The 50% Pledge: We’re Still Willing to Close Shop

HOW LONG HAVE WE WAITED?

This weekend marks the second anniversary of our HumaneWatch 50% Pledge. A few months after our launch, we promised to shut down this website for good if the Humane Society of the United States made one simple promise: to give 50 percent of its budget to pet shelters. Currently, HSUS gives only 1 percent of its budget to hands-on pet shelters.

So far, we haven’t heard a peep from HSUS about this. And judging from the fact that HSUS’s most recent tax return (2010) once again shows that 1 percent of the money it raised went to pet shelters, it doesn’t seem willing to change.

The one thing that has changed is HSUS’s PR spin. For instance, HSUS now claims that it has given $43 million in grants to other organizations since 2005. That’s pretty good—until you consider that a sizeable chunk of this appears to be other HSUS groups. HSUS gave $4 million in grants to its ballot initiative front group in California to raise farmers’ and consumers’ costs—to say nothing of the millions it spent on grants to similar groups in Missouri, Arizona, Ohio, and Colorado. HSUS has also given millions in “grants” to its affiliate Humane Society International.

An HSUS claim is (once again) exposed as having little substance. The information is all out there, for those who want to do the digging. HSUS doesn’t want you to. That’s why it’s so important that you help spread the word. Email your friends. “Share” us with your Facebook contacts. Ask your local vet or pet shelter if you can put a flyer up. Tweet about it.

HSUS’s dithering and self-promotion may seem trivial. But consider the millions of cats and dogs that will be put down this year. That should be as good a motivation as any to make sure that the millions that HSUS takes in go directly to groups that actually run pet shelters. If our recent startling poll of HSUS donors is any indication, many of them are willing to reconsider their gifts if they only know the truth.

“Direct Care” By Whom?

HSUS recently bragged that it is “consistently at the top among hands-on services provided by any humane organization.” That was right before we discovered that HSUS’s self-calculated “direct care” for animals plummeted last year compared to 2010. As we’ve dug a little deeper, we’ve had more questions about HSUS’s claim.

For example, most of the “direct care” HSUS counts is spay/neuter procedures. And that “direct” care may actually be provided by others—HSUS just puts on the PR to promote it.

HSUS also brags that it operates several wildlife and horse sanctuaries. Here’s a little background on them:

Black Beauty Ranch—a 1,300-acre Texas ranch originally operated solely by the Fund for Animals. The Fund merged with HSUS in 2005, and HSUS is now listed as a “partner.”

South Florida Wildlife Center—this was actually founded in 1969. From what we can see, this group (known as the “Wildlife Care Center SPCA of Broward County”) is still a separate organization from HSUS.

The Fund for Animals Wildlife Center—founded in 1984 in Southern California. Helps rehabilitate feral cats, cougars, birds, etc.

The Cape Wildlife Center—founded in 2000 and located in Massachusetts, currently run by the Fund for Animals “in partnership” with HSUS.

Rabbit Sanctuary, Inc.—located in South Carolina, it’s a legally separate group “supported by” the Fund for Animals.

Duchess Sanctuary – this Oregon horse sanctuary was apparently only “made possible” (HSUS’s words) because of $3.5 million in grant money to buy and manage the property from The Roberts Foundation, the Ark Watch Foundation, and the Ark’s founder. (Given that HSUS has $200 million in assets, couldn’t it spare a few million?)

The Doris Day Horse Rescue and Adoption Center—started in 2011, it’s a center on the Black Beauty Ranch that received a quarter of a million dollars in support from the Doris Day Animal Foundation, an independent group affiliated with HSUS, and operated by HSUS and the Fund for Animals.

We’re not sure how many HSUS resources go towards these groups. The Fund for Animals still files a separate tax return, which indicates to us that it’s still a separate group. The Fund’s latest return indicates that it spent almost $1.5 million on the two wildlife centers. The Rabbit Sanctuary is a separate group from FFA and HSUS, as well.

Records indicate that the Fund sent about $55,000 to the South Florida Wildlife Center and Rabbit Sanctuary in 2010. However, we don’t see HSUS giving money to either group that year. Yet Wayne Pacelle is off telling a TEDx crowd that “we run a rabbit sanctuary.” Um, not really—we’d have to say someone named Caroline Gilbert does.

Here’s what it seems like: Almost all of these “direct care” projects were started by groups other than HSUS and simply brought under HSUS’s umbrella through mergers/acquisitions. As far as we can tell, these sanctuaries are largely funded by HSUS affiliates.

