HumaneWatch interview with 2nd yr vet student

[milkmaid]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Great interview with a 2nd year vet student at Iowa State about the HSUS.

http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/the_humanewatch_interview_jake_geis/

(Thought I'd give y'all an excuse to join me in procrastinating studying for finals 😛)

 

[racccjlm]

Great interview with a 2nd year vet student at Iowa State about the HSUS.

http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/the_humanewatch_interview_jake_geis/

(Thought I'd give y'all an excuse to join me in procrastinating studying for finals 😛)

He's still in Nebraska right now - he'll be at Iowa next year (contract program between Nebraska and Iowa).

 

[laitmanvet]

He had a lot of great things to say about how influential (in a good way) veterinarians can be. Plus, it was nice he was so open about this: "I'd love it if we could take the high road and just dismiss HSUS as the crazies they are, like PETA."

On a different note...
I think this comment at the end is a little bizarre: "I went into "vet med" not for the medicine, but specifically because I wanted a career where I would work hands-on with livestock every day." I suppose if you have a greater goal with medicine as a way to get you there than that's fair, but shouldn't our careers always be focused around medicine and health? Maybe I'm focusing too much on that sentence and taking it out of context.

 

[sumstorm]

I think this comment at the end is a little bizarre: "I went into “vet med” not for the medicine, but specifically because I wanted a career where I would work hands-on with livestock every day." I suppose if you have a greater goal with medicine as a way to get you there than that's fair, but shouldn't our careers always be focused around medicine and health?

Why should our careers always be focused around medicine and health? My career is likely to be focused around the human animal bond (as it has been for the past decade+.) There are DVM's that are astronauts, politicians, EPA directors, etc. Their focus may be discovery of life elsewhere, improving live for humans, or improving the environment? Are these greater goals? That depends on your view point. How about researchers in vet med? Several are working on finding ways to more effectively use AI in pigs....does that really improve health? If so, could it deteriorate health of one or some for the benefit (health) of others?

I tried avoiding vet med (a statement that ticks off a lot of fellow students) because I thought I needed a higher purpose to be here and I didn't WANT to spend 4 more years in school paying tons of money to do this if I didn't have to. But, everything in my career is pushing me this way, so I am here.

 

[laitmanvet]

Why should our careers always be focused around medicine and health? My career is likely to be focused around the human animal bond (as it has been for the past decade+.) There are DVM's that are astronauts, politicians, EPA directors, etc. Their focus may be discovery of life elsewhere, improving live for humans, or improving the environment? Are these greater goals? That depends on your view point. How about researchers in vet med? Several are working on finding ways to more effectively use AI in pigs....does that really improve health? If so, could it deteriorate health of one or some for the benefit (health) of others?

I tried avoiding vet med (a statement that ticks off a lot of fellow students) because I thought I needed a higher purpose to be here and I didn't WANT to spend 4 more years in school paying tons of money to do this if I didn't have to. But, everything in my career is pushing me this way, so I am here.

Point taken, but I'm using health in a VERY broad sense, as in the improvement of life. This of course can encompass human health. OK, so lets say there is a veterinarian in politics (or the EPA director)...and he/she is an policy advisor. Ultimately this veterinarian is likely advising or writing on issues that affect health. And in your case, the purpose of investigating the human-animal bond will likely touch upon some aspect of improving health.

And I don't know what AI in pigs is but supposedly it will benefit human health (right?). I want to go into translational veterinary research with the goal of having animals serve as a midpoint between bench research and bedside (human) treatment. No, it may not benefit every animal I work with, especially in the beginning of a study. My hopes are that as techniques and treatments can be improved in animals they can be applied to humans and animals.

Of course people will have a higher purpose at vet school...but ask yourself ultimately, whats the point? what is the underlying purpose?

 

[lunajett]

A bunch of my classmates are already drooling all over this guy's interview like he is the second coming. I may be setting myself up to be shot here (especially since I'm at a midwest vet school where the HSUS is widely assumed to be evil incarnate, but I gotta say, I disagree.

First, I don't see why there has to be this battle between the HSUS and Humanewatch. Obviously, people on both sides come from different perspectives, but maybe they both have some validity. Out here in the midwest, the attitude is generally "anybody who supports HSUS is ignorant/stupid/wants to kill off agriculture, etc." I don't see HSUS as "crazies", or anything close to PETA. I may not agree with everything they do, but on balance I think they do far more good than bad and I am proud to support them.

I'm not going back to re-read every word of the interview but a couple things made me go "WTF?!" So he talks about the overpopulation of horses, and "if we could just slaughter more of them everything would be fine but the evil HSUS took away that option". Huh? I haven't had much equine medicine yet, but why isn't he pushing more castration? If you've got overpopulation, rather than killing off the "surplus" isn't the best solution to limit new births? What am I missing here? I'm not saying the slaughter law is perfect, but shouldn't any animal lover look at thousands of "surplus" horses being slaughtered and think "there must be a better way?" HSUS looks for better ways (sometimes imperfectly), but I think the attitude among many of the haters is just "hey, we live here, we been doing it this way forever, we love our animals so you cityfolks just butt out and stop trying to tell us what to do." It's not constructive, and gets nobody closer to truly humane solutions.

He talks abotu HSVMA as somehow trying to eliminate vets or put them out of work? HSVMA goes into rural/underserved/unserved areas of the world and provides free care to animals who otherwise would likely never get any care at all. Somebody tell me how that is a bad thing and how anybody who professes to care about animals can be against that? It's not taking business from other vets - these people who can barely put food on the tables themselves likely aren't spending a lot on vet care with or without HSVMA. It gets the animals needed care, and provides fantastic training opportunities for vet students. Frankly, if you're a vet student and DON'T support HSVMA, I don't know why the heck you're getting into this field.

