In the age of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, it’s easier than ever to directly interact with practically anyone and everyone. And in response to some of the charges we’ve leveled against the Humane Society of the United States, some people have taken full advantage of social media to ask HSUS a few tough questions.
(More power to them. We’re confident our research can withstand scrutiny, even from HSUS’s spin machine.)
On Monday we spotted a Twitter conversation between HSUS and someone we presume is a HumaneWatch reader. He asked HSUS about its support for Michael Vick and its lack of financial support for pet shelters. And as you might expect, the animal rights group didn’t exactly have good answers.
Here’s the full conversation:
If you look up “dodgy” in the dictionary, chances are you’ll see a picture of HSUS’s Twitter page. Asked why it shares a minuscule amount of its budget with pet shelters, HSUS could only reply that Worth magazine has rated HSUS as fiscally responsible.
By the way, HSUS is no longer one of Worth magazine’s Top Ten Most Fiscally Responsible Charities. It was left off of the 2011 list in favor of the Kentucky Humane Society—a group which, unlike HSUS, actually cares for dogs and cats. And in any event, nobody asked HSUS about Worth.
Similarly, HSUS replied to another Twitter inquiry about its lack of pet shelter grants by claiming it spends 70 percent of its budget on programs. This is demonstrably untrue, and really just another diversion.
It’s interesting that HSUS admits it doesn’t have “a separate listing” of pet shelter grants. Oddly enough, we’ve put one together using HSUS’s own tax returns. And it shows HSUS spends less than one percent of its millions financially supporting pet shelters. Saying that number “is not an accurate figure” might hold water if HSUS actually kept that “separate listing.” (Otherwise, how would it know?)
One of these days, a hard-hitting journalist will really scrutinize HSUS’s priorities and spending habits. And spin won’t cut it.