HSUS has replied by trying to draw a distinction between its members and the average American. Wayne Pacelle recently told the Associated Press that “HSUS donors understand its role" (reporter's paraphrase).

It turns out Pacelle could hardly be more wrong.

We conducted an online survey of HSUS supporters and received some shocking results. Here’s the bottom line, from a survey of 1,010 self-identified HSUS donors, who answered "yes" to the question "Have you ever donated to the Humane Society of the United States?":

• Just 1 percent of HSUS's donors list "farm animal protection" as their primary reason for supporting the group.
• Seventy-four percent of donors give to HSUS to either help pet shelters or reduce the number of animals euthanized each year.
• Ninety—yes, 90—percent of HSUS's donors were unaware that it gives just 1 percent of its budget to local pet shelters.
• Knowing HSUS's non-support of shelters, 80 percent of HSUS's own donors think the group “misleads people into thinking that it supports local humane societies and pet shelters.”
• Nearly 50 percent of HSUS's donors say they are less likely to support the group now that they know HSUS gives so little to local pet shelters.

This evidence should leave no doubt that HSUS relies on misconception—the notion that it’s a real “humane society.” Most Americans—and we can now say most HSUS donors—believe that HSUS is mostly about supporting pet shelters.

HSUS needs this false perception to raise the hundreds of millions it collects. The poll clearly shows that half of donors would be less likely to give now that they know how little of their donations goes to local pet shelters. HSUS must hope they stay in the dark.

Wayne Pacelle can no longer claim that HSUS donors “understand” what HSUS is up to. And all the rhetoric about how HSUS is clear about what it does not only seems like a cop-out, but it comes across as blaming the victim. After all, more than 85 percent of the animals in HSUS’s manipulative ads are cats and dogs.

There are a few reform options. HSUS could prominently put a large-print disclaimer on all of its ads that it is independent of local humane societies. (Right now, less than 1 percent of HSUS’s TV ads have a disclaimer—and it’s in small font.) HSUS could stop manipulating viewers with a disproportionate amount of pets. And HSUS could simply change its name, replacing “Humane Society” with something more appropriate. (The “Vegan Lawyers and Lobbyists Society”?)

HSUS won’t, of course. As regular readers already know well, HSUS wants to get rid most human uses of animals—most notably in agriculture. That’s not the goal of a cat-and-dog group—that’s the goal of a PETA-type group. It’s no surprise then that HSUS leaders cut their teeth in radical animal rights/liberation groups.

And that’s certainly not the goal of HSUS’s supporters. Which is why we’re going to make sure they find out the truth.

Full results (PDF):

1. What is the primary reason you support the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)?

• 40%     To help HSUS care for homeless dogs and cats in animal shelters and humane socities.
• 3%       To help HSUS's animal rescue team.
• 15%     To raise awareness about animal cruelty.
• 34%     To reduce the number of animals put down in shelters each year.
• 1%       To support HSUS's farm animal protection programs.
• 6%       To support HSUS's political lobbying for anti-animal cruelty legislation.

2. Were you aware that HSUS gives just 1 percent of its budget to local pet shelters?

• 90%    No
• 10%    Yes

3. Now that you know that HSUS gives just one percent of its budget to local pet shelters, do you think the HSUS misleads people into thinking that it supports local humane societies and pet shelters?

• 6%     Not at all
• 13%   Not really
• 28%   Somewhat
• 52%   Very Much

4. Now that you know that HSUS gives just one percent of its budget to local pet shelters, are you more or less likely to support HSUS?

• 21%    Much Less Likely
• 26%    Less Likely
• 8%      More Likely
• 6%      Much More Likely
• 38%    Neither

Survey Methodology

HumaneWatch conducted a nationally representative online survey of 1,010 Humane Society of the United States donors from April 21 - 25, 2012. The survey's margin of error is ±3.1%.

And what kind of aid did DVNF provide? Apparently the charity sent useless gifts of 2,600 bags of cough drops and 2,200 little bottles of sanitizer, and 11,520 bags of coconut M&M's to a veterans center in Alabama. Talk about making a difference.

That’s certainly a questionable arrangement—and probably one not made clear to DVNF’s presumably many donors. Apparently, Quadriga owns two subsidiaries that spun off from a different veterans charity called Paralyzed Veterans of America—another F-rated charity. (PVA also has had questionable spending issues.) And it turns out that Quadriga also has provided services to the F-rated charity SPCA International—with 99 percent of SPCAI’s debt owed to Quadriga as of 2010.

