Ive Always Wondered Options

[DonnieMacLeod]

More Heartbreak for you John.

HSUS Always Has Another Angle- (06/18)
Other
Join our e-mail alert list


Reprinted with Permission from The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, WA), May 17, 2001 Thursday, Rich Landers
HSUS Always Seems to Have Another Angle

After the November elections, I received a phone call from Wayne Pacelle, the handsome talking face for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

I’ve never received a phone call from Pacelle for the hundreds of columns and stories I’ve devoted to wildlife conservation. This was no exception.

Pacelle called from his East Coast office to tell me I misrepresented him in a story I had written about the lies and deception HSUS had spewed across Washington last fall.

HSUS was the financial clout that rammed Initiative 713, the anti-trapping measure, down our throats.

Notice that Pacelle didn’t say anything in my story was wrong, because nothing was. He just felt that it “misrepresented” HSUS as an outside propaganda group. In reality, he said, HSUS does immeasurable good for animals in Washington.

As usual, Pacelle chose his words carefully. It’s true that one can barely measure the good HSUS has done for wildlife in Washington.

I told Pacelle I wanted to set the record straight. I pleaded at least four times for examples of HSUS commitment in Washington other than introducing costly anti-hunting and anti-wildlife management initiatives.

He had no immediate answer but promised to send me the list of good things HSUS does in this state.

That was six months ago, and I presume Pacelle is still searching.

Here’s a little bit of what I’ve found out about HSUS while waiting for Pacelle’s call.

First, the Humane Society of the United States is not the same critter as the Humane Society that does the thankless work of running local animal shelters.

The Spokane Humane Society verified that it receives no funds from HSUS to care for the continuing epidemic of abandoned and abused pets.

The HSUS Comparative Financial Operations Report for 1999, a general breakdown of income and expenses the group provides to media, indicates expenses of nearly $55 million.

What was the highest single line item expenditure? Fundraising - more than $16 million worth.

HSUS, based in Washington, D.C., is the nation’s largest animal advocacy organization. In 1995, it had raised nearly $40 million from two million donors. That’s enough money to run an animal shelter in every state and have plenty left over to spay, neuter, feed and save thousands of cats and dogs every year. However, HSUS did not run a single animal shelter.

HSUS was under investigation for illegal financial activity, according to the Washington Post. Meanwhile, the chief executive, John Hoyt, earned $237,871 per year plus perks amounting to tens of thousands more. The group’s president, Paul Irwin, earned $209,051.

This is why you don’t see animal rights groups working with wildlife biologists to solve management problems. There’s no money in it.

In 1996, Wayne Pacelle was instrumental in duping Washington environmental groups into believing there was a need to ban the already strictly controlled practice of hunting cougars with hounds. The initiative passed.

The Washington Legislature had to come back and reauthorize limited hound hunting after two kids were mauled by cougars in northeastern Washington and thousands of reports were received about cougars stalking pets and stock.

The state has spent more than a million dollars responding to the increase in cougar problems. That’s a service that used to be provided for free by hunters.

HSUS has money to burn on these contrived issues. Unfortunately, the in-state groups that tried to counter the outside propagandists spent money that otherwise would have been channeled to the unheralded work of real conservation.

Pacelle fabricates issues in order to raise money to justify his six-digit salary.

The anti-trapping initiative that passed in Washington last November was another example of a contrived issue boosted with outside HSUS money.

From the voter’s pamphlet to the television screen, HSUS misrepresented the value of controlled trapping. The measure passed.

Washington’s rural citizens are once again paying the price. Orchardists and tree farmers are finding themselves with limited defenses against gophers. Ranchers are having to lean more heavily on costly and dangerous aerial gunning to reduce their calving losses to coyotes.

And, as predicted by experts in my November story, fish hatcheries are being affected, too. The Department of Fish and Wildlife says the initiative appears to prohibit using body-gripping traps that traditionally had been set to protect fish against otters and other predators at fish hatcheries.

Perfect, say some animal rights groups, which already are putting pressure on the Boy Scouts to discontinue offering a fishing merit badge.

Wayne Pacelle and his ilk always have another angle.

AND THE RICH GET RICHER (from WLFA)

Did you ever wonder exactly how much money the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has to expend on its efforts to end hunting, fishing, trapping? The answer is astonishing.

According to the HSUS’ Internal Revenue Service Form 990, the organization earned total revenue of $67,170,449 during 1999, the most recent year for which figures are available. Its total assets were $107,886,703.

With such extraordinary funding, one would think the local animal shelters that HSUS refuses to assist would be able to provide their animals with mineral water in gold doggie bowls. However, less than one percent of its 1999 income was given to wildlife, animal habitat and sheltering in the form of grants and allocations.

