Oct 11 2011

“Just a Handful” of Animal Extremists?

Over at Discovery.com, HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle agreed to answer a number of questions about his views of the “humane” movement. Given that Pacelle no longer espouses his previous radical views (openly, at least), we didn’t expect to see anything other than platitudes and vagaries. But we were unpleasantly surprised.

Stating his opinion of the difference between an activist and an extremist, Pacelle said the following:

There are just a handful of cases, truly a handful, in the history of the animal welfare movement where people have been very menacing or threatening or actually committed violence.

Um, really?

Let’s see what former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI John E. Lewis had to say on the matter of animal rights extremism in 2004:

[S]pecial interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and related extremists, has emerged as a serious domestic terrorist threat. … The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF and related groups have committed more than 1,100 criminal acts in the United States since 1976, resulting in damages conservatively estimated at approximately $110 million.

Yeah. Not exactly “just a handful.”

Now, Pacelle referenced violence in the animal welfare movement. We’d argue that this encompasses groups like the ALF, which undoubtedly view themselves as bettering animal welfare by “liberating” animals. Maybe Pacelle has a stricter definition of just, say, pet shelters, in which case he’d probably be correct. But in the context of the question, we interpret the answer in an expansive way.

For the record, HSUS has a statement against violence. But we certainly hope that its CEO isn’t glossing over the existence of fringe, terroristic elements in the larger animal liberation movement.

In fact, animal activists just the other week set fire to a fur store in Idaho, causing $100,000 in damage. Why isn’t HSUS speaking out more against this kind of violence? Given how many press releases that HSUS puts out (often several a day), can’t it afford to put out one against this violent act in the name of animals? If HSUS will offer a reward for the killing a single deer, as it did this summer, why won’t it offer one in this case of arson?

We’re sure Pacelle would agree with us that it’s good to be “humane” to humans, too. And it shouldn’t be a burden for HSUS to take more initiative in speaking out against violence—even “just a handful” of times.

Posted on 10/11/2011 at 02:25 PM by the HumaneWatch Team

Interviews • (6) Comments

Share

Comments 

TRUE AMIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVIST DON’T SET FIRES AT STORES TO GET THEIR POINT ACROSS! PEACE!

Posted by Michele on 10/11 at 05:18 PM

“I want the scum to think we are law enforcement.” former HSUS employee Scotlund Haisley, then Senior Director, Emergency Services, HSUS, referring to badges worn by the HSUS Emergency Rescue Team that mimic law enforcement badges. Former HSUS team member Ronnie Graves on the Carroll Cox radio show, October 18, 2009.


“There are two main goals behind ALF actions. The first is obviously to remove as many animals as possible from fur farms, vivisection labs, and other areas of abuse. The second is to cause as much economic damage to these industries and persons as possible.” Jerry Vlasak, Green Muze (Blog), Dec 7, 2008.

“Businesses are terrified. They have no idea what I’m going to do next.” Ingrid Newkirk, UK Financial Times, Nov 7, 2008.

“Based on my time living with rats and mice in Washington, D.C., I have always assumed that animals will escape such fires, since their senses of smell, wariness of such dangers, and ability to move through almost invisible holes is so impressive, but I think that we should not dismiss the possibility that they, also, will be harmed. These reflections do not, of course, rule out burning meat trucks. And they don’t mean that when the next slaughterhouse or vivisection lab burns down, I will denounce those who carried out the burning, or that I will feel anything other than joy in my heart ... “  Bruce Friedrich, quoted via Consumer Freedom, September 21, 2006

“It won’t ruin our movement if someone gets killed in an animal rights action. It’s going to happen sooner or later. The Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front—sooner or later there’s going to be someone getting hurt. And we have to accept that fact. It’s going to happen. It’s not going to hurt our movement. Our movement will go on. And it’s important that we not let the bully pulpit of the FBI and the other oppression agencies stop us from what we’re doing. They are the violent ones. They are the terrorists ... we have to keep doing what we’re doing.” Jerry Vlasak, PCRM spokesman and Director of ADL, speaking at the Animal Rights 2004 convention (July 8-11).

“I am convinced that we can shut down a lot of these animal abuse industries whether the public agrees with it or not. And whether these industries are shut down by violent or non-violent acts in the end, to me, doesn’t really matter. David Barbarash, Spokesperson for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) No Compromise, BBC Documentary, “Beastly Business” (October 1, 2000)

“The employees. are not good people, and do not deserve to enjoy the Holiday season. Let’s make this one so stressful, they won’t be able to balance their hot cider between shaking hands.” E-mail message from (SHAC) Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty dated December 15, 2002

“I think [food producers] should appreciate that we’re only targeting their property. Because frankly I think it’s time to start targeting them.” Rodney Coronado, convicted felon for the 1992 firebombing of Michigan State University research facility (57 months in federal prison, 3 years probation), speaking at the “Conference on Organized Resistance,” American University, January 26, 2003.