He rails about HSUS claiming "vets are in the pocket of big biz, only out for money, etc." Well, sorry, but a lot of the profession IS very tightly intertwined with industry, and the needs of industry and the food supply DO take priority over the welfare of animals. Many many vets are paid to make sure animals are healthy so they can be killed and eaten - there is an inherent conflict there. If we were ONLY about the animal's welfare, wouldn't we be NOT marching it to slaughter? And I'm not a "crazy vegan", I love a good burger. I'm just sayin', let's not pretend "it's all for the good of the animals." Even in small animal practice, it's only been recently AVMA has begun to stand up against cropping and docking. I for one think it's shameful AVMA has not taken a stand sooner against this laregly unnecessary mutilation of animals. And why didn't they? Because it brought money into vet clinics, as many people felt their family pet must meet some stupid arbitrary breed standard which subjected the pet to needless surgery and in 9 out of 10 cases had zero benefit to the animal and may actually made him worse off. I think it's a black mark on the profession and shows that yes, well, sometimes, we do let money take priority over the animals.

I know a big slam on the HSUS is they don't give enough to local shelters, which also makes me scratch my head. If people give to the HSUS thinking they are giving to their local shelters, well, they might be a little stupid and should be more careful where they sent their money. I've never had any confusion over this; it's not hard to comprehend that my local shelter and the HSUS do different things, and I'm glad to give to both to support the different things they do. If you want money to go only to your local shelter, walk down the street and give them a check, don't mail it to D.C. - that's not hard to figure out.

I'll gladly support HSUS for all the big picture work they do. The legislation (which I'm sure many on here won't agree with, but hey whatever), the rescue/disaster relief work (look at what they did post-Katrina, and the rebuilding efforts they funded there), the HSVMA, the education efforts, etc.

 

[Trilt]

Nothing against this particular interview, but does HumaneWatch in general bother anyone else? It is one thing to report about the activities of HSUS, it is quite another to be against every. single. thing. they. do. and report it in a sarcastic, demeaning manner. There is no weighing of opinions, discussing options and alternatives or anything like that in any of their articles I've read, just pure scorn.

I know a big slam on the HSUS is they don't give enough to local shelters, which also makes me scratch my head. If people give to the HSUS thinking they are giving to their local shelters, well, they might be a little stupid and should be more careful where they sent their money. I've never had any confusion over this; it's not hard to comprehend that my local shelter and the HSUS do different things, and I'm glad to give to both to support the different things they do. If you want money to go only to your local shelter, walk down the street and give them a check, don't mail it to D.C. - that's not hard to figure out.

One statistic HW throws out is that >70% of people believe they're donating to a Human Society blanket organization... I've corrected at least a dozen pre-vets here at NC State, so that number actually surprises me by not being higher. When you have marketing materials that show cute animals in shelters and call yourself HSUS, I can kind of see where people get the idea. 😛

And field services trips are an awesome thing that HSVMA does, but it's always nice to remember that HSVMA is basically the love child of AVAR (Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights) and HSUS. Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association just sounds so much better!

 

[bbeventer]

Luna, I think I may be able to answer your question as far as horse slaughter goes. The reason why he probably argues more in favor of slaughter then castration is because horses are not like dogs. People don't typically let mares and stallions run together to propagate at will. The problem in the horse world is ignorant people crossing undesirable mares with stallions producing backyard bred undesirable foals, which are not worth much money. These foals in turn wind up in auctions where they sell for cheap and the cycle continues. Though it is not a pleasant thought slaughter does help control the horse population and it stabilizes the horse market as well. This is just a quick summarization of the problem in the horse world, if you would like a more in depth answer just ask. I need to get back to genetics homework 😀

 

[VeganSoprano]

HumaneWatch bugs the snot out of me because it's a front for the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is not a think tank as the name implies, but rather a front for industry. Their targets have included such things as mandatory nutrition labeling on restaurant food and the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving, among many others.

I do agree that many people who give to HSUS believe they are supporting their local shelter instead of a national animal protection organization. But really, a visit to their website would set anyone straight. It's not like the information is hidden.

Anyone who contributes to any charity, including HSUS, without doing their homework first is being foolish and in many cases willfully ignorant. But the person who thinks HumaneWatch is an independent organization or in any way dedicated to the welfare of shelter pets is equally foolish.

 

[that redhead]

Luna, I think I may be able to answer your question as far as horse slaughter goes. The reason why he probably argues more in favor of slaughter then castration is because horses are not like dogs. People don't typically let mares and stallions run together to propagate at will. The problem in the horse world is ignorant people crossing undesirable mares with stallions producing backyard bred undesirable foals, which are not worth much money. These foals in turn wind up in auctions where they sell for cheap and the cycle continues. Though it is not a pleasant thought slaughter does help control the horse population and it stabilizes the horse market as well. This is just a quick summarization of the problem in the horse world, if you would like a more in depth answer just ask. I need to get back to genetics homework 😀

Its the people who want pritty baybee foalies!!1! that contribute to horse slaughter. If you're looking for something to castrate, make it the idiots who allow sub-amazing horses to reproduce and expect to profit. I don't mind horse slaughter in itself for the reason that it can help reduce the population, but the ghastly, inhumane protocols are what makes me anti-slaughter. I'm not too keen on livestock slaughter practices, but at least they're better regulated.

 

[milkmaid]

Luna, I think I may be able to answer your question as far as horse slaughter goes. The reason why he probably argues more in favor of slaughter then castration is because horses are not like dogs. People don't typically let mares and stallions run together to propagate at will. The problem in the horse world is ignorant people crossing undesirable mares with stallions producing backyard bred undesirable foals, which are not worth much money.

More than that - I've some really nice quality foals sell dirt cheap. Anything that's not broke is almost given away, riding horses are a little better but I've seen some pretty decent broke riding horses that aren't selling for much. The problem is more than the quality of foals on the ground - it's too many horses, period. Very few people keep a stallion - too many folks out there who can't even ride a broke horse, let alone ride or handle a stud.

