The Bottom Line: HSUS = PETA

While this isn’t a website about PETA (if you want one, try this), it’s helpful to remember the bigger picture. HSUS is not about animal welfare, it’s about animal rights.

Your local humane society is about animal welfare—ensuring animals are treated well. The Humane Society of the United States is different than (and unaffiliated with) local humane societies. It’s about ending most uses of animals under the premise that use equals abuse. Given that the vast majority of Americans eat meat, for example, HSUS isn’t going to win influence by claiming, as PETA does, that giving a kid a hamburger is child abuse. HSUS is smart enough to know this.

Writing in The New Yorker a few years back, Michael Specter put it well:

It has been argued many times that in any social movement there has to be somebody radical enough to alienate the mainstream–and to permit more moderate influences to prevail. For every Malcolm X there is a Martin Luther King, Jr., and for every Andrea Dworkin there is a Gloria Steinem. Newkirk and PETA provide a similar dynamic for groups like the Humane Society of the United States…

When you do a little digging, you discover that PETA’s practically a revolving door for HSUS employees, a radical training ground before these activists don a more respectable brand (to say nothing of clothing…). Here’s a list of just some of the links we’ve dug up:

• Matt Prescott, HSUS food policy director—former corporate campaigner with PETA
• Ann Chynoweth, senior director of the End Animal Fighting and Cruelty Campaign at HSUS—former researcher and the director of grassroots campaigns at PETA
• Mary Beth Sweetland, HSUS director of investigation—former director of research and rescue at PETA
• Paul Shapiro, “factory farm” campaign director—former PETA volunteer
• Alexis Fox, Mass. state director—former legal fellow at The PETA Foundation (aka Foundation to Support Animal Protection)
• Jill Fritz, HSUS Mich. Director— former PETA student coordinator
• Peter Petersan, Deputy Director of Animal Protection Litigation—former PETA activist
• Leana Stormont, HSUS attorney—former PETA counsel
• Miyun Park, former HSUS VP—former PETA employee
• Patrick Kwan, New York state director—former media assistant for PETA-linked Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

Keep in mind that this is just PETA and its quasi-medical front group the “Physicians Committee” for “Responsible Medicine.” (Click the link to see why the scare quotes are appropriate.) There’s a whole web of animal rights groups with essentially the same agenda: to eliminate the use of animals for food, research, clothing, and entertainment. Many HSUS leaders come from these groups—PETA-esque in worldview, but without the same budget or notoriety as PETA. Wayne Pacelle, Michael Markarian, and several HSUS board members hail from the Fund for Animals, an anti-hunting group, for one example.

Here’s HSUS and PETA in their own words. On the major goals, we can’t see any difference:

PETA Says…                                                       

"Animals Are Not Ours to Eat"

"Animals Are Not Ours to Wear"

"Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On"

"Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment"

HSUS Says…

“We don't want any of these animals to be raised and killed.”

“HSUS is committed to ending…killing for fur.”

“HSUS advocates an end to the use of animals in research...”

HSUS “opposes the use of wild animals in circuses”

Why is HSUS Charging Shelters Big Bucks?

We noticed a news story recently that HSUS had charged a Virginia shelter $15,000 a few years back for an evaluation. It’s not the only time, and it’s kind of kicking shelters when they’re down: HSUS already deceptively raises money as if it’s a sheltering group, yet donates just 1 percent of the money it raises to shelters. And HSUS also charges shelters for evaluations.

Here’s what really bothers us: HSUS has $200 million in assets. It has $32 million in hedge funds alone. Couldn’t it sell off a few shares of stock and perform this kind of service for free? How many animals would still be alive if these shelters had the extra $15,000 or $25,000 for animal care?

Apparently not. In fact, HSUS announced that it’s doing a “tour” of shelters in South Dakota this week. From a group that puts out several hundred press releases a year, this is just more spin designed to give it PR “cover.” While HSUS claims to provide services for shelters, it often comes at a cost: Humane Society University charges over $1,000 for classes, and HSUS’s Animal Care Expo costs $250 for registration.

We went digging around to see how common this is. We already knew of one or two examples. But the list is a bit longer:

• Dallas Animal Services ($25,000)
• Tulsa Animal Shelter ($15,000)
• San Luis Obispo Animal Services Division ($25,000)
• Danville Humane Society ($15,000)
• Albuquerque Animal Services Division ($25,000)
• Carson City Animal Services ($25,000)
• Riverside City-County Animal Shelter ($24,500)
• Forsyth County Animal Shelter ($16,000)
• Animal Protection Society of Orange County ($18,500)
• Ranch Cucamonga ($12,000)
• Greenville Humane Society ($15,500)

There were also about 20 other shelters that we found in the past 10 years that had an evaluation done by HSUS. We’re not sure how much they paid HSUS, in part because a shelter evaluation isn’t a separate line item on the organizations’ tax returns (like a simple grant would be).