Consider this disclaimer on the Fund for Animals’ website:

While The Fund and The HSUS are partners in these efforts, donations to The Fund for Animals are used specifically to support Fund programs, such as the direct animal care centers…

So it seems like these are “Fund programs”—not HSUS programs. (The Fund is a legally separate group, so it makes sense.) HSUS “direct care” programs only make up about 8 percent of its budget—and a lot of this seems to be directed toward non-sanctuary uses.

Is it really intellectually honest for HSUS to take credit in the manner it does? In its most recent tax return, HSUS says to reference the separate tax returns of the Fund for Animals and the SPCA Wildlife Center when it discusses the sanctuaries, writing that the Fund is “responsible for most HSUS animal care facilities.”

Think we’re splitting hairs? The Fund raises money on its own letterhead.  There seems to be potential for double- or triple-counting. In fact, in one blog post, Wayne Pacelle claims that 60,000 animals were “cared for by The HSUS”—but in that tally he includes 27,000 animals that received care from Humane Society International, a separate group. See what we mean?

We’re not going to knock whatever help HSUS provides for these projects. But there’s a lot of talk going on. Can’t HSUS do more?

Animal Neglect: An HSUS Double Standard?

We’ve remarked that it’s strange for the Humane Society of the United States to try to dictate to farmers how to farm considering that no one in HSUS’s leadership has a degree in animal husbandry. When it comes to animal sheltering, though, HSUS has a bit more credibility. We found one person on HSUS’s board who does have experience with an animal shelter. Unfortunately, her record isn’t exactly stellar.

Meet Jane Greenspun Gale, who was chairman of Lied (pronounced “leed”) Animal Foundation, the main shelter in the Las Vegas area. We say was, because she resigned her chairmanship (but remained on the board) in early 2007 after news emerged of the deplorable conditions for animals at the shelter, resulting in 1,000 pets being put down—more than half the animals in the shelter at the time. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, an inspection team “found sick animals at Lied were ignored and left to die in their cages, dogs starved in overcrowded runs, and incoming animals were not vaccinated.”

The New York Times reported that the situation included a veritable cocktail of diseases:

Managers of the Lied Animal Shelter, where the outbreak occurred, said the severity of the crisis came as a surprise. They had invited a team of inspectors from the Humane Society of the United States to tour the center this month because they thought they would be praised for their practice of euthanizing animals sparingly, in comparison with shelters of similar size.

Instead, the six-member Humane Society inspection group found a severely overcrowded shelter where many animals appeared very ill. Tests revealed that hundreds were suffering from one or more of three viruses and an aggressive bacterial infection. […]

Disease outbreaks in shelters are not unusual, but this one was especially gruesome because there were so many different illnesses at once, said Dr. Kate Hurley, head of the Shelter Medicine Program at the University of California, Davis, and one of two veterinarians on the Humane Society inspection team. The viruses were Parvovirus, canine distemper and feline panleukopenia; the bacterial infection was a fatal hemorrhagic, or bloody, pneumonia.

''I'm not aware of outbreaks of this magnitude,'' said Dr. Hurley.

That’s after a 2001 audit discovered inadequate management controls and found that “lax accounting and improper practices led to animals being lost, stolen or unnecessarily euthanized.” If any old pet owner had dogs and cats in the conditions at Lied Animal Shelter, HSUS would have raided him, seized his animals, filmed a fundraising video, and put out a press release alleging animal cruelty. (And rightfully so, probably.) HSUS would also likely push for criminal charges.

But in this case, HSUS seemed awfully quiet. In fact, as noted above, Lied had hired HSUS to inspect the shelter, and the team’s report was hard-hitting and exposed the major problems. But HSUS was content to see improvements in the shelter—a redemptive attitude it doesn’t seem to spare for many.

Obviously, animals in shelters are euthanized every day and sheltering is a tough job. But we haven’t heard of anything like this before. Gale was a major funder, putting $12 million into the group, so surely she had an idea of the shelter’s poor situation. There were even allegations that appeared to substantiate criminal conduct, but HSUS wouldn’t turn over some details to municipal investigators, citing confidentiality, so the city’s probe couldn’t prove anything.

Meanwhile, Gale not only stayed on the board of the group, but then joined HSUS’s board just a few months after the fiasco. “[HSUS CEO] Wayne Pacelle, who I have known over 20 years ... he asked me to do this,” Gale told the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

We really have to wonder what Pacelle saw in her. But then we remember that Greenspun Gale comes from a wealthy family line that owns the Las Vegas Sun. If we were cynical, we’d say it all makes sense—kind of like how the former dogfighting kingpin with the $100 million NFL contract is now an HSUS ambassador.

Photo: Flickr

No Kill: No Thanks to HSUS

Last week USA Today had an interesting report on developments in the “no kill” sheltering community. In some localities in which a no-kill shelter has a contract with the municipality, the relationship has lead to financial issues.