But the person who thinks HumaneWatch is an independent organization or in any way dedicated to the welfare of shelter pets is equally foolish.

Of course. And they don't claim to be dedicated to helping animals, period - they just harrass the HSUS. Doesn't mean there's not some good information on their website though.

 

[milkmaid]

Quick link to his article in the Daily Nebraskan, BTW:

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opini...y-of-the-us-has-backward-priorities-1.2411777

 

[bbeventer]

Milkmaid I totally agree with you. After the anti-slaughter bill was passed I started seeing papered QH's go at auction for $42 here in Illinois. Decent horses too. There are too many horses. The shame of the matter is that because horse slaughter is banned in the US these poor animals are now being hauled to Mexico and Canada in miserable conditions, just not at the same rate as before. Perhaps my post was to brief to sum up the whole of the issue.

 

[EllieGirl89]

Milkmaid I totally agree with you. After the anti-slaughter bill was passed I started seeing papered QH's go at auction for $42 here in Illinois. Decent horses too. There are too many horses. The shame of the matter is that because horse slaughter is banned in the US these poor animals are now being hauled to Mexico and Canada in miserable conditions, just not at the same rate as before. Perhaps my post was to brief to sum up the whole of the issue.

Not only are there too many horses, but not having slaughter has caused the bottom to completely fall out of the market. When slaughter was legal in the US (which is kind of an incorrect statement, because it technically IS still legal here), the going rate for a horse headed to slaughter was $1 per pound. Therefore, your average horse automatically, without any training or anything, had a bottom price of $1000. Then the value of horses subsequently increased with each asset they possessed (better conformation, better breeding, more training, better show record). But now, horses are literally worth nothing just as they are, as horses. The upper end of the market (race horses, Congress/World Show quality QH's. etc) has remained relatively stable. But the market for your schoolies, your average trail/pleasure/4H horses, and most especially your weanlings, yearlings, two-year-olds with little training as well as your spent broodies and older horses has been completely demolished. There's no bottom for the market with no slaughter, and that doesn't even tough the problem of the fates of unwanted horses as well as the prevention of making more horses.

 

[milkmaid]

bbeventer - I wasn't disagreeing with you, didn't mean to give that impression - just adding my thoughts to the topic. 😉

And I don't know what AI in pigs is but supposedly it will benefit human health (right?).

Artificial insemination.

 

[milkmaid]

the going rate for a horse headed to slaughter was $1 per pound. Therefore, your average horse automatically, without any training or anything, had a bottom price of $1000.

That's a pretty good market in your area. Slaughter buyers out west paid 20-40 cents a pound depending on body condition and type. In our area a horse's base price was about $400. Still better than what they are now though. Seen a few free horses lately.

 

[EllieGirl89]

That's a pretty good market in your area. Slaughter buyers out west paid 20-40 cents a pound depending on body condition and type. In our area a horse's base price was about $400. Still better than what they are now though. Seen a few free horses lately.

I'd imagine it would be cheaper out west. I've seen tons of free horses around here lately, and when I tried to sell one of my horses a few years ago, I LITERALLY couldn't give her away. A pretty, broke, been-there-done-that schoolie/trail/4H horse, and could find NO ONE to take her off my hands. I still have her.

 

[Angelus9]

But the person who thinks HumaneWatch is an independent organization or in any way dedicated to the welfare of shelter pets is equally foolish.

I think Humane Watch is totally dedicated to exposing the utter lying bull**** that is HSUS and, as Daniel Tosh says, for that, we thank you.

 

[lunajett]

I think Humane Watch is totally dedicated to exposing the utter lying bull**** that is HSUS and, as Daniel Tosh says, for that, we thank you.

That's a bold statement. Do you have some examples to back it up? Things that HSUS is *objectively* wrong about, because I'm sure there are many subjective areas about their approach, philosophy, perspective, etc. where reasonable people would differ, but those would not equate to "utter lying bull****".

 

[milkmaid]

That's a bold statement. Do you have some examples to back it up? Things that HSUS is *objectively* wrong about, because I'm sure there are many subjective areas about their approach, philosophy, perspective, etc. where reasonable people would differ, but those would not equate to "utter lying bull****".

Well - start with what their president had to say. Wayne Pacelle is quoted in Ted Kerasote’s book “Bloodties: Nature, Culture, and the Hunt” as saying “"In fact, I don't want to see another cat or dog born."

And the HSUS supports an upcoming film called “Don’t Eat Me” – whose goal is to “…put an end to the slaughtering of animals, animal abuse and create an alternative food source” – this film is supported by PETA, Compassion Against Killing, The Vegetarian Society, and the HSUS. (See http://newsblaze.com/story/20100615125531zzzz.nb/topstory.html)

Regarding Hurricane Katrina - yes they spent $7 million - but what was the total amount donated to the HSUS?

HSUS is NOT out to help animals - they're out to END agriculture and animal ownership.

 

[EllieGirl89]

Well - start with what their president had to say. Wayne Pacelle is quoted in Ted Kerasote’s book “Bloodties: Nature, Culture, and the Hunt” as saying “"In fact, I don't want to see another cat or dog born."

And the HSUS supports an upcoming film called “Don’t Eat Me” – whose goal is to “…put an end to the slaughtering of animals, animal abuse and create an alternative food source” – this film is supported by PETA, Compassion Against Killing, The Vegetarian Society, and the HSUS. (See http://newsblaze.com/story/20100615125531zzzz.nb/topstory.html)

Regarding Hurricane Katrina - yes they spent $7 million - but what was the total amount donated to the HSUS?

HSUS is NOT out to help animals - they're out to END agriculture and animal ownership.

This. HSUS openly supports a vegan diet. If everyone adopted a vegan diet, this would spell the end of animal agriculture.

