New Watchdog For Humane Society (hsus)

[cheekycairn]

New watchdog for Humane Society

Posted: 1:32 AM, February 21, 2010

Ken Moran

Animal rights has be come a key phrase for raising money, and some groups such as the Humane Society of the United States raise tons of it saying they save pets and animals.

The question is, where does all this money go?

The Center for Consumer Freedom is announcing the launch of HumaneWatch.org, a watchdog project dedicated to analyzing the activities of the Humane Society of the United States, the largest anti-hunting and fishing group in the country.

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, says CCF.

According to the CCF, HSUS raises nearly $100 million annually from Americans who believe their donations filter down to local pet shelters and improve the lives of dogs and cats. But in 2008, says CCF, 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.

"Someone has to ask the hard questions about the Humane Society of the United States, and HumaneWatch will be a relentless source of useful information," said CCF director of research David Martosko. "Nearly 1 million Americans donate money to HSUS every year. And most are completely unaware that they're bankrolling PETA-style propaganda, far-reaching anti-meat campaigns, a huge staff of lawyers, and bloated pension plans for HSUS executives."

In 2008 alone, the Center says HSUS put more than $2.5 million into pension plans -- money that its own advertising suggested would be put toward the direct care of animals -- and that HSUS neither operates nor is legally affiliated with any pet shelters anywhere.

Martosko continued: "Even the best charities can run off the rails, so it's no surprise the professional dog-watchers need their own watchdog."

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports...gfxKKDE9MMPo00O

[Aphra]

It's probably good to balance this with some information about who the "Center for Consumer Freedom" actually are:

http://www.consumerdeception.com/index.asp

A couple of extracts:

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit corporation run by lobbyist Richard Berman through his Washington, D.C.-based for-profit public relations company, Berman & Co. The Center for Consumer Freedom, formerly known as the Guest Choice Network, was set up by Berman with a $600,000 “donation” from tobacco company Philip Morris.

and

Using “freedom of choice” as his battle cry, Berman has now taken on PETA and a number of other groups and organizations whose points of view could have an impact on the profits of his clients by waking consumers up. Berman’s Guest Choice Network has an “advisory panel” whose members in 1998 included officials representing companies ranging from Cargill Processed Meat Products and Outback Steakhouse to Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association and Sutter Home Winery. Berman’s clients are companies with vested interests in low employee wages; cheap, unhealthy restaurant-chain food, particularly meat; and tobacco, soft drink, and alcohol consumption—companies like Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, Armour Swift, and Philip Morris, whose product line includes Kraft Foods and everything from Marlboro cigarettes to Oscar Meyer wieners and which is a major shareholder in its former subsidiary Miller Brewing, now known as SABMiller.

I'm not a fan of HSUS or PETA, but the CCF aren't a disinterested watchdog, they have a vested financial interest in discrediting these organisations on behalf of big business.

[NoKillAustralia]

It doesn't matter who the CCF are. It's what they say that they should be judged on. Shooting the messenger is a clear sign one is on shaky ground. A cockfighting group has purported to have evidence linking HSUS to the Mob. If it turns out to be true one wonders how this would affect any affiliates they may have in Australia.

Edited February 23, 2010 by NoKillAustralia

[WoofnHoof]

Actually it does matter who the CCF are when they are selling themselves as a 'watchdog', the term implies impartiality which the CCF certainly are not.

[Wajoma's Aussies]

and in related news ...

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

RACKETEERING LAWSUIT FINGERS HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES

Multi-Million Dollar Animal Rights Group Accused of Corruption; Lawsuit Available at www.HumaneWatch.org

Washington – In a landmark RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit certain to have far-reaching implications for the animal rights movement, Feld Entertainment and the Ringling Brothers circus sued the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), its lawyers, and several other animal rights groups last week. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) unearthed the lawsuit in federal court records today. CCF is making the lawsuit available online at its newest website, www.HumaneWatch.org.

“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,” said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. “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.”