The HSUS continues to solicit Americans through membership requests that promise to help local animal shelters. In actuality, it is using 99 percent of its funding to stop the use of animals for any purpose, including hunting, fishing and trapping.




Information on this website can be reprinted with a citation to the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and www.ussportsmen.org

[Bean]

Well, I'm sorry, RF, maybe you can't, or won't, appreciate it; but, if I see either a human OR an animal being mistreated by another human, I'll at least TRY to do something to stop it. I couldn't live with myself if I just walked on by.

You insinuate that you would do something beyond "education". You ignore that the "education" you provide, mainly consists of "Because Bean said so."

For Pete's sake...lolol...There is a fairly high degree of realism that sits right along side the dreamer part of my mind, so I certainly don't have any expectations that anyone is going to do or not do anything, based on anything that I have to say in particular. I'm just doing what anyone else who takes the time to post is doing...expressing opinions and thoughts on stuff.

I suppose I could become a lurker and not voice an opinion on controversial subjects, and that would suit most people just fine ( (IMG:http://www.ethicdiscussion.com/discuss/style_emoticons/default/icon_lol.gif) ); but, I don't know, I find participation in spirited discussion to be much more satisfying than standing in the corner of the room not saying a thing, and I'm more than willing to hear what others have to say about my input.

[john smith]

You are all much better debaters than I am and you do a great job at luring me into your traps with your questions. And of course I always fall for it. So here are all of my views so you no longer have to do that.

Im against fur farming, trapping, vivisection, inhumane factory farms (not all factory farms are inhumane), circuses, cockfighting, rodeos, and pointlessly killing animals (that includes dogs, snails, flies, and rats.)

I am ok with hunting and factory farming if the animals are treated very well in captivity. I am ok with swatting flies if those flies could threaten huumans in any way. Im ok with poisoning mice or rats if they are a threat to humans. Whenever animals present a threa to humans I am ok with killing them. There you have it. Now hurry up and find two parts in it that contradict each other. (IMG:http://www.ethicdiscussion.com/discuss/style_emoticons/default/icon_bootyshake.gif)

[supertwist]

You are all much better debaters than I am and you do a great job at luring me into your traps with your questions. And of course I always fall for it. So here are all of my views so you no longer have to do that.

Interesting that you think the questions are to "trap" you. Perhaps the questions are intended to make you think about your views. Guess that didn't occur to you, hmmm?

[Origam]

Depends on how and why the dog was killed.

His scenario was: "So lets say that a man bought a puppy at a store and starved it to death."

He doesn't indicate if his scenario is about a deliberate act of starving the dog for fun/amusement, or if it's starvation through an incredible amount of ignorance and/or neglect.

Again.. it all depends. Is the men fully competent or is he mentally disabled? Does this man have some disease like old-timers or dementia?

If the dog was starved because the owner was a lazy ass who couldn't be bothered to feed his dog, than he should be fined and given some sort of community service. The jails are over-crowded as is... why add to it with any and every little crime?

[john smith]

Interesting that you think the questions are to "trap" you. Perhaps the questions are intended to make you think about your views. Guess that didn't occur to you, hmmm?

Your right and you have made me question my views. In fact I've even changed my views. Now I think that its ok to kill animals of the animals present a threat to humans.

[john smith]

If the dog was starved because the owner was a lazy ass who couldn't be bothered to feed his dog, than he should be fined and given some sort of community service. The jails are over-crowded as is... why add to it with any and every little crime?

If dogs can feel just as much pain as humans than why is it worse for a human to feel pain than it is for a dog.

[Festus Hagen]

You are all much better debaters than I am and you do a great job at luring me into your traps with your questions. And of course I always fall for it. So here are all of my views so you no longer have to do that.

Im against fur farming, trapping, vivisection, inhumane factory farms (not all factory farms are inhumane), circuses, cockfighting, rodeos, and pointlessly killing animals (that includes dogs, snails, flies, and rats.)

I am ok with hunting and factory farming if the animals are treated very well in captivity. I am ok with swatting flies if those flies could threaten huumans in any way. Im ok with poisoning mice or rats if they are a threat to humans. Whenever animals present a threa to humans I am ok with killing them. There you have it. Now hurry up and find two parts in it that contradict each other. (IMG:http://www.ethicdiscussion.com/discuss/style_emoticons/default/icon_bootyshake.gif)

Then I would recommend that you acquire a more learned approach to your arguments so you may debate with those who disagree with you.

I am ok with swatting flies if those flies could threaten huumans in any way. Im ok with poisoning mice or rats if they are a threat to humans. Whenever animals present a threa to humans I am ok with killing them.

