Difference between local, national Humane Societies confuses animal donors
Consumer Freedom center criticizes national group, which says it doesn’t claim to be a source for local sheltersA group that’s been critical of the national Humane Society renewed its jabs Wednesday, detailing in a state-by-state report on how little the society donates to local animal shelters.
By: Dave Roepke, The Forum
Grand Forks Herald
A group that’s been critical of the national Humane Society renewed its jabs Wednesday, detailing in a state-by-state report on how little the society donates to local animal shelters.
The Humane Society of the United States dismisses the criticism by the Center for Consumer Freedom, saying it doesn’t claim to be a source of grant money for local animal shelters.
Regardless of the goal of the national group, directors of shelters in Grand Forks and Fargo say they often battle the notion that donations to the HSUS will go to actual shelters.
“I definitely think it’s an issue,” said Arlette Moen, executive director of Circle of Friends Humane Society in Grand Forks.
Moen and the executive director of the FM Humane Society, Nukhet Hendricks, said they regularly encounter indications that some donors draw no distinction between their outfits and the national group.
“We have people walk into the shelter and say, ‘Oh, I give to the Humane Society of the United States,’” Moen said. “That’s our opportunity to tell them, ‘No, it doesn’t work that way.’”
Read More
It has to be incredibly frustrating for local shelters to see local money being donated to the HSUS by people who mistakenly believe they support pet shelters. I find news stories like this on a very regular basis now. Some shelters are now changing their names just so they can distance themselves from the HSUS because the confusion is affecting their ability to get donations. But the fact that HSUS is causing this hardship doesn’t seem to bother them much.
Showing posts with label Center for Consumer Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Center for Consumer Freedom. Show all posts
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Detractor Attacked by HSUS-Paid Reporter
May 16, 2010, 8:33 pm
Report on Lobbyist Commissioned by Humane Society
By JOSEPH PLAMBECK, New York Times Blog
It reads much like a newspaper article.
For 3,500 words, the report details the workings of Richard Berman, a lobbyist in Washington and a regular foe of the Humane Society of the United States.
But in fact, the report was commissioned by the Humane Society itself and published on its Web site last week.
The author, Ian T. Shearn, 56, is a longtime newspaperman who spent 10 years at The Star-Ledger in New Jersey, where he was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize. He left the paper in 2008.
The dearth of available journalism jobs has since left him, like many underemployed journalists, chasing freelance jobs and doing some consulting. Read More
Last week I shared how the HSUS had hired a former journalist to start attacking people who disagree with them. Today we find out that the author of the article had been out of work. So when he was hired to do this “independent” investigation I’m sure he wanted to keep his new employer happy. In order to do that, some of the facts had to go out the window. I’ve never met anyone involved in this story, but from the outside looking in, this was a very obvious and desperate attempt by the HSUS to deflect criticism. It certainly doesn’t fit into their stated goal of helping animals. Besides that, the things being said about the HSUS by the Center for Consumer Freedom must be true or else they would be attacking the message rather than the messenger. It’s another unfortunate example of a journalist giving up his chosen profession to be a paid activist.
Report on Lobbyist Commissioned by Humane Society
By JOSEPH PLAMBECK, New York Times Blog
It reads much like a newspaper article.
For 3,500 words, the report details the workings of Richard Berman, a lobbyist in Washington and a regular foe of the Humane Society of the United States.
But in fact, the report was commissioned by the Humane Society itself and published on its Web site last week.
The author, Ian T. Shearn, 56, is a longtime newspaperman who spent 10 years at The Star-Ledger in New Jersey, where he was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize. He left the paper in 2008.
