Comments on: Celebrity Blogger: Tracie Hotchner responds to HSUS Donation Uproar

By: Steven J. Interdonato

Steven J. Interdonato — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 00:58:23 +0000

This is one of those topics where, in order to have a credible argument/opinion on the issue, one must do a little homework; “drive-by posters”, keep on driving….
While I agree that the Humane Society of the United States (By the way, you should always define acronyms on first use.) has done a lot to help the welfare of animals, it, like any other large organization is not without its faults, and no amount of general unconstructive criticism will not change this; only actions such as education of the public, letter-writing, internal member actions, etc. can effect organization policy…
To the layperson, HSUS is usually thought of in a solely positive light, but as a dog owner I have come to have some strongly-felt criticism towards the organization…
While acknowledging their overall historical contributions to animal welfare in the US, I was only recently made aware of their stance that all fighting dogs confiscated by law enforcement should undergo manditory euthanization.
The landmark decision of the federal prosecutor in the Michael Vick case to allow the temperament testing and screening of the animals resulted in the exposure of the ignorance of the HSUS on this matter: Only one dog had to be destroyed as too far mentally damaged to be rehabilitated. The remaining 48 or so dogs that survived have all been rehabilitated and most, if not all of them have been adopted into loving permanent or foster homes. These dogs are ambassadors of the breed and highlight the ignorance of the HSUS because, as an organization that claims to be knowledgable about animals, they really should have known (and acknowledged) that the APBT (American Pit Bull Terrier) is as resilient mentally as they are physically and have an excellent chance of recovery and rehabilitation despite the horrendous abuses they endure.
HSUS is large and powerful enough to have taken a stance supporting rehabilitation screening for former fighting dogs a long time ago and could have saved countless dogs’ lives. Some speculate that lack of this action is due to their policies being influenced by the “foo-foo show dog crowd” who do not want “their organization” to be seen as helping “those killer dogs”.
It’s basically the same reason the AKC used to refuse acknowledgement/registration of the American Pit Bull Terrier unless it’s name was changeed to Staffordshire Terrier; the “bad word” “pit”, and the reputation-tarnishing implications of being associated with it.

On the topic of we-need-more-stringent-dog-ownership-laws, as touched upon by other commentors to this blog, I must give my support for the stance that we ALREADY have plenty of useful laws in place that are just not enforced properly, and rather than passing more laws, we must instead strongly enforce the EXISTING ones, upgrading the prison sentences as necessary.
Remember, laws are only followed the law-abiding…passing myriad new laws will only serve to restrict people’s liberties and do nothing to curtail crime. (One case in point is Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL). )
There is an interesting parallel to this exact paradigm conflict in the debate on gun-ownership rights: Laws like the (former) federal “assault weapons” ban and the Brady bill have been proven to have little to no effect on crime at all. The reason? Criminals don’t abide by laws like the rest of us do. For example, what good is a “background check” when murderers do not buy thir handguns at the local gun store? Especially when the same criminal got a “slap on the wrist” for his last umpteen felonies. The argue ment goes that if felons were thoroughly prosecuted and strictly sentenced for their violent crimes AS WELL AS violating the myriad of decades-old firearms laws, there would be far fewer repeat violent criminals preying upon our citizens. This same theory would hold for animal abuse cases as well. If people actually SERVED, lets say, 5 to 7 years for running a dogfighting operation, and 1 to 3 for even participating, others would be far more likely to seriously consider a different grift of crime as a career. It’s an uphill battle though, as people rarely even serve 7 years for rape… Rather than trying to change major parts of the criminal justice system however, jail terms could be “tweaked” by providing for mandatory minimims as is done with certain federal drug cases, or by levvying the charges (or sentences) on a “per dog” basis and mandate the running the sentences consecutively, rather than concurrently.
Ok, I got off on a bit of a tangent, but it is an important bunch of topics…

By: Gail Browne

Gail Browne — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:50:06 +0000

How ironic!
HSUS may do some good things along their path to accomplish the extinguishment of companion animals - but I am amazed at the vituperative support of an organization that, should it achieve its goals will render THK without a market to sell its products.