Also, the annual budget of the HSUS is somewhere in the ballpark of $100 million. I took an animal ethics class this quarter and while I can't recall the exact amount, the percentage actually spend on HELPING animals directly is a very small fraction of that budget.

 

[alliecat44]

HumaneWatch bugs the snot out of me because it's a front for the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is not a think tank as the name implies, but rather a front for industry. Their targets have included such things as mandatory nutrition labeling on restaurant food and the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving, among many others.

I do agree that many people who give to HSUS believe they are supporting their local shelter instead of a national animal protection organization. But really, a visit to their website would set anyone straight. It's not like the information is hidden.

Anyone who contributes to any charity, including HSUS, without doing their homework first is being foolish and in many cases willfully ignorant. But the person who thinks HumaneWatch is an independent organization or in any way dedicated to the welfare of shelter pets is equally foolish.

I loathe the HSUS as much as anyone--an embarassingly huge portion of their budget is to pay their own salaries, a teeny tiny percentage goes to helping animals, and the rest goes to lobbying legislators--but I think VeganSoprano hit the nail on the head. Plenty of people here in the Midwest think of HumaneWatch as the holy grail, but it's just a front for a big consortium of corporations who stand to lose money if Americans stop consuming their product--the Center for Consumer Freedom. They even go so far as to try to pooh-pooh the importance of obesity problems in this country. It's all a big government conspiracy to make them lose money because people won't want to buy their processed salty sugary foods...what crazy quacks those government folks are! There's no health risk associated with obesity! http://www.consumerfreedom.com/issuepage.cfm/topic/37

Anyways, just wanted to second this and make sure VS's great point didn't get lost in the shuffle. 🙂

 

[lunajett]

Well - start with what their president had to say. Wayne Pacelle is quoted in Ted Kerasote’s book “Bloodties: Nature, Culture, and the Hunt” as saying “"In fact, I don't want to see another cat or dog born."

And the HSUS supports an upcoming film called “Don’t Eat Me” – whose goal is to “…put an end to the slaughtering of animals, animal abuse and create an alternative food source” – this film is supported by PETA, Compassion Against Killing, The Vegetarian Society, and the HSUS. (See http://newsblaze.com/story/20100615125531zzzz.nb/topstory.html)

Regarding Hurricane Katrina - yes they spent $7 million - but what was the total amount donated to the HSUS?

HSUS is NOT out to help animals - they're out to END agriculture and animal ownership.

That quote is harsh, but I'd be curious what the context was. When we kill around 4,000,000 homeless animals a year, I hate to see anymore born too because I know each birth just adds to the overpopulation problem. Does that mean I want to end pet ownership, or eliminate animals? No, of course not, and I doubt Pacelle does either. It's just at this time, with so many unwanted pets being killed, it makes no sense to keep breeding more.

Putting an end to the slaughter of animals and animal abuse also sounds good to me. An alternative food source? Hmm, curious. If we can someday get everything we currently get from eating animals through some manmade product, and end a lot of the suffering animals currently go through, well, that also sounds good to me. Hopefully they can make it taste as good as a juicy bacon cheeseburger.

I don't know the total donated to HSUS after Katrina, and sure, I'd like to see HSUS give more money directly to local HS. I don't have to support every budget decision they make to still support the organization and it's goals. HSUS isn't primarily about local efforts, but I'm glad there is a big national organization working on legislation and the big picture stuff that is beyond the scope of the local HS.

As far as HSUS ending agriculture, I don't know. I don't see it that way. I know they push for more humane standards of care, and many people in agriculture take that as a personal attack on their way of life, but that doesn't equate to "ending agriculture." A vegan lifestyle to many people is simply their moral choice to align their lifestyle with their compassion for animals. I applaud them for walking their talk, but it's ludicrious to think any significant portion of the population is ever going to give up eating animals. I eat meat, I believe in the food chain, but I also want the animals to be treated humanly and have as good lives as possible before they are slaughtered for my dinner. People seem to think there is some kind of grand scheme here. If there is I'd like to see some evidence beyond people with differing views trying to connect dots that may of may not be there.

And ending animal ownership?? C'mon. I've seen others on here throw that out, but nobody has ever backed it up or even explained how it possibly makes sense. The HSUS gets rich off suckers like me - animal owners who love their pets - sending them checks, right? So what would they possibly have to gain by ending animal ownership.

And anyway, your examples seem to pretty much boil down to differing perspectives - not liking what they stand for or the way they do business, etc. Like I said, reasonable people can disagree on all this. But I don't see anything like the "utter lying bull****" Angelus speaks of.

 

[Trilt]

I think Humane Watch is totally dedicated to exposing the utter lying bull**** that is HSUS and, as Daniel Tosh says, for that, we thank you.

That's a bold statement. Do you have some examples to back it up? Things that HSUS is *objectively* wrong about, because I'm sure there are many subjective areas about their approach, philosophy, perspective, etc. where reasonable people would differ, but those would not equate to "utter lying bull****".

I think that HumaneWatch simply - for lack of a better word - bitching about things HSUS does isn't particularly productive and is basically mirroring what HSUS does in its animal rights advocacy. Discussion of both pros and cons need to occur in a lot of decisions about animal welfare, and while I think that both HSUS and HW serve their own purpose, I don't think either of them go about it in the best (ethical and useful) manner.

 

[Chapelle]

I don't like a lot of stuff the HSUS does...especially when they use tactics that then make people refractory to welfare advances because they fear "the end" of whatever animal-related industry they are in...

But I also think anti-HSUS knee-jerk reactions are counterproductive. Face it, they've got tons of money and are great at marketing and legislation. Why not work with them on welfare advances that the majority of vets could agree on? And think about all the exposes they've done highlighting over and over again the sad state of underfunded/understaffed USDA inspections.

Also, I take issue with the fact that HumaneWatch is apprehensive about the new vet oath. I see nothing wrong with preventing suffering and protecting welfare.