All these people are ‘animal rights activists’.

And HSUS doesn’t really distance themselves from them in any meaningful way. They just kind of ignore them, as they ignored the arson of the furrier, and the destruction of Portland OR’s oldest furrier a few years ago.

Posted by Lynn on 10/12 at 01:52 AM

I was glad to see the photo of the beagles stolen by animal rights activists from a university in the UK on this article.  The only one that was recovered had been neutered and someone had done a hack job on one ear to remove a tattoo.  Where were the others?.  Did they kill them all?  I remember after it happened ALF had a photo of some of the activists hiding behind their black masks like the sniviling cowards they are, holding a very pregnant bitch in the air to show her swollen belly so they could taunt and gloat.  I was sickened by the sight the utterly terrified expression on her face.  It made me very angry to see how callous they were toward the animals.  At a time when she should have been in a familiar safe place with people that loved her and understood how to care for her, she was held hostage by ignorant abusive dysfunctional control freaks.  They can abuse an animal and celebrate the suffering they give to those creatures while depriving the owners of the joy of their companionship.  They are very sick.  I trust God to give them their just deserts.  It’s a long road that doesn’t turn.

Posted by maggie b on 10/12 at 11:12 AM

@ Maggie B - How VERY well said.

There is more callous brutality among AR activists than ever there were among, say, dog breeders or farmers - or even researchers. AR activists really don’t seem to have a true grasp of the way animals should be treated - their dogma addresses an ideology (that animal ownership = animal abuse) which does not encompass any actual animal husbandry. When it comes to the point, they don’t appear to recognize abusive behaviour when it occurs. When you point out some policy they have embraced which actually results in *worse* treatment of animals, they simply shout you down, and refuse to engage in discussion.

We do have to make the road turn, though. We are now living with 30 years of very bad animal law, due to our willingness to appease these extremists, and our craven buckling to their emotional blackmail. Their attitude that ‘if you don’t support us, you ‘support animal abuse’ has served them very well, but the reality is that they are the only ones who support animal abuse. They desperately need animal abuse to keep the public support they have, and to increase it.

So .. we need not only to squash the activists at the source (and HSUS would be an excellent place to start), but we also have to re-educate the very well indoctrinated animal loving public who have fallen for the blackmail.

Posted by Lynn on 10/12 at 02:59 PM

Maggie and Lynn.  Both the hard core environmental and animal rights movements are an ends justifies the means mentality.  They don’t care what gets destroyed in the process of making their point, and they are completely willing to destroy that which they claim they are “protecting” in the name of their “movement.”  It is a sick, sick, scary mentality and I have seen it up close and personal.  I used to work for the Forest Service and I had the hard core enviros hanging from my trees, running log trucks off the road, planting dead wildlife and fish in streams and trying to claim destruction of habitat and destroying government wildlands and streams all in the name of “protecting” it, and all so they could try to claim that we were the ones that were “murdering” trees.  It is a religious fanaticism and anyone who thinks that they can be reasoned with is naive and delusional.  They are not rational and they will kill if they think it advance their cause.  They are truly disgusting, hate-filled humans.

Posted by Chris on 10/13 at 01:39 AM

@ Chris - I agree absolutely.

I see the greater problem with this as not being the hard core activists themselves, who as you say cannot be reasoned with, but the huge portion of the general public who, knowing little about the real issues embrace the ‘cause’. Without them, the hard core extremists would get nowhere.

The ‘foot soldiers’ - the followers who accept the public message (‘stop animal abuse’; ‘end environmental rape’) must be re-educated re animal husbandry and the environment and convinced of the insanity of both groups. Until and unless that happens, getting rid of the *organizations* which have indoctrinated them will have no effect, because those foot soldiers will just continue to spread the doctrine.

Just as one example - we have 30 years of AR law to live with, unless we can get it repealed, even if HSUS loses its NPO status and is stripped and destroyed by tax penalties. The same is true of environmental law.

These laws couldn’t have been emplaced except with considerable public support in most cases. Certainly that’s true of the anti animal ownership laws.

So .. our work is cut out for us.

Posted by Lynn on 10/13 at 06:28 PM

Comments are moderated, and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. Extremely lengthy comments and those that contain obscenities may be edited before they are posted.

Add a comment:

Name:

Email: (will not be displayed)

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

« Back to blog homepage