This is an update to my post on the Humane Society of the United States that I made a few days ago. I was flipping through the New Yorker, and there was a whole page ad that said that the Humane Society of the United States was misusing peoples’ donated money. I was surprised, because from what I read on its website, the Humane Society of the United States seems like a wonderful organization. Anyway, it turns out ActivistCash.com is making a lot of unfounded accusations against the Humane Society. I could not believe the New Yorker, of all magazines, would accept this kind of hideous advertising. (Disclaimer: I’m not an expert — I know nothing about the Humane Society for the United States or ActivistCash.com other than I’ve perused their websites.)

ActivistCash.com accuses the Humane Society of several refutable things, I thought I’d list a few of them point by point:

1) It accuses HSUS of not running your local animal shelter.

Rebuttal: Do you see the word “shelter” in the phrase “Humane Society of the United States?” I don’t. I’ve also perused the HSUS website, and nowhere does it say anything about how the money you donate will only go to run animal shelters in your neighborhood. The HSUS is out to stop animal cruelty, and some of us believe that does not start and end with animal shelters. It includes shelters, legislating against animal cruelty, legislating against farm animal cruelty, stopping animal abuse, etc. Not just shelters. I think the HSUS is pretty admirable in its not-just-donating-to-shelters-role.

2) It accuses the HSUS of not being a cash-strapped organization, but of being the wealthiest animal-rights organization on earth.

Rebuttal: Does it say anywhere on the HSUS website that it is a poor organization? Not that I can see. And isn’t that wonderful? I’m so pleased there is a wealthy animal rights organization out there. Also I think it’s a little odd that ActivistCash.com is accusing the HSUS of being rich. How does ActivistCash.com afford full page ads in the New Yorker? It must have a lot of money to do that.

3) It accuses the HSUS of misrepresenting itself as an animal welfare organization, when it is really an animal rights organization

Rebuttal: I guess this is a fair point, but are they kidding? Sometimes you have to establish rights to improve welfare. Especially in a society like ours with a legal system. You can do a lot more good legislating against animal abandonment than spending millions of dollars rescuing abandoned animals. Heck, if you just keep rescuing animals that have been abandoned you’re actually encouraging thoughtless people to abandon their animals.

4) It accuses the HSUS of spending millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers.

Rebuttal: Uh, farms are where a great deal of animal cruelty happens, so I think it’s a good thing the HSUS spends a lot of money there. Do you know what they do to dairy and meat-producing animals? It’s not nice or pretty. I feel that farms should be forced to treat animals humanely instead of hurting them to improve their profit margins. Also, I don’t think the HSUS is out to “economically cripple” anybody. It’s just out to make farms places where animals are humanely treated (before they are killed).

5) It accuses the HSUS of eliminating the use of animals in biomedical labs.

Rebuttal: If only! HSUS is advocating for finding alternatives to animal torture in medical labs. It certainly can’t eliminate the use of animals in biomedical labs.

6) It accuses HSUS of wanting to phase out pet breeding.

Rebuttal: There is no master plan to phase out pet breeding on the HSUS site. I swear. There’s a bit about how people should rescue abandoned animals from shelters. Which is laudable, I think. There are a lot of lovable, lonely animals in pet shelters who will be put to sleep if more people don’t start adopting them. Also there’s a bit on stopping puppy mills — this is NOT stopping caring individuals from breeding dogs/cats in their homes in loving environments. Its for stopping raising puppies in cages like battery-farmed chickens without any social contact. Puppies are very social creatures — they need contact with other dogs and people.

7) It accuses HSUS of wanting to phase out zoos.

Rebuttal: The HSUS is against animal cruelty in zoos. It’s not against zoos. It’s pro-zoos that don’t harm animals.

8 ) It accuses the HSUS of wanting to phase out circus animal acts.

Rebuttal: HSUS is actively campaigning against the horrific conditions circus animals are put into. It’s really horrible. I can’t believe anyone would want to torture baby elephants. These ActivistCash.com people are really annoying me. Why are they so cruel?

9) HSUS demonizes hunters as crazed lunatics.

Rebuttal: There’s no demonizing of hunters. HSUS does want to end inhumane hunting practices. Not all hunting.

10) HSUS spends $2 million each year on travel expenses.

Rebuttal: I don’t know anything about how much HSUS people travel and whether $2 million covers those expenses or is wasteful. But I wonder how much ActivistCash.com spends on erroneous full-page ads in the New Yorker.

11) It accuses HSUS of being a multinational conglomerate with ten regional offices in the US and an office that monitors the media’s coverage of animal-rights issues.