Well, since flies, mice and rats are in my line of site, they pose a potential threat, i.e., disease ridden vermin and will be dealt with accordingly, either by hand, boot, trap or weapon.

I believe the phrase "potential threat" would work within your framework.

Example #1: Police officer being charged by man with a knife. Officer hasn't been stabbed as of yet, but the potential of being stabbed is pretty damn good. Officer draws his Glock .40 and double taps the dude, thereby ending the potential threat.

Example #2: There is a mouse in my house urinating on my canned goods. I mean hell, I sure as hell don't want to be potentially exposed to leptospirosis. I put out a Victor snap trap baited with peanut butter. I find the mouse dead in my kitchen the next day. The potential threat has been dealt with.

By the way, if you want to know if mice have been pissing on your shit, shine and ultraviolet light around the area. Rodent piss glows green.

[Origam]

If the dog was starved because the owner was a lazy ass who couldn't be bothered to feed his dog, than he should be fined and given  some sort of community service. The jails are over-crowded as is... why add to it with any and every little crime?

If dogs can feel just as much pain as humans than why is it worse for a human to feel pain than it is for a dog.

I'm not saying dogs don't feel pain. That wasn't part of the question. You asked if people here thought they should do jail time.

I'm very aware of the fact animals feel pain and it makes me sick to think anyone could hurt an animal in anyway. Have you ever had to hold an animal that beens abused and there is no chance of saving it while it's put down? I could tell you a few horror stories about that.. I've done it quite a few times. Had a ferret that was found wrapped in fishing wire.. he had to have surgery to remove the wire it was wrapped so tight, he also swallowed some from chewing it.. had to have surgery for that. If I knew who the person was that did that to him, I would gladly do the same to them. Breaks my heart when someone does something to intentionally hurt an animal.. however, being in the line of work I've been in the last 3 years and also having worked for CPS.. I tend to feel more for humans. Ever have to write a death report John? Tell you what.. it's easier to write one about a dog than a human.

But... then again, I do what I can to help animals around me and I also donate heavily to organizations that try to get laws passed for stricter laws about animal abuse.

I think that it's a shame that a lot of people don't treat animal better.

[Festus Hagen]

I am ok with hunting and factory farming if the animals are treated very well in captivity.

John, what's your definition of treated very well?

[DonnieMacLeod]

The thing is we do not wish to attack you or shred you John but I certainly would like you to think things through. Go back through this thread from the beginning and reread it. The reason it is not easy to debate us is not because of your lack of ability or intelligence. It is because you were to focused on your heart,compassion and you fail to see the logic that is lost in that focus.

THe ARA have two things against them.

(1) Their desire to create a monied empire which will destroy the economic system of supply and demand that everything from farming (both plant and animal as they are inter related ) to Fishery to pet industries. They have expressed a desire to cause extinction of all domesticated animals John. Think of what that means.

(2) They are a philosophy based organization which is driven by emotionalism devoid of the tangents called reality and what happens as a result of their philosophy.

[RobertMartinHill...]

If the dog was starved because the owner was a lazy ass who couldn't be bothered to feed his dog, than he should be fined and given  some sort of community service. The jails are over-crowded as is... why add to it with any and every little crime?

If dogs can feel just as much pain as humans than why is it worse for a human to feel pain than it is for a dog.

how do you know this?

and what do you mean by feel?

do you mean react to damage?

or do you mean understand the relationship in a loarger context and remember it
in a context?


i personally do not care if you are against things
it is if you wish to stop them.
if you are against vivisection
then you are endagering my life.
that i care about.

[Beaglemutts]

    I am an ara and I value the life of a dog just as must as the life of a human so I would want the man to spend the rest of his life in jail for pointlessly killing a dog.

Pointlessly killing? What would be a legitimate reason for killing an animal in your eyes? Would picking up dogs and cats off the streets and killing them be considered a pointless form of killing? What about killing animals because you can't house them any more?

[Beaglemutts]

Your right and you have made me question my views. In fact I've even changed my views. Now I think that its ok to kill animals of the animals present a threat to humans.

John, why do you call yourself a vegan? Actually, you are not one. Veganism is not only what you eat but also what you believe in. Since you do believe in humans killing animals for human benefit, you are not a vegan. I guess it just sounds like a good 'buzz' word for you.

[supertwist]

BEAGLEMUTTS! (IMG:http://www.ethicdiscussion.com/discuss/style_emoticons/default/icon_grouphug.gif) (IMG:http://www.ethicdiscussion.com/discuss/style_emoticons/default/icon_kiss.gif) (IMG:http://www.ethicdiscussion.com/discuss/style_emoticons/default/icon_clap.gif)