Cities are on tight budgets, but going no-kill has led to increased costs for some groups. One Maryland community that went no-kill successfully (to this point) relies heavily on community donations.

So what does this have to do with HSUS? For starters, the paper asked HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle for his take:

Pacelle says he expects the national euthanasia rate to be cut in half within the next five years because of the growing "no kill" movement among animal advocates.

"It's a much more invigorated community than you saw three or four decades ago," Pacelle says.

Readers of USA Today might get the impression that Pacelle is some kind of no-kill leader. Considering the amount of euthanasia material that HSUS sells to shelters, that couldn’t be farther from reality. (Heck, the animals “rescued” by HSUS aren’t even necessarily safe.)

You see, HSUS sucks up donations from local communities by deceptively running ads full of dogs and cats. It’s no surprise most Americans mistakenly think HSUS spends most of its money on pet shelters. If it did, then more shelters under financial constraints could afford to go no-kill. These communities could be sources for their local shelters to go no-kill, or at least significantly reduce euthanasia rates.

However, HSUS gives just one percent of its budget to pet shelters, while it hoards around $200 million. One group in the USA Today story faced a shortfall of about $100,000 between its animal control spending and what it got from the city, for example—chump change to HSUS.

HSUS might retort that it’s involved in the Shelter Pet Project to promote adoptions. That’s certainly some help. But it’s not clear how much HSUS is providing toward that project, which was the genesis of other groups that later asked HSUS to tag along.

Need more? Outspoken (to put it mildly) No Kill activist Nathan Winograd lays it all out against HSUS.

We certainly hope to see the national euthanasia rate cut in half over the next five years. (A few years back Pacelle himself called no kill “almost unachievable.”) Such success will be because of the hard work of no-kill activists, not HSUS.

Some Observations about “Spay Day”

It’s February again, and HSUS yesterday held another “Spay Day” event. The event involves spay/neuter promotion and a user-submitted photo contest, with visitors able to vote on which photo they think is the best.

Many of them are quite cute. But HSUS’s Spay Day ploy is not.

Quick background: Spay Day was started by the Doris Day Animal League back in the 1990s, but HSUS took it over after it merged with DDAL in 2006.

Here’s how it works this year (under the banner “World Spay Day”): Contestants submit a cute picture of your pet, give their contact info to HSUS (probably to be counted as a “constituent” of HSUS), and then encourage their friends and family and others to “vote” for their photo. 

But voting isn’t free, no siree. Votes cost $1 each, with a minimum purchase of 5 votes. Now, to HSUS’s credit, the money gets passed through to an organization designated by the photo contestant:

After the Contest ends, The HSUS/HSI will disburse the funds in the form of grants to the organizations designated by the contestants—with 100% of your donation going directly to the organization(s) designated by the contestant(s) whose pet photo(s) you voted for.

So is HSUS giving any of its own money? Hard to say. But because it is taking custody of the money from the photo contest voters, its tax return should show HSUS making the grant to the local shelters (even though HSUS is really just a pass-through). In effect, that would boost how much HSUS is giving to local shelters, which already is just 1 percent of its budget.

And there’s another catch. HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle recently claimed that there are “more than 100,000 animals of all kinds HSUS staff provide direct care to every year.” That’s a figure for 2010, in which HSUS counted 68,000 spay/neuter surgeries that occurred during Spay Day.

However, here’s what it says on HSUS’s 2010 tax return, filed under penalty of perjury:

The HSUS and its affiliate Humane Society International launched an online pet photo contest. Entrants in the contest could fundraise on behalf of nearly 300 eligible spay day event organizers. Overall, more than 500 local organization, veterinary clinics, and individuals hosted Spay Day events in 49 states, the District of Columbia, four US territories, and 39 other countries, resulting in more than 68,000 spay/neuter surgeries worldwide.

So HSUS staff didn’t truly provide the direct care itself—it just hosted an event which “result[ed] in” spay/neuter surgeries—the actual work basically being done by other people. HSUS essentially ran a PR campaign and a photo contest. It's not that promoting spay/neuter is bad—but the way HSUS phrases it, you’d think Wayne Pacelle himself was out sterilizing pets.

You may recall that we obtained a Spay Day Memorandum of Understanding for last year’s event. The contract, between HSUS and a local group, shows what a great PR deal this is for HSUS. In exchange for (in this case) $2,000, the group receiving the money had to provide two glowing testimonials and two photographs for HSUS’s use.

Here’s our advice: Admire the cute pics that people submit, but bypass the big charade and just donate to your local shelter directly. If they have a spay/neuter subsidy fund, perfect.