 

[Angelus9]

That's a bold statement. Do you have some examples to back it up? Things that HSUS is *objectively* wrong about, because I'm sure there are many subjective areas about their approach, philosophy, perspective, etc. where reasonable people would differ, but those would not equate to "utter lying bull****".

Thank you, milkmaid and EllieGirl. It's not a bold statement, it's simply a factual statement. To talk continually about "helping" and "protecting" animals, while doing everything in their power to restrict ownership of and use of animals while using the vast majority of its money collected for other reasons is false. They show up at every disaster wearing their HSUS t-shirts and talk to the cameras and end up diverting the donations of well-meaning people to HSUS. Then they take off and the locals doing the actual work get nothing or very little.

One example, and I've got lots. Hurricane Katrina. A woman I know was there on site in the aftermath. She watched, and published photos of, the HSUS workers filling dumpsters with brand new dog crates that had been donated by caring people. HSUS likes cash, baby. They blow in when the cameras are there and get all the tv people to interview them and the money just rolls in. But actual "things" donated? Into the dumpster. So no, it's not about the animals for them. So yeah, as an organization, they're lying bull********.

HSUS used to be much more honest about it's outright goal of abolishing dogs & cats, but now it's much more PC and spouts animal-loving platitudes to keep people sending in donations. But what they DO is anti-animal. They leave the obvious statements to PETA. This good cop/bad cop thing works well for them.

Pet-law.com says it well:
"HSUS is devoted to making animal use (including pet ownership) steadily more difficult and expensive. Its main actions divide into: (a) Promoting laws to restrict use/ownership, (b) propaganda in support of such laws, and (c) fundraising/self-promotional actions. You will look in vain for an HSUS action that makes animal use or pet ownership easier, more common, more fun, or more successful."

Another quote:

"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." J.P. Goodwin, recently Director of Grassroots Outreach with HSUS. Formerly with the Animal Liberation Front, Mr Goodwin has a lengthy arrest record and a history of promoting arson to accomplish animal liberation. This quote appeared on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group in 1996.

 

[Angelus9]

But I also think anti-HSUS knee-jerk reactions are counterproductive. Face it, they've got tons of money and are great at marketing and legislation. Why not work with them on welfare advances that the majority of vets could agree on?

IMO it's a disaster to work with them simply because they've got tons of money and are great at marketing and legislation.

They use the publicity and the money to then further their agenda of restricting to the point of banning, as well as outright banning, of animal ownership. Why on earth would you lend support to such an organization?

And it's not a "knee-jerk" reaction. For many, many people it's an educated, thoughtful reaction to the awful goals of HSUS. Knee-jerk? No way.

I may not hunt, and I may not eat meat, but I will NOT stand idly by while HSUS tries to legislate these things out of existence.

btw, they spend 53% of what they take in on more fund-raising activities. They flunk every test of organizations one should give money to.

 

[EllieGirl89]

And it's not a "knee-jerk" reaction. For many, many people it's an educated, thoughtful reaction to the awful goals of HSUS. Knee-jerk? No way.

👍👍👍

 

[sumstorm]

No, of course not, and I doubt Pacelle does either. It's just at this time, with so many unwanted pets being killed, it makes no sense to keep breeding more.

So, I have 7 dogs; 2 purebreds, 5 rescues. My two purebreds were intentionally purchased for SAR work. One served (and retired due to chemical exposure) in Katrina, the other is still routinely doing air scent work in the appalacian region. What you are agreeing is that we should eliminate the vast majority of SAR work, because we shouldn't produce any puppies. My dogs both came from breeders that start their SAR and socialization work well before I ever see the pups, so much so that my SAR dog thinks descending from a chopper on a line is fun and exciting, and something we should do over and over again. While I agree I might find the occasional dog in a shelter that can have this atttitude, I've handled thousands of shelter dogs, and have never had one that would be thrilled to be dangled, spinning, from a cieling. I have two that I have trained to accept that; it added a year to their training. Once all the extra work was put in, it takes me an average of 4.5 years to completly train a shelter dog (even a pup) to perform well as a SAR dog, vs 1.5-2yrs for an intentionally bred dog. But either way, if you go through right now, and S/N every dog on earth, you will just end decades of purposful breeding to match desired actions and folks will chose other animals as pets (or coyotes, foxes, wolfs, etc.) I agree, there are many unwanted pets being killed. I'd say a lot of folks are also expending lots of time and energy trying to adopt out borderline pets rather than reserving their efforts for the best ones. But eliminating purposful breeding by responsible folks will NOT end pet overpopulation. If I was told I had to only get my SAR dogs from shelters, I'd never do SAR again. But, I guess those lives saved, or those bodies buried...they don't matter for much, right?

Putting an end to the slaughter of animals and animal abuse also sounds good to me....As far as HSUS ending agriculture, I don't know. I don't see it that way.

OK...you will have to explain the above. They want to eliminate the slaughter of animals, but not agriculture? That is what you said. So, I suppose that means you are fine with milk,fiber, and egg production, but not meat production? You contradicted yourself right there....either they want to end slaughter, a major component of agriculture, or they don't. Which is it? And if you, a supporter with possibly more than average animal knowledge and experience, can't figure it out, how do you expect the average person to do so? And isn't it possible this type of contradictory confusion is part of what HSUS (which is amazing at marketing) desires? Keeping folks in conflict is great if you want to avoid any obstacles to one's purpose.

And ending animal ownership?? C'mon. I've seen others on here throw that out, but nobody has ever backed it up or even explained how it possibly makes sense. The HSUS gets rich off suckers like me - animal owners who love their pets - sending them checks, right? So what would they possibly have to gain by ending animal ownership.

Because you are torn by the great media and the surface message, without digging deeper IMHO. Have you actually read what the leadership says, or have you listened to the marketing? Which have you done more, and which have you done more thoroughly?