The dearth of available journalism jobs has since left him, like many underemployed journalists, chasing freelance jobs and doing some consulting. Read More
Last week I shared how the HSUS had hired a former journalist to start attacking people who disagree with them. Today we find out that the author of the article had been out of work. So when he was hired to do this “independent” investigation I’m sure he wanted to keep his new employer happy. In order to do that, some of the facts had to go out the window. I’ve never met anyone involved in this story, but from the outside looking in, this was a very obvious and desperate attempt by the HSUS to deflect criticism. It certainly doesn’t fit into their stated goal of helping animals. Besides that, the things being said about the HSUS by the Center for Consumer Freedom must be true or else they would be attacking the message rather than the messenger. It’s another unfortunate example of a journalist giving up his chosen profession to be a paid activist.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
HSUS Hires Reporter To Personally Attack Opponents
Investigative Report: CCF's Richard Berman
by Ian T. Shearn
Editor’s Note: Millionaire PR operative and lobbyist Richard Berman and his shadowy
web of corporate-front organizations rake in large sums of money in attacking public
interest groups, including The Humane Society of the United States.
The HSUS hired independent journalist Ian T. Shearn to write an investigative report
about Berman and the workings of his groups. Shearn, as statehouse Bureau Chief of the
Newark Star-Ledger, led a team of reporters that won a 2005 Pulitzer Prize for the
newspaper in recognition of its coverage of the resignation of then-Gov. James
McGreevey. Shearn’s distinguished career spanned 29 years as reporter and editor. He
is now a freelance writer based in Hillsborough, N.J.
Shearn’s contract required him to identify himself in all encounters as preparing a report
for The HSUS. The final product, however, represents his independent reporting and
judgment.
If charity does indeed begin at home, in the case of Richard Berman, it starts in a $3
million, 8,800-square-foot mansion he shares with his second wife in McLean, Va. One
of his first decisions in a day of many is whether to drive the Bentley or the Ferrari to
work. On this particular spring morning, he goes with the Bentley.
“Richard Berman is a professional antagonist, trying to discredit people who are doing
good in the world,” said Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of The Humane Society of
the United States. “He does not seek sensible discourse; he simply sees HSUS as a
pathway for enrichment. … This guy has developed a cottage industry attacking public
interest organizations.”
It is only logical that one of Berman’s most recent targets is The Humane Society of the
United States, the animal welfare charity that has grown significantly in recent years,
mostly through mergers and acquisitions, and has become increasingly aggressive on
several fronts in its opposition of the methods and practices of country’s agricultural and
food industry. One of its main targets has been the country’s powerful agribusiness
sector, and specifically what The HSUS considers inhumane factory farming conditions.
Pacelle said HSUS has no design to cripple agribusiness; it just wants to put an end to its
most egregious practices.
“The only reason there is conflict on some agriculture practices is that factory farmers
insist on treating animals like production machines—keeping some farm animals in a
near-constant state of immobilization and subjecting them to inhumane transport and
slaughter,” he said. “If the industry corrected these problems, then this tension would not
exist.”
In April, Berman’s group did garner some media attention, and exacted a degree of angst
from the Humane Society, when it pointed out on its website that less than one-half of
one percent of HSUS revenue went to animal shelters, a fact Humane Watch asserted was
hypocritical and misleading to its donors. As a result, several corporate donors—
including Yellow Tail wines—pulled back their pledges, totaling about $200,000.
For HSUS’s Pacelle, that’s regrettable though understandable. “Corporate funders want
to feel good; they don’t want to court controversy,” he said, adding, “But we do still have
11 million supporters.” Read More
The HSUS has hired a reporter to attack people that disagree with them. I guess that’s what you have to do when you can’t refute the stories being told about you. They even went so far as to blame Rick Berman for Yellow Tail stopping their donations to the HSUS. That statement alone shows the lack of “investigative reporting” that was done here. This is obviously a desperate attempt to slow the bleeding that’s happening at the HSUS. More people are learning that they are a vegan animal rights group that does more harm than good for our local community pet shelters. More than likely, what they paid this reporter and the lawyers to file a lawsuit against Rick Berman will add up to way more than they give to pet shelters every year. But that’s what you have to do when you are a professional fundraising organization and the story you are selling will no longer hold water.
by Ian T. Shearn
Editor’s Note: Millionaire PR operative and lobbyist Richard Berman and his shadowy
web of corporate-front organizations rake in large sums of money in attacking public
interest groups, including The Humane Society of the United States.