HSUS: (Not) Doing Its Part for Shelter Animals

HumaneWatch is run by the Center for Consumer Freedom, which also runs the popular website PETAKillsAnimals.com. Since its inception a few years back, it’s gotten well over 4 million visitors. Most people are shocked to learn that a group for the “ethical treatment” of animals kills 2,000 dogs and cats a year—about 95 percent of the dogs and cats it takes in, in recent years.

As far as we can tell, HSUS itself doesn’t directly kill animals like PETA does. (PETA operates an “animal shelter,” something HSUS doesn’t even do.) But that’s not to say HSUS doesn’t help euthanasia efforts.

HSUS publishes a Euthanasia Training Manual, available on Amazon for $19.95. HSUS also co-produced an online video program, along with its quasi-legitimate university arm, on euthanizing pets and wildlife (only $129), as well as a separate workshop (for $190).

HSUS would likely reply to criticism by saying that euthanasia is presently a necessary evil. And we understand that argument. But coming from HSUS, it has a certain hollowness to it.

HSUS raises over $130 million from the public annually, yet gives only 1 percent of that to pet shelters. It doesn’t run any pet shelters. And the animals it does rescue, it dumps off at local shelters, sometimes with poor results.

So it would mean more if HSUS put more of its money into stopping euthanasia in the short term, whether that’s directly opening several pet shelters or giving more funding to shelters to allow them to keep more animals alive.

However, HSUS is all too happy to keep raising money off the backs of these dogs and cats. And it’s all too happy to write in fundraising letters that state, “It’s so hard to believe…that over 4,000,000 dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens die each year simply because no one loves them.”

Comforting words, we’re sure, to the dogs and cats that are put down while HSUS vacuums up donations.

HSUS: Token Help for Pet Shelters?

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with local humane societies, but it raises money like it is one by showing misleading ads full of dogs and cats. In reality, a minor fraction of HSUS’s efforts involve pets, and HSUS only gives 1 percent of the money is raises to hands-on pet shelters.

HSUS retorts that it provides services to shelters besides grant money. Sure—at a cost. But what does HSUS do for free?

We have noticed that HSUS is involved with the Shelter Pet Project, a series of PSAs encouraging adopting from shelters—a good thing. The project is a collaborative effort between HSUS, the Ad Council, Maddie’s Fund, and a firm called Draftfcb.

But how much of the effort is the genesis of HSUS taking initiative for local humane societies? Not very much, it would seem. Here’s how the head of Maddie’s Fund described the origin of the campaign:

It started in Chicago in 2007 with Howard Draft, a founder of Draftfcb, one of the world’s largest communications agency networks. A longtime animal lover, Draft was a great supporter of PAWS Chicago, the city’s largest No Kill humane organization, and wondered how he could help the No Kill movement could go national. He was on the board of directors of the Ad Council, and it was his idea to get them involved.  It was a little unusual; they had never taken on a project that wasn’t human focused before, but the rest of the board approved it.

PAWS Chicago didn’t have a national outreach, so they thought of Maddie’s Fund, a family foundation established in 1999 to help fund the creation of a No Kill nation. The Ad Council also wanted to have an organization that worked with a greater number of shelters, and selected HSUS as a partner because they have a huge network. With our funding and their network and the Ad Council’s expertise and Draftfcb’s creative talent, it was clear we would have a great partnership.

Just to keep this straight: This wasn’t HSUS’s idea at all, and HSUS was the last one to the party. You might not guess that from the press releases that HSUS puts out.

So what exactly has HSUS done? The ads were made by Draftfcb. The Ad Council specializes in getting donated airtime for PSAs. Maddie’s Fund refers to donating “our funding”--$1.8 million over 4 years, to be precise. (The Ad Council charges about $2.5-3 million for a three-year national campaign. Assuming that's the case here, is HSUS paying the remainder? We can't tell. But it still wouldn't equal what Maddie's Fund is chipping in.)

Maddie’s Fund says HSUS donated “their network,” apparently referring to HSUS’s knowledge of pet shelters. You’d think Petfinder could have helped out in a similar way. (In fact, Petfinder is the basis for the Shelter Pet Project’s website search engine.) Petfinder is certainly less controversial—there are plenty of good folks in the sheltering and rescue community who don’t have the highest opinion of HSUS.

Meanwhile, HSUS is saying things like “We launched the Shelter Pet Project with Maddie’s Fund and the Ad Council.” Isn’t it the other way around? They launched it, and HSUS was a bit of a “me too”?

We’ll just leave you with this quote from the late Cleveland Amory, a former HSUS board member a while back who left to found the anti-hunting Fund for Animals, where a young Wayne Pacelle cut his teeth before moving to HSUS:

“I’m not an admirer of HSUS. They’ve always been primarily a direct-mail operation, and what’s known in animal rights circles as a credit-grabber.”