"We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP of

Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, AnimalPeople, May, 1993
​

"We want to create a humane society that takes into account the interests of animals and that eliminates the gratuitous harm by humans. If HSUS differs from other groups markedly,it may differ in tactics, but less in ideology.” ​

Wayne Pacelle. Interview with Kim Stallwood in​

Speaking Out for Animals, 1994.

"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture. Statement made on "AR-Views," an animalrights Internet discussion group,​

J P Goodwin, HSUS Grassroots Coordinator while executive director of the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade
​

“Stop eating animals, it’s the number one thing." ​

​

​

​

Mary Max, HSUS Board of Directors, Humane USA Board of Directors, member Advisory Board of New York League of Humane Voters, founder of Kind Green Planet, quoted in Greenpoint Gazette interview, October 2008
​

“Even though people may not have someone in their family fighting in Iraq, American soldiers are seen in the news. But people are not being bombarded with images of cows, sheep, pigs and chickens being abused.”​

Mary Max, HSUS Board of Directors, Humane USA Board of
Directors, member Advisory Board of New York League of Humane Voters, founder of Kind Green Planet, quoted in Greenpoint Gazette interview, October 2008

​

 

[pibbles]

Putting an end to the slaughter of animals and animal abuse also sounds good to me. An alternative food source? Hmm, curious. If we can someday get everything we currently get from eating animals through some manmade product, and end a lot of the suffering animals currently go through, well, that also sounds good to me. Hopefully they can make it taste as good as a juicy bacon cheeseburger.

.

 

[Angelus9]

pibbles, that is the AR goal. If you read and listen to what they say, the goal is the eventual phasing out of ALL domesticated animals.

Cats and dogs are to be returned to the wild and yes, they acknowledge that most will die, but that will be "nature," and the few that survive will be in "nature," so that's ok. The same would be for horses & cows, etc. No direct human-animal contact/relationships, but only enjoyment "from afar" is the goal. The foregoing is almost a direct quote from ARs - don't have time to do the google search for specifics right now.

Here is a typical Wayne Pacelle quote, and yet people continue to send HSUS money, to say they "do some good things," to say why shouldn't we work together with them? This is just ONE quote from Wayne Pacelle at HSUS. To me, it's more than enough. HSUS is totally anti-animal, anti-pet. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Wayne Pacelle quote: "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ...One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals."
Wayne Pacelle
Animal People May 1993

 

[Angelus9]

I should have been more clear that I meant my last post to be agreeing with pibbles, who totally gets what HSUS and similar organizations are all about.

I addressed pibbles in an attempt to affirm agreement with him/her. Fail.

 

[lunajett]

I agree, there are many unwanted pets being killed. I'd say a lot of folks are also expending lots of time and energy trying to adopt out borderline pets rather than reserving their efforts for the best ones. But eliminating purposful breeding by responsible folks will NOT end pet overpopulation. If I was told I had to only get my SAR dogs from shelters, I'd never do SAR again. But, I guess those lives saved, or those bodies buried...they don't matter for much, right?

Are any of your dogs "unwanted pets?" No? Than I wouldn't take my statement as referring to any of your dogs. But I suppose I should have been clearer for you. I do see a clear distinction between working dogs and the average family/companion pet (even though yours might be both.) Absolutely, I see your point, and working dogs are, IMO, about the only legitimate reason for breeding dogs. (This is in the context of today, when we are killing millions of unwanted dogs every year.)

OK...you will have to explain the above. They want to eliminate the slaughter of animals, but not agriculture? That is what you said. So, I suppose that means you are fine with milk,fiber, and egg production, but not meat production? You contradicted yourself right there....either they want to end slaughter, a major component of agriculture, or they don't. Which is it?

Agriculture is more than just animals, and theoretically you could have a thriving agriculture industry without the slaughter of animals. As I thought was clear in my first post, yes, I am conflicted/contradictory on this. Am I uncomfortable with the "slaughter of animals"? Yes. Do I love a good burger? Yes. See the conflict? If we love animals, shouldn't we all feel at least a little pang that so many live filthy brutal lives before being decapitated and eviscerated so we can eat their tasty bodies? I never claimed to have some crystal clear answer on this, and if you do, kudos.

Because you are torn by the great media and the surface message, without digging deeper IMHO. Have you actually read what the leadership says, or have you listened to the marketing? Which have you done more, and which have you done more thoroughly?

Yes, I am torn, as stated above. I've read some of what the leadership says, but that's mostly been IN the marketing materials, so I'm sure that wouldn't count. I know people have lots of ugly quotes, and I'd be curious what the context was for these. I know the ones you selected are meant to be shocking, but I agree with a few of them. As I also said in my first post, I don't see the HSUS as perfect, and after what people have said here, I do have some more concerns about them. And while nobody agrees with everything they do (and many apparently agree with nothing they do), I still see a lot of good that they do, agree with some of their goals, and will likely continue to support them. Agree with their goals or not, they raise issues and get people thinking and acting on behalf of animal welfare, and IMO that's a good thing. Sorry, but I simply don't see them as the evil bogeyman so many portray them as.

​

 

[Angelus9]

I do see a clear distinction between working dogs and the average family/companion pet

HSUS doesn't. Just about every single piece of anti-dog legislation they sponsor (usually called something else, like Mandatory Spay/Neuter) and it's a lot, makes no exceptions, NONE, for working dogs. It's MSN for all dogs. Every single one. So soon no more police dogs, no more military dogs, no more seeing eye dogs, no more assistance dogs, if HSUS has their way. Yet you write that you will continue to support them.

The laws that do have the exceptions got the exceptions added in by alert dog-lovers. They weren't there in the HSUS versions. Yet you write that you will continue to support them.

they raise issues and get people thinking and acting on behalf of animal welfare,

What? nobody else does this? Who do you think is out there doing the real work? It isn't HSUS.

Sorry, but I simply don't see them as the evil bogeyman so many portray them as.