Rebuttal: Why would this be a bag thing? I am THRILLED. Go HSUS! Giant organization devoted to ending animal cruelty!

12) It accuses HSUS of having a huge web of affiliates, some of which are nonprofit tax-exempt charities, and others are for-profit taxable corporations.

Rebuttal: Um, private organizations have to be either nonprofit or for-profit. That’s the choice. I bet ActivistCash is either non-profit or for-profit. Sheesh.

13) It accuses HSUS of hiding the fact that it spends a lot of money on fundraising.

Rebuttal: I think fundraising is how animal rights organizations survive. The fact that HSUS is spending a lot of money on “fundraising expenses” is a good thing, to my mind. I bet ActivistCash.com spends a lot on fundraising expenses too. Probably hides it as well.

14) It accuses the former head of HSUS of forming the Humane Society of Canada when he wasn’t actually living in Canada.

Rebuttal: Seriously? This is their scandal? I’m not scandalized. They couldn’t find any dirt at all? Surely someone cheats on their taxes/has hired an illegal nanny/embezzled a fortune/had an extramarital affair/etc.?

15) It says that animal welfare organizations have been around for centuries, and animal rights organizations have only been around since the 1980s, and therefore, they are bad. (I am not making this up.)

Rebuttal: So? Does anyone care how old animal welfare/rights organizations are? I bet ActivistCash.com wasn’t formed centuries ago.

16) HSUS thinks there is no rational basis for maintaining a moral distinction between the treatment of humans and other animals.

Rebuttal: I guess some people might find this appalling, but I totally agree that humans and other animals should all be treated with kindness and respect, and not inhumanely hurt or tortured. Also I don’t know if I’d go so far to say animals and humans should have the same moral/legal rights (because while I think that would be wonderful, I don’t think I’m going to be able to change the world that much) — but if I were picking administrators of a pro-animal organization like HSUS I would ONLY pick people who really liked animals and think there is no rational basis for maintaining a moral distinction between the treatment of humans and other animals. That’s how people who like animals talk. And I think people who like animals should be in charge of pro-animal organizations like the HSUS.

17) HSUS wants to eliminate altogether the use of animals as research subjects.

Rebuttal: Yay HSUS! There is no need to keep using animals as research subjects in many situations — in vitro techniques can be used instead. And we should strive to eliminate the use of animals in other areas of research as well. Which can only be done if scientists keep attempting to eliminate the use of animals as research subjects.

18) HSUS hired a bunch of (gasp) vegans.

Rebuttal: Vegans are nice people!I swear.

19) HSUS instituted a “no animal products in the office policy” which means they’re going to have anti-farm-animal campaigns now, which means “they’re going to legislate against gestation crates and all this stuff.”

Rebuttal: Interesting logic, there. Not awe-inspiring. Well, if gestation crates are as horrible as they sound — they keep sows in a cage that is small as possible without the sow dying — she can stand up and lie down, but she can’t turn around (if you don’t eat humanely-raised pork, you’re supporting those horrible cages), I totally support HSUS on that one. You would think anyone with an ounce of compassion would as well. They’re going to take the sow’s piglets and kill and eat them when they’re six months old — shouldn’t the sow be able to turn around for the short duration of her miserable life? It saves what,$2 or $3 per pig?

20) It accuses the HSUS of turning into PETA by forming a new political organization which will allow for a more substantial investment ($95 million) of resources in political and lobbying activities.

Rebuttal: I realize some people don’t approve of PETA, but I love PETA, so turning into PETA is a good thing in my mind. Also I think it’s wonderful that HSUS is going to devote lots of money to political and lobbying activities. That’s how you get things done in this country. Plus I think it’s a little hypocritical for ActivistCash.com to be attacking HSUS for political and lobbying activities. I mean, ActivistCash.com is probably a political and lobbying organization (I suspect).

21) It accuses HSUS wastes money on high salaries, and that it is “all about power and money.”

Rebuttal: I know nothing about HSUS’s financial/political situation. Maybe it is all about power and money. But animal-rights activism has to combat a lot of power and money — the cattle industry, the dairy industry, etc, are all very powerful and wealthy organizations. So I can sort of see why the HSUS would need to have a lot of power and money.

22) It accuses HSUS of forcing the anti-body-gripping-trap Initiative 713 down the hunting communities throats.

Rebuttal: Again, the ActivistCash.com people must have no compassion for animal suffering. Initiative 713 ended the use of “body-gripping” traps. Those things are so inhumane. I can sort of see an argument for shooting animals with guns — it’s a quick, humane death, and the animal lives a good life, after all. But leaving animals with a leg caught in a steel trap for hours, screaming with pain, until they gnaw their own leg off? Thank God someone is pushing legislation against that. I’m sorry it’s so expensive for hunters to not use body-gripping traps, but I think it’s money well spent.