And guess who another Quadriga client is? That’s right: The Humane Society of the United States. According to HSUS’s tax returns, it paid Quadriga $8.2 million in 2009 and $9.6 million in 2010.

Of course, considering HSUS’s fundraising track record, we can’t say we’re surprised they’ve shacked up with this firm. We don’t know for sure, but it wouldn’t surprise us if Quadriga is behind a lot of those HSUS doodads, tchotchkes, and other junk HSUS gifts. If HSUS keeps this up, maybe its charity grade will drop from a “D” to an “F.”

To be fair—what does Quadriga have to offer in rebuttal? Why, threat of legal action. From CNN:

When asked about Quadriga's relationship with DVNF, spokesman Ron Torossian told CNN in an e-mail that the company is privately owned and "we do not discuss specific client relationships." But according to IRS filings, Quadriga has been paid for direct-mail services by DVNF since the charity was founded in 2007.

Torossian did say in his e-mail, "At times, Quadriga chooses to invest money in partnerships with non-profit organizations. Sometimes it is a successful business venture, while others it is not."

In a subsequent e-mail, Torossian said Quadriga had lost $7 million investing in veterans nonprofit organizations.

When CNN asked whether that included the Disabled Veterans National Foundation, he said "your facts remain woefully inadequate," but he declined to elaborate in a later e-mail exchange. He also threatened to sue CNN on behalf of Quadriga.

Uh-huh.

Starting to get the picture? The only real question is what’s worse: Using veterans to scam Americans, or using cats and dogs?

Millions of doggie dollars that go to the Humane Society of the United States have wound up with Quadriga. This is just one more reason people who want to help shelter pets should give directly to their local shelters, and not to HSUS.

It appears many people took action—and thanks to all who did. Unfortunately, here’s the response a reader received from Penguin USA’s publicity manager:

After much consideration, Penguin USA chose The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) as the charity partner for Read Humane. 

Please know, the funds donated as part of Read Humane are restricted to the Animal Rescue Team.  Funding from Read Humane cannot be used for lobbying purposes or any purpose other than the Animal Rescue Team. The Animal Rescue Team works directly with pets in need in several ways.

The HSUS's Animal Rescue Team works with law enforcement to investigate illegal animal cruelty, targeting the worst cases of animal abuse nationwide. Every year the Team rescues thousands of animals from puppy mills, animal fighting operations, hoarders, and other situations where animals suffer from life-threatening cruelty. They also provide expert animal rescue response at natural disasters.

We recognize there are many worthy organizations dedicated to animal welfare.  At Penguin, we love our pets and by partnering with the Animal Rescue Team, we wanted to make a small contribution to creating a world free of animal cruelty. 

This is woefully inadequate. While Penguin’s heart is in the right place in earmarking the money for the animal rescue team, that still frees up $25,000 for HSUS to use in attacking farmers. Money is fungible; HSUS can just take out $25,000 it had already allocated to the team’s budget.

Yellow Tail wines, which also had earmarked money for HSUS’s animal rescue team, had the courage to issue a mea culpa and pledge not to give to HSUS in the future. Even if Penguin is mum on its future plans, hopefully it learned enough so that it won’t make the same mistake twice.

There’s an easy way to send a message: It’s time to boycott Penguin.

We’re not calling for a massive bonfire, but please write Penguin and let them know that you don’t appreciate their support for a deceptive animal rights group—a phony, wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing “humane society” that sucks up dollars out of local communities and hoards them in hedge funds ($32 million in 2010) and pension plans.

Please email Penguin Books and (politely) let them know what you think. If you need some background on HSUS and its national deception to pass along, follow the links. (Interesting side note: Penguin is an Australian company. Maybe they should call up Yellow Tail and ask what happened when the wine company pledged $100,000 to HSUS.)

May is National Pet Month. And the best way to help pets is by supporting local shelters—not a national group that does too little for dogs and cats.

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

• HSUS doctor raises specter of “mad pig disease”—which doesn’t exist—but is eerily quiet about Salmonella outbreak from soy tempeh
• HSUS’s preferred pig housing led to decrease in pork supply and bankrupt farmers in the U.K. (that’s the idea, after all)
• Nebraska state Senate candidate: “They [HSUS] use the emotions surrounding pets to get a […] foothold”
• Remember: HSUS sees cage-free eggs as a step to “get[ting] rid of the entire industry”
• Featured Shelter: Indiana’s Home for Friendless Animals (Donate. Volunteer. Adopt.)

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”

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.

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.)

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.

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.