The HSUS hired independent journalist Ian T. Shearn to write an investigative report
about Berman and the workings of his groups. Shearn, as statehouse Bureau Chief of the
Newark Star-Ledger, led a team of reporters that won a 2005 Pulitzer Prize for the
newspaper in recognition of its coverage of the resignation of then-Gov. James
McGreevey. Shearn’s distinguished career spanned 29 years as reporter and editor. He
is now a freelance writer based in Hillsborough, N.J.
Shearn’s contract required him to identify himself in all encounters as preparing a report
for The HSUS. The final product, however, represents his independent reporting and
judgment.
If charity does indeed begin at home, in the case of Richard Berman, it starts in a $3
million, 8,800-square-foot mansion he shares with his second wife in McLean, Va. One
of his first decisions in a day of many is whether to drive the Bentley or the Ferrari to
work. On this particular spring morning, he goes with the Bentley.
“Richard Berman is a professional antagonist, trying to discredit people who are doing
good in the world,” said Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of The Humane Society of
the United States. “He does not seek sensible discourse; he simply sees HSUS as a
pathway for enrichment. … This guy has developed a cottage industry attacking public
interest organizations.”
It is only logical that one of Berman’s most recent targets is The Humane Society of the
United States, the animal welfare charity that has grown significantly in recent years,
mostly through mergers and acquisitions, and has become increasingly aggressive on
several fronts in its opposition of the methods and practices of country’s agricultural and
food industry. One of its main targets has been the country’s powerful agribusiness
sector, and specifically what The HSUS considers inhumane factory farming conditions.
Pacelle said HSUS has no design to cripple agribusiness; it just wants to put an end to its
most egregious practices.
“The only reason there is conflict on some agriculture practices is that factory farmers
insist on treating animals like production machines—keeping some farm animals in a
near-constant state of immobilization and subjecting them to inhumane transport and
slaughter,” he said. “If the industry corrected these problems, then this tension would not
exist.”
In April, Berman’s group did garner some media attention, and exacted a degree of angst
from the Humane Society, when it pointed out on its website that less than one-half of
one percent of HSUS revenue went to animal shelters, a fact Humane Watch asserted was
hypocritical and misleading to its donors. As a result, several corporate donors—
including Yellow Tail wines—pulled back their pledges, totaling about $200,000.
For HSUS’s Pacelle, that’s regrettable though understandable. “Corporate funders want
to feel good; they don’t want to court controversy,” he said, adding, “But we do still have
11 million supporters.” Read More
The HSUS has hired a reporter to attack people that disagree with them. I guess that’s what you have to do when you can’t refute the stories being told about you. They even went so far as to blame Rick Berman for Yellow Tail stopping their donations to the HSUS. That statement alone shows the lack of “investigative reporting” that was done here. This is obviously a desperate attempt to slow the bleeding that’s happening at the HSUS. More people are learning that they are a vegan animal rights group that does more harm than good for our local community pet shelters. More than likely, what they paid this reporter and the lawyers to file a lawsuit against Rick Berman will add up to way more than they give to pet shelters every year. But that’s what you have to do when you are a professional fundraising organization and the story you are selling will no longer hold water.
Monday, April 5, 2010
HSUS Drops In Charity Rating
HSUS Downgraded by Charity Evaluator
By Pork news source Monday, April 05, 2010
New ratings from Charity Navigator, the nation's largest and most-utilized evaluator of charities, show a downgrade for the Humane Society of the United States.
“Charity Navigator now gives HSUS a lower level of trustworthiness than the notoriously radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA),” the Center for Consumer Freedom points out in a press release.
The Center for Consumer Freedom points to this as evidence that HSUS “is not adequately fulfilling its stated charitable purpose.”
“HSUS’s 2008 tax filing shows that the group spent less than one percent of its collected donations on grants to hands-on pet shelters. It put five times as much into its executive pension plan during that year,” the Center for Consumer Freedom says.
David Martosko, CCF’s Director of Research and the editor of HumaneWatch.org, released the following statement on HSUS’s new ranking:
• Charity Navigator’s downgrading of the Humane Society of the United States and its international arm sends a clear message: Animal charities can’t stuff donor dollars away in pension plans, shortchange pet shelters, and expect that no one will notice.