23) The HSUS managed to pass a ballot initiative that gave constitutional rights to pregnant pigs, and ended gestational crates for pigs in Florida, by donating at least $50,000 to the Florida PAC that managed the campaign.

Rebuttal: Again, I find this hypocritical since I assume ActivistCash.com donates a lot of money to a lot of pro-animal-cruelty-campaigns. But I’m so pleased that constitutional rights thing passed in Florida! Just think — if you eat pork from Florida, you’re not supporting an incredibly inhumane way of raising pigs. (ActivistCash.com claims this means that gestation crates keeps sows healthy during pregnancy and prevents them from accidentally rolling over and crushing their newborn piglets. This is ridiculous — how can they argue pigs are “healthier” if they can’t move around? And I suppose gestation crates might save a few newborn piglets from being crushed by being rolled on (though that just saves them from being killed six weeks later for pork) how do they explain that pigs were raised for centuries in pens large enough for them to turn around in? And that in European countries, where most gestation crates have been banned, there are still pigs?) (If you’d like to support HSUS’s campaigns against crates, click here.)

24) It accuses HSUS of trying to keep farmers from using too much antibiotics in livestock animals.

Rebuttal: Uh, this is a really good thing! Yes, more expensive for farmers, but keeping antibiotic-resistant bacteria in animals down actually helps keep antibiotic-resistant bacteria in people down. Bacteria do not discriminate between animals and people. It’s a public health concern for people. This is a link to a study that goes over how antibiotic-overuse in livestock creates antibiotic-resistant bacteria that then attack people. Even if ActivistCash.com doesn’t care about animal suffering, shouldn’t it care about people suffering from infectious diseases? I’m just saying they can be nasty. (Also, I don’t really know too much about this — but aren’t farmers accused over giving their animals antibiotics all the time, instead of waiting for one of them to come down with a disease and then giving them the suitable antibiotic because they don’t want to lose that one livestock animal? Doesn’t seem so hard to do.) The only reason pneumonia and tuberculosis are no longer plagues to the US population is because of antibiotics — if seriously resistant pneumonia and tuberculosis strains are created by antibiotic-overuse, the U.S. will go back to having appreciable numbers of pneumonia and tuberculosis deaths each year.

25) It accuses the HSUS of sending propaganda to schools.

Rebuttal: So . . . compassion for animals educational brochures are propaganda? Interesting. I don’t buy that.

26) It accuses the HSUS of calling hunters “selective exterminators” and “drunken slobs” in a book it gives to teachers to present to students.

Rebuttal: Well, I do think the HSUS shouldn’t do that sort of thing, so I’m with ActivistCash.com on that one.

27) It accuses the HSUS of giving teachers a guide that contains anti-circus stories in which animals are repeatedly depicted as overworked and abused.

Rebuttal: Well, animals often ARE overworked and abused in circuses. Good for HSUS for getting the truth out.

28) It accuses HSUS of developing “lucrative” eco-labels, offered for a price to certify food and clothing as environmentally friendly, or “Certified Humane Raised and Handled” label is available to meat, poulty, eggs, and dairy farmers.

Rebuttal: Eco-labels are wonderful! I would love to buy products that said they were certified humane raised and handled! Plus I think it’s a very good idea economically — it encourages businesses to raised and handle their animals humanely, instead of passing some inefficient regulation that would cost the government millions to enforce. It’s a very capitalist sort of solution to the problem, I think, that doesn’t coerce anybody to do anything or pay for anything they do not want. Plus I find it a little hard to believe that eco-labels are a huge source of revenue for HSUS — and why should the HSUS give (wealthy) farmers the eco-labels for free and pay the costs themselves?

29) It accuses HSUS of calling biomedical research on animals “absolutely horrifying.”

Rebuttal: Well, yeah, it is. I mean, it saves lives (but there are alternatives!), but it is horrifying.

30) It accuses the HSUS of trying to block production of veal and foie gras in several states.

Rebuttal: well, veal and foie gras production are pretty inhumane. It’s good the HSUS is targeting those.

These are just a few of the . . . interesting . . . claims ActivistCash.com makes against the HSUS. I’m sure a few of them are valid, but I’m really appalled by most of the arguments. I suspect that the HSUS probably does some things wrong (who doesn’t?), and ActivistCash.com could have picked on those, but instead it’s making points that don’t make much sense (to me).

Categories : against animal testing, cruelty free