Assuming the average group was charged $20,000 for an evaluation, that cost could be a significant chunk of its operating costs. The Danville Humane Society’s budget was $251,000 in 2004 when it got the evaluation. For government-funded shelters, it’s the taxpayers who foot HSUS’s bill.

It’s interesting to see that the HSUS team audited the Norfolk, Va. animal shelter. We wonder what HSUS would make of another shelter in Norfolk: PETA’s. According to filings with the Commonwealth of Virginia, PETA kills 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care at its shelter.

But considering that the head of HSUS’s shelter consultation program said, “When I euthanize an animal, I don't believe I am killing it,” we’re guessing PETA might not get any points deducted in that regard. In fact, one North Carolina shelter decreased its holding time for healthy animals before euthanasia upon recommendation from HSUS.

And are the HSUS evaluations worth much, anyway? Not in the experience of one Wisconsin shelter’s vice president:

The Humane Society of the U.S. report is garbage. The report is full of errors. They only talked with us for two hours. The report is based upon money, nothing about animal care.

HSUS? Based upon money? Imagine that.

Humane Bites #292: HSUS Taps the Rockies

Clippings culled from all over the electronic news world. (E-mail submissions for next time.)

• Next HSUS ag advisory council may be in Colorado
• HSUS lobbies Connecticut to ban farming methods Connecticut farmers don’t use
• HSUS-supported raid in Mississippi ruled unconstitutional
• Local shelter director reminds readers: We’re not funded by HSUS
• Featured Shelter: South Dakota’s Brookings Regional Humane Society (Donate. Volunteer. Adopt.)

Won’t You Help These Lawyers?

Despite its name, the Humane Society of the United States is not affiliated with your local humane society. HSUS doesn’t run a single pet shelter and gives only 1 percent of its budget to local shelters.

This is news to most Americans. According to public polling, about 70 percent of Americans mistakenly believe that HSUS is a pet shelter “umbrella group” and that HSUS gives most of its money to pet shelters.

Why the massive perception-reality gap? We can certainly thank HSUS’s multimillion-dollar ad campaign. You know the formula: Slow music, B-list celebrity spokeswoman, and pictures of sad-looking dogs and cats. And that fine-print disclaimer that HSUS is independent of local humane societies? It’s on less than 1 percent of the ads. See how the scam works?

Here’s what an honest HSUS TV appeal might look like. There’s no confusion, and no need for a disclaimer. But we’re going to go out on a limb and guess it wouldn’t be quite as lucrative for HSUS.

Will HSUS Be Bullhooked for Millions in Legal Fees?

The ongoing legal drama between a set of animal rights groups and Feld Entertainment, which owns the Ringling Bros. circus, has taken a saucy new turn. And it looks like the animal rights activists and their lawyers could soon be neck-deep in elephant dung.

First, a quick review. Animal rights activists brought a lawsuit against Feld in 2000 alleging elephant abuse in violation of the Endangered Species Act, with former Feld trainer Tom Rider as a key witness and plaintiff. After years of legal wrangling, D.C. federal judge Emmet Sullivan threw out the lawsuit in late 2009, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and—more importantly—that Rider was “essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness who is not credible” after receiving at least $190,000 from the animal rights cabal, his sole source of income as the case made its way through the courts. A US Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal. (Read the full opinion here.)

Feld returned fire, filing a racketeering lawsuit that hinges on the court’s findings. How the alleged scheme worked, according to Sullivan’s 2009 ruling, was essentially that counsel for plaintiffs' law firm Meyer, Glitzenstein, and Crystal ran a nonprofit called the “Wildlife Advocacy Project” (WAP) and other groups funneled money through it to Rider. (Rider also allegedly received payments directly from animal rights group plaintiffs and through MGC.)