• HSUS raises tens of millions of dollars a year from Americans who believe their money is trickling down to local pet shelters. Instead, their contributions fund a bloated staff of well-paid lawyers and lobbyists, PETA-style propaganda campaigns, and a hefty executive pension plan.
Article Link
After hearing Pacelle and the HSUS continually point to their Charity Navigator rating as proof of their “good work”, the story has now changed. After a re-assessment, Charity Navigator significantly reduced their score for the HSUS. In fact, PETA, who has spent money in the past urging college students to drink beer as opposed to milk, now has a higher rating than the HSUS. Humane Society International took an even bigger hit this round and now is given only 1 out of 4 stars for it’s rating.
By Pork news source Monday, April 05, 2010
New ratings from Charity Navigator, the nation's largest and most-utilized evaluator of charities, show a downgrade for the Humane Society of the United States.
“Charity Navigator now gives HSUS a lower level of trustworthiness than the notoriously radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA),” the Center for Consumer Freedom points out in a press release.
The Center for Consumer Freedom points to this as evidence that HSUS “is not adequately fulfilling its stated charitable purpose.”
“HSUS’s 2008 tax filing shows that the group spent less than one percent of its collected donations on grants to hands-on pet shelters. It put five times as much into its executive pension plan during that year,” the Center for Consumer Freedom says.
David Martosko, CCF’s Director of Research and the editor of HumaneWatch.org, released the following statement on HSUS’s new ranking:
• Charity Navigator’s downgrading of the Humane Society of the United States and its international arm sends a clear message: Animal charities can’t stuff donor dollars away in pension plans, shortchange pet shelters, and expect that no one will notice.
• HSUS raises tens of millions of dollars a year from Americans who believe their money is trickling down to local pet shelters. Instead, their contributions fund a bloated staff of well-paid lawyers and lobbyists, PETA-style propaganda campaigns, and a hefty executive pension plan.
Article Link
After hearing Pacelle and the HSUS continually point to their Charity Navigator rating as proof of their “good work”, the story has now changed. After a re-assessment, Charity Navigator significantly reduced their score for the HSUS. In fact, PETA, who has spent money in the past urging college students to drink beer as opposed to milk, now has a higher rating than the HSUS. Humane Society International took an even bigger hit this round and now is given only 1 out of 4 stars for it’s rating.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Most People Confused About What HSUS Is
Americans Wrongly Believe the Humane Society of the United States is a Pet-Shelter "Umbrella Group"
Consumer Group Reminds Americans that Less than One Percent of Donations to HSUS Benefit Local Pet Shelters
WASHINGTON, March 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Seventy-one percent of Americans questioned in a new opinion poll wrongly believe the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is an "umbrella group" for America's local humane societies. Sixty-three percent incorrectly think their local "humane society" is affiliated with HSUS. And fifty-nine percent falsely believe HSUS "contributes most of its money" to local organizations that care for cats and dogs.
The poll, which sampled the opinions of 1,008 Americans, was commissioned by the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) and conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) of Princeton, New Jersey.
"These numbers indicate that Americans don't really know what the Humane Society of the United States is all about," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "HSUS intentionally uses those sad dogs and cats in its TV infomercials as props in an animal rights fundraising shell game. Meanwhile, thousands of American pet shelters are underfunded and struggling." Martosko blogs about HSUS at http://www.humanewatch.org/.
According to the federal income tax return filed by HSUS for the tax year 2008, less than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the organization's budget consisted of grants to hands-on pet shelters. HSUS does not run a single shelter for dogs or cats anywhere, and it is not affiliated with any local "humane society" organizations.
Martosko continued: "This poll indicates that most Americans think HSUS is a worthy charity. But very few Americans understand what HSUS really is—a super-rich lobbying group that puts more money into its executive pensions than in the hands of local humane societies."
Survey Methodology
The survey of 1,008 adults nationwide was conducted by telephone between February 25 and February 28, 2010 by Opinion Research Corporation. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.
Questions:
I'm going to read you the names of several nonprofit organizations. For each one, please tell me if you are very familiar, somewhat familiar or totally unfamiliar with the organization.
