# Drs Foster & Smith" is a supporter of H$U$



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

*Drs Foster & Smith" is a supporter of H$U$... and they have sold their customer list to H$U$! Call 1-800-381-7179 to have your name removed from their mailing list and to tell them you do not approve of their association with H$U$!*

Permission to forward and crosspost granted

Call today! I have already called, and this is indeed a fact.


----------



## Rowdy (Sep 2, 2007)

Just called. The woman did verify that they do support HSUS. I am now officially off their list. Thanks Red


----------



## aisling (Feb 1, 2010)

Wow. Thanks for the heads up. Off my list as well.


----------



## amdeblaey (Jun 27, 2009)

Not to sounds stupid-but what the heck does HSUS mean? I'm assuming it's bad-I'm a member of F&S-so if someone could educate me more, it sounds like I sound take my name off too.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Yikes. I get their catalogs but haven't ordered from them in a long time, other places are cheaper. Off to call (or in the morning, if they're gone)


----------



## pittsabowawa (Jul 26, 2009)

HSUS is the humane society of the united states


----------



## BorderGal (Nov 29, 2008)

Never order from Foster & Smith....#1 I think they are too expensive and #2.. I did order once years and years ago, they screwed up my order, sent mine to someone else and a charged a huge order (not mine) to me, then proceeded to tell me that there was a problem with my "Master Card" (which I paid with a Visa and don't own a Master Card)....this is just reason #3. Thanks for the head's up!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I order from them all the time...their prices on some things are decent and the customer service can't be beat. I've rarely had problems and even then they were cleared up quickly and courteously. And it's the only place I can order dog and cat stuff along with reptile, small animal, and fish supplies. 

I do know that HSUS engages in some shady practices but I'm not convinced they're so horrid that I have to stop ordering from my favorite pet supply company. They do a lot of good as well.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I ordered from them. Quite a bit. No more. I saw this on another list yesterday and called.


----------



## JThomas0385 (Nov 10, 2009)

What's wrong with the Humane Society?? I also thought they were a good organization. I'm obliviously missing something.


----------



## pittsabowawa (Jul 26, 2009)

The HSUS has some more radical agendas than I would like and very little to none of the money donated to them goes to helping animals. Most goes to their legislative efforts, some of which are very dicey.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

You people want to get off a mailing list because they support a group that is busting dog fighting rings and closing puppy mills? 

Most of you don't even know why you don't like HSUS except that other people in the forum don't. Forum Groupthink is really sad.

I'm sending and extra $10 to HSUS for everyone who posts here. Up to $120 right now. Can we go for $200?


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

BTW: Visa is also a corporate supporter of HSUS, so don't forget to chop up all your cards with the Visa logo.


----------



## pittsabowawa (Jul 26, 2009)

Why not go for $1000?  I don't see where your giving away money does anything. I'm neither here nor there about HSUS and I don't order offline anyway so I have no reason to take my name off a list. What I do know is the HSUS should be spending more money on shelters than it does. If HSUS has all these sponsors shelters shouldn't have to be closing for lack of funds... they should be able to get help.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

KaseyT said:


> You people want to get off a mailing list because they support a group that busting dog fighting rings and closing puppy mills?
> 
> Most of you don't even know why you don't like HSUS except that other people in the forum don't. Forum group-think is really sad.
> 
> I'm sending and extra $10 to HSUS for everyone who posts here.


Actually I do NOT like them because of their past and current views on Pit Bulls and fight rings. Did you know that the HSUS (not to be confused with your local shelter) has busted a few "dog fighting rings" and killed the whole APBT line with in hours only a few months later to find out the "rings" WERE NOT FIGHTING RINGS. Floyd Boudreaux had one of the better APBT lines and every dog was killed in 24hrs after the raid, which he was found non-guilty of. The guy USE to be a dog fighter but had stopped doing such thing a LONG time ago. 

The HSUS doesn't care about who they bust for "Dog Fighting". They will bust anyone who owns more then one Pit Bull, has equipment like a break stick, treadmills, slant mills, medical supplies, spring poles, and flirt poles. It wasn't until 2009 ish that the HSUS FINALLY changed its views on what to do with the Pit Bulls they "rescue". They still don't agree with allowing these dogs to be rehabilitated and made into lovely home dogs. The only reason why they changed is because of outside pressure. They would be more then happy to walk into my house and call me a "dog fighter".

They also "steal" from well intentioned people just by their name. People think that they are donating to shelters across the country when in fact, unless the shelters are holding one of their bust cases, they don't give a penny away. Even if the shelters ARE holding one of their bust cases normally they don't get a penny from the HSUS.

To support the HSUS you support someone that doesn't really care about Pets. They spend more time lobbying in congress about "Animal Rights" then they actually do trying to "bust" puppy mills. 