In its February 16 lawsuit, Feld leveled bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice, and money laundering charges against HSUS and two of its corporate attorneys; three other animal rights groups; the Washington, DC law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal; and all three of that firm’s named partners.

On December 30, 2009, Federal Judge Emmitt Sullivan ruled that these defendants collaborated to pay more than $190,000 to Mr. Tom Rider, a former Feld employee who was an elephant “barn helper” for two years in the late 1990s, in exchange for his impeached testimony against Feld in an earlier lawsuit—testimony Judge Sullivan declared “not credible” and disregarded in its entirety. That lawsuit was dismissed.

Feld is also suing Mr. Rider, and a nonprofit “Wildlife Advocacy Project” charity, claiming that Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal used it to funnel money from their plaintiff clients to Mr. Rider. These clients included the Fund for Animals, which merged with HSUS in 2004.

“The new HumaneWatch website is the only place the public will be able to read this lawsuit,” Martosko added. “We’re publishing a treasure trove of information about the Humane Society of the United States, including lots of surprising documents that HSUS would rather remain hidden from its contributors.”

Last week CCF launched www.HumaneWatch.org, an online watchdog project dedicated to analyzing HSUS’s activities and keeping the group honest. It includes a blog, an interactive document library, and a growing body of information about HSUS-related organizations and staff.

To read this explosive federal racketeering lawsuit, visit www.HumaneWatch.org.To arrange an interview, call Allison Miller at 202-463-7112

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit watchdog organization that informs the public about the activities of tax-exempt activist groups. It is supported by American consumers, business organizations, and foundations.

[Howl]

It doesn't matter who the CCF are. It's what they say that they should be judged on. Shooting the messenger is a clear sign one is on shaky ground. A cockfighting group has purported to have evidence linking HSUS to the Mob. If it turns out to be true one wonders how this would affect any affiliates they may have in Australia.

Actually it does matter. There is word for it - CREDIBILITY.

[mita]

Onya, Aphra & Howl.

[NoKillAustralia]

Credibility comes from the evidence not who's presenting it. Is the Holocaust less true because the death camps were exposed by the Russians, the biggest mass murderers in history? Of course not. Only the blinkered supporters of HSUS, PETA and RSPCA would quibble over this.

[WoofnHoof]

Credibility comes from the evidence not who's presenting it. Is the Holocaust less true because the death camps were exposed by the Russians, the biggest mass murderers in history? Of course not. Only the blinkered supporters of HSUS, PETA and RSPCA would quibble over this.

Wow that's a bit of a stretch from questioning the motives of these self-styled 'watchdogs' to being labelled blinkered supporters. I wouldn't lump those three in together anyway they are seperate entities with entirely different characteristics.

[Howl]

Credibility comes from the evidence not who's presenting it. Is the Holocaust less true because the death camps were exposed by the Russians, the biggest mass murderers in history? Of course not. Only the blinkered supporters of HSUS, PETA and RSPCA would quibble over this.

Haven't been to court lately have you? Ever heard of "credible witnesses"?

Evidence is just stuff until it is presented and tested.

[Aphra]

Godwin's Law

And certainly the credibility of the watchdog site is pertinent to the discussion. If the motives of the witness are clearly biased because of a financial interest, then the facts and the way they present those facts are naturally going to be suspect. If you were serious about investigating issues around PETA or the HSUS then I'd expect that you would validate any issues presented by the watchdog site using other sources.

I'm not even sure why you're all lathered about PETA and the HSUS who have little visibility in Australia. The RSPCA don't exist in the US, so I'm assuming the CCF don't have anything to say about them at all. And really, calling people "blinkered supporters" because they "quibble" over is dishonest and a bit hysterical. You can be opposed to PETA but wish for any criticism to be based on spin-free facts on the grounds that intelligent opposition needs to be both intellectually defensible and ethically viable.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...6_Berman_.26_Co.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Front_groups

[mushka]

The ASPCA exists in the US - is it not associated with RSPCA? I had assumed it was.