The Humane Society of the United States: 79% familiar ("very"/"somewhat" net)
I'm going to read you several statements. For each one, please tell me if you think the statement is true or false.
71% "TRUE": The Humane Society of the United States is an umbrella group that represents thousands of local humane societies all across America.
63% "TRUE": My local humane society or pet shelter is AFFILIATED with the Humane Society of the United States.
59% "TRUE": The Humane Society of the United States contributes most of its money to local organizations that care for dogs and cats.
48% "TRUE": My local humane society or pet shelter receives financial support from the Humane Society of the United States.
(Tax records filed by HSUS show that all four statements are false.)
Link
Just as Yellow Tail and Pilot Travel Centers were fooled into thinking that the HSUS was something they aren’t, so are most folks living in this country. This survey shows exactly how they have become so wealthy. It’s been accomplished on the backs of our hard-working local pet shelters. Because of the great work they do the HSUS profits. Wayne Pacelle will probably roll out the same old song about the Center for Consumer Freedom, but they didn’t do the survey. Along with that, the questions asked in the survey were very direct rather than misleading in way that could have affected the results. We’ve got a long way to go in educating the public about the HSUS, but this past month has shown that we can accomplish great things when we work together.
Consumer Group Reminds Americans that Less than One Percent of Donations to HSUS Benefit Local Pet Shelters
WASHINGTON, March 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Seventy-one percent of Americans questioned in a new opinion poll wrongly believe the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is an "umbrella group" for America's local humane societies. Sixty-three percent incorrectly think their local "humane society" is affiliated with HSUS. And fifty-nine percent falsely believe HSUS "contributes most of its money" to local organizations that care for cats and dogs.
The poll, which sampled the opinions of 1,008 Americans, was commissioned by the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) and conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) of Princeton, New Jersey.
"These numbers indicate that Americans don't really know what the Humane Society of the United States is all about," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "HSUS intentionally uses those sad dogs and cats in its TV infomercials as props in an animal rights fundraising shell game. Meanwhile, thousands of American pet shelters are underfunded and struggling." Martosko blogs about HSUS at http://www.humanewatch.org/.
According to the federal income tax return filed by HSUS for the tax year 2008, less than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the organization's budget consisted of grants to hands-on pet shelters. HSUS does not run a single shelter for dogs or cats anywhere, and it is not affiliated with any local "humane society" organizations.
Martosko continued: "This poll indicates that most Americans think HSUS is a worthy charity. But very few Americans understand what HSUS really is—a super-rich lobbying group that puts more money into its executive pensions than in the hands of local humane societies."
Survey Methodology
The survey of 1,008 adults nationwide was conducted by telephone between February 25 and February 28, 2010 by Opinion Research Corporation. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.
Questions:
I'm going to read you the names of several nonprofit organizations. For each one, please tell me if you are very familiar, somewhat familiar or totally unfamiliar with the organization.
The Humane Society of the United States: 79% familiar ("very"/"somewhat" net)
I'm going to read you several statements. For each one, please tell me if you think the statement is true or false.
71% "TRUE": The Humane Society of the United States is an umbrella group that represents thousands of local humane societies all across America.
63% "TRUE": My local humane society or pet shelter is AFFILIATED with the Humane Society of the United States.
59% "TRUE": The Humane Society of the United States contributes most of its money to local organizations that care for dogs and cats.
48% "TRUE": My local humane society or pet shelter receives financial support from the Humane Society of the United States.
(Tax records filed by HSUS show that all four statements are false.)
