borders. We noted that this misnamed “Humane Society,” which runs no pet shelters of its own, is a PETA-like organization dedicated to eliminating all use of animals for food, not a credible source of information on animal welfare.

    We’ve also drawn attention to a potentially dangerous proposal by the New York City Bar Association that would recommend the repeal of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which sets punishments for animal liberation violence. As our Senior Research Analyst wrote in California’s Press-Enterprise, animal liberation extremists continue to commit thefts and vandalism against farmers and retailers of animal products, proving that the threat of animal liberation terrorism continues to exist. He also argued that it’s disingenuous for animal liberation activists to claim that they are “intimidated” by the law, since they have been able to engage in legal (if wrong and irresponsible) free speech. AETA only forbids illegal intimidation and violence; demonstrations are protected by law (and widely conducted, if often ignored). If AETA is “intimidating” activists away from illegal intimidation, property destruction, and violence, most would say that is to the law’s credit.

    Posted on 08/21/2013 at 9:00 am by HumaneWatch Team.

    Topics: Animal Rights ExtremismFrom CCFLivestockMeat

    Permalink