You are willfully being blind. You've been given direct quotes by HSUS representatives stating flat out that they want to eliminate animal ownership, yet you continue to support them. Simple research would reveal their constant efforts to severely restrict pet ownership, yet you continue to support them. You act as though only they are on the forefront of animal welfare, which is simply not true. You know that they use a miniscule portion of their hundreds of millions of dollars to actually help actual animals, and still, knowing your money will go not to help animals at all anywhere, but to fund anti-pet legislation and the elimination of domesticated animals, you continue to support them.

Good luck in your veterinary career.

 

[lunajett]

Good luck in your veterinary career.

Thanks! And good luck to you in... well, whatever it is you do.

 

[Chapelle]

Yes, I am torn, as stated above. I've read some of what the leadership says, but that's mostly been IN the marketing materials, so I'm sure that wouldn't count. I know people have lots of ugly quotes, and I'd be curious what the context was for these. I know the ones you selected are meant to be shocking, but I agree with a few of them. As I also said in my first post, I don't see the HSUS as perfect, and after what people have said here, I do have some more concerns about them. And while nobody agrees with everything they do (and many apparently agree with nothing they do), I still see a lot of good that they do, agree with some of their goals, and will likely continue to support them. Agree with their goals or not, they raise issues and get people thinking and acting on behalf of animal welfare, and IMO that's a good thing. Sorry, but I simply don't see them as the evil bogeyman so many portray them as.

[/LEFT]

I pretty much agree. All the "HSUS wants to make all domestic animals extinct!" quotes come from sources like HumaneWatch so I see them as no more meaningful than what nice things the HSUS says about itself on its website/literature. I judge them by their actions. They are not an animal rescue organization. But they've done many useful exposes that have led to animal welfare advances (like exposing Agriprocessors). They work on important welfare legislation (like the PETS act). They successfully pressure large companies to adopt better welfare standards. Are they my first choice to donate to? No. But I don't rabidly oppose them either. Are there certain things I think are not good candidates for changing through legislative means? Yes. But the HSUS gets peoples' attention, gets them to think about the issues. Nobody else is doing that, which is unfortunate, because often the issues could be presented much more fairly...but nobody is doing it! HSUS makes an emotional and maybe even inaccurate claim about a real issue and the opposition just dismisses them as crazies and the conversation ends there. So HSUS goes through referendums and wins...because nobody on the opposing side will discuss these issues in the public sphere or work with HSUS to compromise and maybe write better laws, they just dismiss the HSUS.

I fundamentally disagree with the premise of animal rights but I think it's unproductive to have a hysterical phobia of it...I think that if animal welfare and animal rights people can work together on a common goal that is great even though their overall philosophies may differ. I'm not afraid of animal rights advocates...they are a fringe and always will be...and if they gain more power it will only be our fault for not educating the public. And by educating I don't mean making anti-animal rights ads. I mean actually discussing issues.

Also I don't believe in the slippery slope. Using slippery slope logic you could even oppose the American Humane Association. They are supporting legislation that would ban gas euthanasia of shelter animals...are research mice next? CO2 is the most popular euth method for them...AHA must be trying to ban all animal research. They are also trying to pass laws to ban pound seizures of animals...I guess they oppose training vets because vet schools (ex. UC Davis) use shelter animals to train students (to do non-invasive things...they are loved, walked, taken home by students, and adopted at the end of the year by the way). Also AHA has a certification program for farm animal products...how dare they try to control the ag industry, they must be trying to bring it down.

 

[laurafinn]

+1 to Chapelle. Well stated.

 

[sumstorm]

Strange, I believe everything I quoted was from environmentally oriented publications and/or direct writings of the individuals in question. How very odd that what they say isn't what they mean, because it was somehow 'altered' by another organization. So very interesting.

Maybe I should note, I am an environmentalist, so I am aware of this as part of the periphery of that passion. I have become more involved with the pursuit of vet med, but I also grew up in mixed agriculture. And for all those folks who say 'we can replace all animals stuff with produce' you have apparently never picked a field clear of stones, or tried to plant a steep slope, both of which are suitable for meat and fiber goats, possibly cattle, and possibly sheep. I spent much of my childhood in long lines with other children walking fields to pick up stones so they didn't damage the harvesting equipment....and take a look at that planting and harvesting equipment and what it requires in fuels and what it emits on pollution.

I am a huge proponent for local production and consumption. I'm a big believer that we all should have some level of direct responsibility for producing our own food (even if it is just a window box of foods) or being part of a coop that requires work share. That is a belief I know most people will object to, but I will continue to convert people (and since I love to cook, and really fresh food and heritage varieties do contribute massivly to flavor and I am good at teaching simple ways of producing food, I am successful with this.) I also believe if we all went and visited good farms, we would be very impressed. I'm also sure most folks, if they visited poor farms, would be equally shocked. I fully admit that I am an opponent of industrial agriculture.

Here is the difference, I believe, between me and many advocates of environmentalism and/or animal rights; I have the experience, I have done the leg work on both sides. I attended seminars and conferences aimed at producers, I have been to slaughter plants and stock yards and listened with an open mind to those folks, just as I listend to the messages and information from environmental journals, websites, and seminars. I also realize my own contradictions; I want to protect the environment, but I live in a house and do small ag, and drive a car...all of which are negative for the environments. So instead, I make moves to improve that; I know who I buy food from, I drive a hybrid and bike as much as possible, I do grow food, recycle intensively, and minimize my contribution to landfills. I try to make a solid move each year to honor my beliefs. I am fine for those who advocate intensely for animal rights, but they better be ready to live those beliefs intensively if they want to impose their beliefs on others (ie, if you want everything to be no touch in nature, are you ready for a subsistence existance? if you want to impart rules that will prevent me from having a particular dog in my future, are you ready to release your own into the wilds now?)

 

[bunnity]

They are also trying to pass laws to ban pound seizures of animals...

what do you mean by that?