Link
Just as Yellow Tail and Pilot Travel Centers were fooled into thinking that the HSUS was something they aren’t, so are most folks living in this country. This survey shows exactly how they have become so wealthy. It’s been accomplished on the backs of our hard-working local pet shelters. Because of the great work they do the HSUS profits. Wayne Pacelle will probably roll out the same old song about the Center for Consumer Freedom, but they didn’t do the survey. Along with that, the questions asked in the survey were very direct rather than misleading in way that could have affected the results. We’ve got a long way to go in educating the public about the HSUS, but this past month has shown that we can accomplish great things when we work together.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
HSUS Sued Over Racketeering Charges
Federal Racketeering Lawsuit Stuns HSUS
Center for Consumer Freedom
You may have missed our New Year’s Eve exposé covering the dismissal of a federal lawsuit pushed by a consortium of animal rights groups that included the deceptive Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The groups alleged that Feld Entertainment (the parent company of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus) mistreated elephants in violation of the Endangered Species Act, but in December a judge tossed out the lawsuit. Now the plot thickens: The circus is suing HSUS, two HSUS lawyers, and a number of other animal rights organizations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. (The lawsuit is exclusively available at HumaneWatch.org.)
The original animal rights lawsuit, filed more than nine years ago, was based on information provided by a former Ringling elephant “barn helper” named Tom Rider. After Rider left his circus job, he was paid by animal rights groups to testify about the supposedly “bad” treatment of elephants there. In all, the original lawsuit’s plaintiffs paid Rider more than $190,000—his sole source of income for years—while the litigation made its way through the court system.
Feld is leveling bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice, and money laundering charges against HSUS and two of its corporate attorneys, three other animal rights groups, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, and all three of that firm’s named partners. It’s an earth-shattering lawsuit. Today we’re telling the media:
America’s farmers, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, research scientists, fashion designers, and restaurateurs have seen for decades how the animal rights movement can behave like a mobbed-up racket. But it’s still shocking to see the evidence laid out on paper. In a treble-damage lawsuit like this, a jury could actually do the humane thing and finally put HSUS out of business completely. Link
To read the entire lawsuit, click here.
With the HSUS reeling from all of the negative publicity surrounding the Yellow Tail donation, they are now being sued over charges of racketeering and corruption. The heavy handed tactics of HSUS are beginning to be exposed which is helping paint a more accurate picture of this vegan animal rights organization. They have been attacking animal agriculture, pet owners, outdoorsmen, and every other group that utilizes animals for some time now. Those people have had enough and are now fighting back.
Center for Consumer Freedom
You may have missed our New Year’s Eve exposé covering the dismissal of a federal lawsuit pushed by a consortium of animal rights groups that included the deceptive Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The groups alleged that Feld Entertainment (the parent company of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus) mistreated elephants in violation of the Endangered Species Act, but in December a judge tossed out the lawsuit. Now the plot thickens: The circus is suing HSUS, two HSUS lawyers, and a number of other animal rights organizations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. (The lawsuit is exclusively available at HumaneWatch.org.)
The original animal rights lawsuit, filed more than nine years ago, was based on information provided by a former Ringling elephant “barn helper” named Tom Rider. After Rider left his circus job, he was paid by animal rights groups to testify about the supposedly “bad” treatment of elephants there. In all, the original lawsuit’s plaintiffs paid Rider more than $190,000—his sole source of income for years—while the litigation made its way through the court system.
Feld is leveling bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice, and money laundering charges against HSUS and two of its corporate attorneys, three other animal rights groups, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, and all three of that firm’s named partners. It’s an earth-shattering lawsuit. Today we’re telling the media:
America’s farmers, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, research scientists, fashion designers, and restaurateurs have seen for decades how the animal rights movement can behave like a mobbed-up racket. But it’s still shocking to see the evidence laid out on paper. In a treble-damage lawsuit like this, a jury could actually do the humane thing and finally put HSUS out of business completely. Link
To read the entire lawsuit, click here.
With the HSUS reeling from all of the negative publicity surrounding the Yellow Tail donation, they are now being sued over charges of racketeering and corruption. The heavy handed tactics of HSUS are beginning to be exposed which is helping paint a more accurate picture of this vegan animal rights organization. They have been attacking animal agriculture, pet owners, outdoorsmen, and every other group that utilizes animals for some time now. Those people have had enough and are now fighting back.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
HumaneWatch.org
New watchdog: On the HSUS
By Dale Bowman
on February 16, 2010 8:45 AM
Chicago Sun Times
The Humane Society of the United States will receive hardcore monitoring with the launch today of HumaneWatch.org. I would add we have needed this a long time.