HSUS fits in because the Fund for Animals was a plaintiff in the suit against Feld, and merged with HSUS in 2004/2005. Fund chief—now an HSUS executive—Michael Markarian also apparently fits into the equation, according to Sullivan’s ruling:

Beginning in December 2001 and continuing until at least the beginning of 2008, the organizational plaintiffs made payments to WAP for the purpose of funding Mr. Rider. While FFA/HSUS (Mr. Markarian) testified that it was not certain whether WAP used its “donations” for other purposes as well, this testimony is undermined by the documents underlying FFA/HSUS’s “donations,” which indicate that the money was specifically for use in connection with this litigation. FFA/HSUS’s testimony also is questionable given that in 2003, plaintiffs’ counsel, Ms. Meyer, specifically sent an email to the representatives of the organizational plaintiffs, including Mr. Markarian, requesting funds to support Mr. Rider’s advocacy efforts regarding the elephants and the lawsuit, and expressly suggesting that the funds for Mr. Rider could be contributed to WAP so that they would be tax deductible.

Also named in the racketeering lawsuit are HSUS attorney Kimberly Ockene and HSUS Senior Vice President Jonathan Lovvorn, both of whom used to work at Meyer, Glitzenstein, and Crystal and were plaintiff attorneys during the Endangered Species Act complaint. In fact, Feld’s attorneys allege that money was taken out of an HSUS bank account and earmarked for Rider.

So what’s new?

Last week Feld’s attorneys filed a motion in the original case—not the racketeering case—demanding that the plaintiffs pay for legal fees that Feld accrued, totaling an estimated $20 million. Defending a lawsuit for a decade tends to be an expensive endeavor, after all.

This could be a double-whammy for HSUS. It could be on the hook for a good chunk of the $20 million in legal fees. Additionally, Feld is seeking treble damages under RICO against HSUS and the other defendants in the separate racketeering lawsuit—so add another $60 million to the potential pot.

And that’s not all.

Feld’s attorneys are also asking the court to officially sanction the attorneys for their conduct. They allege that “Not only did counsel bring fraudulent (Rider) and frivolous (API) claims, they doggedly pursued them for more than eleven years.” Feld alleges that the plaintiffs knew that their key witness was unreliable and “each and every step of the way counsel had an opportunity to drop either Rider or API or both (and put an end to FEI’s mounting legal expenses). Yet they did not. Instead, they embraced Rider’s lies and API’s meritless and hollow allegations…”

And since the court is apparently allowed to hold the attorneys jointly and severally liable for the estimated $20 million in legal fees (if the court rules the plaintiffs should pay it), that means HSUS, Lovvorn, and Ockene, among others, could have quite the bill, along with a bench-slap to go with it.

We encourage you to read the whole motion for all the intricacies and details. When there’s a ruling, we’ll be sure you’re among the first to know.

First Time at HumaneWatch?

If so: Welcome! Whether you’re here because you saw our Times Square billboards, word of mouth, Google, or another reason, there’s a lot of information about the Humane Society of the United States that people don’t know. It can be overwhelming, especially as we blog on a regular basis to add to the knowledge pool. To get up to speed about America’s most deceptive animal rights group, we recommend you check out the following:

• Read about how HSUS gives only 1 percent of its budget to pet shelters—the real humane societies.
• See how HSUS deceives the public in its advertising.
• Read about how HSUS earns a “D” grade from the American Institute of Philanthropy.
• Watch our 30-second “consumer alert” ad.
• See how HSUS’s CEO thinks Michael Vick “would do a good job as a pet owner.”
• Learn about how HSUS’s agenda is similar to PETA’s.

HSUS Earns Some Detention

The April/May charity guide of the American Institute of Philanthropy/CharityWatch is out—and HSUS once again earns an “unsatisfactory" grade of “D.” Even PETA isn’t that low (C+). HSUS has now earned a “D” grade for almost two years.

CharityWatch finds that HSUS spends as little as 50 percent of its budget on actual programs—meaning up to half of HSUS’s budget is reserved for overhead costs like tens of millions spent on fundraising.

CharityWatch also finds that it takes HSUS up to 48 cents to raise every dollar in contributions—a grossly inefficient figure. (Click the image to enlarge.)

These findings are slightly different than those in the December 2011 CharityWatch guide. At that time, CharityWatch found HSUS spent as little 49 percent of its budget on programs. So we have newer data, and it’s more of the same. At this rate, it’ll be a decade before HSUS ventures up to the “C” range (spending 60 percent of its budget on programs).

That’s assuming HSUS is interested in getting its act into shape. We suspect it will just rely on weaker charity-rating assessments and subjective popularity measures instead of spending its donors’ dollars in a more appropriate way. And it’ll keep misleading people by claiming it spends 78 percent of its budget on programs—a laughable statement.

Maybe there’s a reason for all those sad-looking, abandoned dogs and cats in HSUS’s ads. They know that after HSUS scams Americans out of their doggie dollars, local shelters will hardly see a dime.