 

[random23]

+2 to Chapelle, my feelings exactly.

 

[Chapelle]

what do you mean by that?

I mean they want to ban the practice of taking animals from animal shelters for use in science/experiments.

 

[bunnity]

oh ok I thought you meant banning seizures by humane law enforcement which wouldn't make any sense.

If they banned the sourcing of animals from shelters, wouldn't that just lead to more class A sourcing?

 

[Angelus9]

I pretty much agree. All the "HSUS wants to make all domestic animals extinct!" quotes come from sources like HumaneWatch

oh.my.god. You can't POSSIBLY be this....well, I'll just leave it blank.

They're QUOTES. They don't "come from HumaneWatch." They come from HSUS itself. They come from Wayne Pacelle and J.P. Goodwin and other HSUS employees.

Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, direct verbatim quote: "We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals."

J.P. Goodwin, HSUS, direct verbatim quote: "My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture."

Only two of many, many, many anti-animal quotes. Yet you write that it's not them saying it, but HumaneWatch.

 

[Chapelle]

oh ok I thought you meant banning seizures by humane law enforcement which wouldn't make any sense.

If they banned the sourcing of animals from shelters, wouldn't that just lead to more class A sourcing?

Maybe, but there is a serious violation of public trust that happens when animals for research are sourced from shelters. People then start abandoning their animals in the woods rather than bring them into the shelter. It's also bad for shelter worker morale.

I don't see how using purpose bred dogs for research is any different than using purpose bred mice. The research proposal has gone through an IACUC committee and therefore is deemed justified. There can definitely be improvements made though to the regulation of class A sourcing.

 

[breenie]

I don't see how using purpose bred dogs for research is any different than using purpose bred mice. The research proposal has gone through an IACUC committee and therefore is deemed justified. There can definitely be improvements made though to the regulation of class A sourcing.

I think the point people will make regarding this is... we don't have a mice overpopulation problem.

 

[Chapelle]

oh.my.god. You can't POSSIBLY be this....well, I'll just leave it blank.

They're QUOTES. They don't "come from HumaneWatch." They come from HSUS itself. They come from Wayne Pacelle and J.P. Goodwin and other HSUS employees.

Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, direct verbatim quote: "We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals."

J.P. Goodwin, HSUS, direct verbatim quote: "My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture."

Only two of many, many, many anti-animal quotes. Yet you write that it's not them saying it, but HumaneWatch.

If they come from the HSUS itself, show me these quotes in HSUS literature or on their website.

In any case, Wayne Pacelle is not on a mission to preserve domestic animal species...so that quote doesn't mean much to me out of context. Goodwin is on the animal fighting issues committee so he has nothing to do with HSUS' farm animal initiatives.

And here is an example of a new HSUS campaign that is putting pressure on a company to continue improving their animal welfare standards - I don't see this as a threat to the agricultural industry by any means. Even Dr. Temple Grandin supports phasing out gestation crates: https://secure.humanesociety.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=4791

 

[Chapelle]

I think the point people will make regarding this is... we don't have a mice overpopulation problem.

You're right, but I think the AHA's position is that there are better ways of dealing with pet overpopulation. It's definitely a complicated issue though!

 

[bunnity]

As a student using dog cadavers for class, I would prefer that they came from shelter dogs that were already being euthanized than having dogs bred specifically for my learning. I would prefer even more that they came from a donation program because I understand the issues with community trust and corruption that can potentially occur with shelter sourcing. But having a dog live and die just so I can cut it up does not seem ethical when there are other options.

FWIW Penn's anatomy dogs are shelter dogs that were already going to be euthanized (not a shelter from around here, though). My group's dog had obvious serious trauma (multiple broken bones and abdominal bleeding) so we thought she was probably euthanized so she would not suffer.

 

[Angelus9]

And here is an example of a new HSUS campaign that is putting pressure on a company to continue improving their animal welfare standards - I don't see this as a threat to the agricultural industry by any means. Even Dr. Temple Grandin supports phasing out gestation crates: https://secure.humanesociety.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=4791

A HSUS campaign. A HSUS campaign? University of Pennsylvania as well as other veterinary schools have long been in the forefront of researching and encouraging use of more humane methods in farrowing as well as other animal issues. In addition, multiple countries as well as multiple states in the U.S. have already made the changes, and as these universities and veterinarians and animal welfare advocates continue to work to expand their use, HSUS feels it's missing out on the cash cow (or pig, in this sense) and joins the party quite late, long long long after the veterinarians have already made great strides.

So HSUS finds a company that's dragging it's heels, spends a lot of money it got from gullible people, and convinces ignorant people that it's all their doing, when it's not at all.

The credit should go to those veterinarians, universities, and other animal welfare advocates who have made this happen and continue to make it happen. It's their doing. But they're too busy actually improving the lives of animals while HSUS runs a PR machine to collect the benefits.

 

[Chapelle]

A HSUS campaign. A HSUS campaign? University of Pennsylvania as well as other veterinary schools have long been in the forefront of researching and encouraging use of more humane methods in farrowing as well as other animal issues. In addition, multiple countries as well as multiple states in the U.S. have already made the changes, and as these universities and veterinarians and animal welfare advocates continue to work to expand their use, HSUS feels it's missing out on the cash cow (or pig, in this sense) and joins the party quite late, long long long after the veterinarians have already made great strides.

So HSUS finds a company that's dragging it's heels, spends a lot of money it got from gullible people, and convinces ignorant people that it's all their doing, when it's not at all.

The credit should go to those veterinarians, universities, and other animal welfare advocates who have made this happen and continue to make it happen. It's their doing. But they're too busy actually improving the lives of animals while HSUS runs a PR machine to collect the benefits.

A lot of states have made changes through referendums. And the measures passed in large part because of HSUS campaigns. HSUS did not do the science but they're the ones who helped bring these issues to the forefront.