This seems truly legit.
HSUS is flat out a bad organization, and shining light on its doings should only help with both humans and animals.
I think many people give to HSUS, just thinking they are helping with pets.
If I understand the background right, the Center for Consumer Freedom is basically a push-back to allow us to eat what we want without interference from authorities. I am overstating slightly, but that is the gist of the group.
Here's the launch release:
Consumer Group: New Watchdog Website Monitors the Humane Society of the United States
HumaneWatch.org Scrutinizes Biggest American Animal Rights Group, Separates Fact from Fiction
Washington, D.C. - Today the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is announcing the launch of HumaneWatch.org, a watchdog project dedicated to analyzing the activities of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). HumaneWatch will include a blog written by CCF's Director of Research, a growing document library, and a database capable of tracking the dozens of nonprofit (and for-profit) organizations that make up HSUS's sprawling financial empire.
The Humane Society of the United States has become the animal rights industry's most powerful player, but it has avoided serious public scrutiny for years. HSUS raises nearly $100 million annually from Americans who largely believe their donations filter down to local pet shelters and improve the lives of dogs and cats. But in 2008, less than one-half of one percent of HSUS's budget consisted of grants to actual hands-on "humane societies" that deal with the thankless task of sheltering unwanted pets. Read More
I continually get asked for more information about the Humane Society of the United States. Now there is a one stop shop for all the information you will ever need to know about this vegan animal rights group. I would encourage everyone to check out HumaneWatch.org. The HSUS has already rolled out the same old song and dance about how the CCF can’t be trusted. However, the CCF didn’t fill out the HSUS tax information. The proof is in the pudding.
By Dale Bowman
on February 16, 2010 8:45 AM
Chicago Sun Times
The Humane Society of the United States will receive hardcore monitoring with the launch today of HumaneWatch.org. I would add we have needed this a long time.
This seems truly legit.
HSUS is flat out a bad organization, and shining light on its doings should only help with both humans and animals.
I think many people give to HSUS, just thinking they are helping with pets.
If I understand the background right, the Center for Consumer Freedom is basically a push-back to allow us to eat what we want without interference from authorities. I am overstating slightly, but that is the gist of the group.
Here's the launch release:
Consumer Group: New Watchdog Website Monitors the Humane Society of the United States
HumaneWatch.org Scrutinizes Biggest American Animal Rights Group, Separates Fact from Fiction
Washington, D.C. - Today the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is announcing the launch of HumaneWatch.org, a watchdog project dedicated to analyzing the activities of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). HumaneWatch will include a blog written by CCF's Director of Research, a growing document library, and a database capable of tracking the dozens of nonprofit (and for-profit) organizations that make up HSUS's sprawling financial empire.
The Humane Society of the United States has become the animal rights industry's most powerful player, but it has avoided serious public scrutiny for years. HSUS raises nearly $100 million annually from Americans who largely believe their donations filter down to local pet shelters and improve the lives of dogs and cats. But in 2008, less than one-half of one percent of HSUS's budget consisted of grants to actual hands-on "humane societies" that deal with the thankless task of sheltering unwanted pets. Read More
I continually get asked for more information about the Humane Society of the United States. Now there is a one stop shop for all the information you will ever need to know about this vegan animal rights group. I would encourage everyone to check out HumaneWatch.org. The HSUS has already rolled out the same old song and dance about how the CCF can’t be trusted. However, the CCF didn’t fill out the HSUS tax information. The proof is in the pudding.
Monday, December 14, 2009
A Food Police Review
Food activists are all jeer, no cheer
Published: 01:00 a.m., Friday, December 11, 2009
By J. Justin Wilson
'Tis the season -- for eating. But while the holiday season offers us an excuse to indulge in our favorite culinary fantasies, some activist groups are killing the joy with doomsday proclamations about our food. It's time to carve up their myth-making and set the record straight about which dietary do-gooders deserve to be on Santa's "Naughty" list.
Just in time for holiday feasts, a new report spotlights spinach, eggs, cheese, tuna and even tomatoes as some of the supposed top 10 "riskiest" foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. The report's author is the notorious Center for Science in the Public Interest, commonly known as the self-anointed "food police" for its overzealous prosecution of any food, drink, or ingredient that might possibly be bad for us.