Even more ironic - the negative comments you sling at the HSUS opponents are the same I would say about you for your support of HSUS:
-self-righteous and angry
-stirred up into anger by misinformation, and disinformation
-seem to bypass reason, logic and facts
-forces at work…that I am too naive to see

HSUS does foresee the consequences of its actions - the extinction of companion animals. And do you think they could dupe millions of people (including apparently the author of this blog) by ADVERTISING this agenda??

HSUS has “10 million animal-loving members” who have been duped.

HSUS may do some good along the way - but the old adage that “the road to h*ll is paved with good intentions” should serve as a warning to everyone who doesn’t have the skill, time or interest in looking behind the curtain to see the truth behind the marketing machine.

By: Robyn Campbell

Robyn Campbell — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:32:46 +0000

Peace, Love & Understanding
Those who love animals, pets included, need to understand the problems that face the animals as well as what the humans want. There are hundreds of thousands of homeless pets in this country. Is that OK? Should animals be spayed and neutered to help control this overpopulation that causes untold suffering for these animals? Stop being selfish. The HSUS is working to help these animals, are you? They are fighting seals being beaten to death in Canada, are you? They are fighting people who fight dogs, are you? They ARE WORKING HARD and MAKING A HUGE DIFFERENCE in this country AND others. Breeders can be a bit selfish and narrow minded because it’s all about them and what THEY want…not the reality that faces thousands of starving, in pain, sad dogs and cats every day. All the ridiculous talk of the HSUS not wanting people to have pets is completely untrue and made up by hunters, breeders and other dog users to sway puplic opinion away from the real issues. Wake up

By: shirley

shirley — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:49:36 +0000

i haven’t read the post with all the criticism for the donation, mainly because i can’t find it…but since you asked i would like to list a few things that make me wary of the HSUS and its policies:

1. the breeding issue.

while i am torn (as is a blogger for the honest kitchen) about wanting to reduce the unwanted pet population (my dog is from the local shelter!), but still want to support reputable breeders (be it purebred, or working dogs, etc), i don’t think supporting new legislation of the kind HSUS introduces or helps write will help the companion animal or puppy mill situation (for example) much at all.

there are existing laws that require a basic amount of care and for whatever reason those laws are not being enforced. the puppy mill expose on oprah did not display any legal activity. but i do think it’s being used as a catalyst for new laws.

creating new, more restrictive laws that can really determine the health of your pet, or lead to possibly eliminating your right to have a pet at all are laws that are missing the point.

although this is a very old quote and one that has come from before he was part of the HSUS this is an example of what gives a lot of people concern:

Wayne Pacelle, President of HSUS: “One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”

(that’s taken from http://www.nabr.org/animallaw/Quotes.htm)

it’s this kind of idea that makes me pause before i support animal welfare/rights laws without really weighing in the more serious implications - like limitation of personal rights which could lead to more harm of animals (mandatory neuter at a young age can lead to increased risk of cancers in large breeds, for example) and perhaps ultimately the right to companion animals at all.

i’m a firm believer that we can do better than just enact new laws which harm a population of pets and owners while existing laws go unenforced. education is key, but it shouldn’t be used to further agendas that may not have direct impact on the issue being presented.

2. use of euthanasia based on breed - HSUS recommended blanket euthanasia for all of the michael vick pit bulls before any of them were evaluated.

after the judge ordered individual evaluation the HSUS joined in on the effort, but i don’t want people to miss the fact about breed specific beliefs.

3. related to 2nd item is how the HSUS presents itself to the public - i don’t think many people who donate to the HSUS understand that while the public goal is the humane treatment of animals, the policies and legislation may not be helping matters.

there may also be the misconception that the HSUS is related to their local humane shelter, or that the HSUS has any animal housing facilities at all.

i love my pets, i love animals, i use a huge amount of mental energy determining the most ethical and humane way to exist with animals as i believe. i just don’t think it should be so easy to take that right away by making bad laws and using the horrors of animal cruelty to promote those laws. i think that’s as shameful as being vitriolic in response to a donation to the HSUS.

so in the end we have the same reasons for both sides of the argument:

“.. you have been stirred up into anger by misinformation, and disinformation…”

and you asked for facts:

” I’d love to hear a rational, fact-based rationale for this venomous attack”

i think i’ve outlined a few points that are logical with factual support. it’s no legal document, but i definitely went out of my way to make sure it was not just my opinion. if you have information that would refute any of these premises, i’d love to hear them. thanks!