Interestingly, some of the foods CSPI now deems "risky" were previously featured by CSPI in a top 10 list of "Super Foods for Better Health." So a food is good for us until CSPI decides it's actually bad for us and can breathlessly fuel a media scare campaign saying so. Flip-flopping CSPI surely will find coal in its stockings.
It's not the first time CSPI has been a dietary Scrooge. In the mid-1980s, CSPI launched an all-out assault on fast-food restaurants and encouraged them to drop saturated fat-laden oil and replace it with partially hydrogenated oil containing trans fats. Not long after, however, CSPI's executive director, Michael Jacobson, was calling for restaurants to dump them.
PCRM shares the vegan agenda with PETA, meaning no cheese, no dairy and definitely no hot dogs or grilled chicken.
In reality, however, PCRM is only dressed up as a respectable group of doctors: Less than 4 percent of the "Physicians Committee" members graduated from medical school. PCRM president Neal Barnard ridiculously writes that "to give a child animal products is a form of child abuse" and has hysterically argued that cheese is tantamount to "morphine on a cracker." (If these vegans had a little eggnog, they might not be such Grinches.) Read More
There is no doubt that the groups mentioned in this article have a goal to change the way we produce and eat food in our society. The article correctly points out how these food police regularly flip-flop on their recommendations. That’s why the most simple nutritional advice is still the best. If you eat a balanced diet that includes meat and dairy products in the proper amounts, you will be just fine. Every fad in eating that comes along tells us we should shun certain food groups. That lasts for a few years and then the next fad comes along. Eating a balanced diet is not a fad. That’s the lesson all of us need to learn and teach to our children.
Published: 01:00 a.m., Friday, December 11, 2009
By J. Justin Wilson
'Tis the season -- for eating. But while the holiday season offers us an excuse to indulge in our favorite culinary fantasies, some activist groups are killing the joy with doomsday proclamations about our food. It's time to carve up their myth-making and set the record straight about which dietary do-gooders deserve to be on Santa's "Naughty" list.
Just in time for holiday feasts, a new report spotlights spinach, eggs, cheese, tuna and even tomatoes as some of the supposed top 10 "riskiest" foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. The report's author is the notorious Center for Science in the Public Interest, commonly known as the self-anointed "food police" for its overzealous prosecution of any food, drink, or ingredient that might possibly be bad for us.
Interestingly, some of the foods CSPI now deems "risky" were previously featured by CSPI in a top 10 list of "Super Foods for Better Health." So a food is good for us until CSPI decides it's actually bad for us and can breathlessly fuel a media scare campaign saying so. Flip-flopping CSPI surely will find coal in its stockings.
It's not the first time CSPI has been a dietary Scrooge. In the mid-1980s, CSPI launched an all-out assault on fast-food restaurants and encouraged them to drop saturated fat-laden oil and replace it with partially hydrogenated oil containing trans fats. Not long after, however, CSPI's executive director, Michael Jacobson, was calling for restaurants to dump them.
PCRM shares the vegan agenda with PETA, meaning no cheese, no dairy and definitely no hot dogs or grilled chicken.
In reality, however, PCRM is only dressed up as a respectable group of doctors: Less than 4 percent of the "Physicians Committee" members graduated from medical school. PCRM president Neal Barnard ridiculously writes that "to give a child animal products is a form of child abuse" and has hysterically argued that cheese is tantamount to "morphine on a cracker." (If these vegans had a little eggnog, they might not be such Grinches.) Read More
There is no doubt that the groups mentioned in this article have a goal to change the way we produce and eat food in our society. The article correctly points out how these food police regularly flip-flop on their recommendations. That’s why the most simple nutritional advice is still the best. If you eat a balanced diet that includes meat and dairy products in the proper amounts, you will be just fine. Every fad in eating that comes along tells us we should shun certain food groups. That lasts for a few years and then the next fad comes along. Eating a balanced diet is not a fad. That’s the lesson all of us need to learn and teach to our children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)