Send your money to your local Animal shelter or to your local Animal Control to work on local cases. Supporting the HSUS is just like supporting PETA. Your supporting Nuts who in the end want all animals to be free (you never to own a pet for the rest of human kind) and you to be only eating grass


----------



## Rowdy (Sep 2, 2007)

JThomas0385 said:


> What's wrong with the Humane Society?? I also thought they were a good organization. I'm obliviously missing something.


This is the Humane Society of the United States. It's NOT related to your local Humane Society. HSUS has NO shelters. Basically it's a radical animal rights group rather than protectors of animals. 

Here's an article about them:

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/136-humane-society-of-the-united-states


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Darkmoon said:


> Send your money to your local Animal shelter or to your local Animal Control to work on local cases. Supporting the HSUS is just like supporting PETA. Your supporting Nuts who in the end want all animals to be free (you never to own a pet for the rest of human kind) and you to be only eating grass


Almost everything you said about HSUS was utter nonsense.

$10 more for HSUS.


----------



## pittsabowawa (Jul 26, 2009)

DM has the an actual name of a guy... what do you have proving its not true?


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

JThomas0385 said:


> What's wrong with the Humane Society?? I also thought they were a good organization. I'm obliviously missing something.


They support some pretty radical agendas. (Well, radical depending on where you stand politically anyway.) I don't have time to post a detailed post about them now as I'm at work, but I will when I get home this evening.



KaseyT said:


> You people want to get off a mailing list because they support a group that is busting dog fighting rings and closing puppy mills?
> 
> Most of you don't even know why you don't like HSUS except that other people in the forum don't. Forum Groupthink is really sad.
> 
> I'm sending and extra $10 to HSUS for everyone who posts here. Up to $120 right now. Can we go for $200?


There is more to the HSUS than just busting dog fighting rings and closing puppy mills. They've been linked to some eco-terrorism groups, there's been numerous allegations of financial misdeeds and they've been criticized by the AVMA as well.



KaseyT said:


> BTW: Visa is also a corporate supporter of HSUS, so don't forget to chop up all your cards with the Visa logo.


I chopped those up years and years ago. Different reasons though.


----------



## bigblackdogs (May 28, 2009)

KaseyT said:


> Almost everything you said about HSUS was utter nonsense.
> 
> $10 more for HSUS.


prove her wrong with facts then. just because you say it is wrong doesn't make it so. why is she and everyone else wrong?

what darkmoon said sounds like everything I have ever read about HSUS.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

pittsabowawa said:


> DM has the an actual name of a guy... what do you have proving its not true?


http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2008/10/floyd-boudreaux-is-aquitted.html

Floyd Boudreaux was raided by the police, and the dogs were euthanized by the Louisiana SPCA.

I have no doubt whatsoever Boudreaux was breeding fighting dog. 

_The dogs, along with items ranging from anabolic steroids to exercise treadmills to computer records and videos, were evidence enough to book Floyd Boudreaux, 70, and Guy Boudreaux, 40, with animal cruelty, illegal possession of steroids, possession of a sawed-off shotgun and 64 counts of dogfighting._

Sometimes the guilty do get away with it.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

bigblackdogs said:


> prove her wrong with facts then. just because you say it is wrong doesn't make it so. why is she and everyone else wrong?
> 
> what darkmoon said sounds like everything I have ever read about HSUS.


You can't prove a negative. If a poster has an accusation against the HSUS, it up to the poster to prove it, not just make unfounded accusation that has been fed to them by ConsumerFreedom.org.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

bigblackdogs said:


> prove her wrong with facts then. just because you say it is wrong doesn't make it so. why is she and everyone else wrong?
> 
> what darkmoon said sounds like everything I have ever read about HSUS.


As evidenced by the lengthy thread on over-vaccination / yearly vaccination, KaseyT doesn't really go in for the facts much. Numerous scholarly vet journal articles were linked and she apparently refused to read them and countered with a google search and a strawman arguement.

People have the right to support the HSUS if they agree with their tactics and aims. But people should also have the right to accurate information about the HSUS (and any other non-profit or activist group asking for financial support from the public) and HSUS is one of those groups that plays up the popular side of itself and hides the more radical side. It takes advantage of people's confusion of the "Humane Society" name.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

KaseyT said:


> Almost everything you said about HSUS was utter nonsense.
> 
> $10 more for HSUS.


Excuse me? You want to fight about this? Here you go Floyd Boudreaux, Was acquitted of all charges after being accused of Dog Fighting. The case was a while ago, so many of the new sites are already gone. Here is a blog about it: http://bluedogstate.blogspot.com/2008/10/pit-bull-breeder-floyd-boudreaux.html The dogs were killed 24hrs after being brought into the shelter.

More on the case: http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/31089634.html?showAll=y&c=y

There are others too, but this "bust" was the biggest.

BadRap themselves on HSUS after they FINALLY changed their stance on Bust Dogs, Feb through April 2009:
http://badrap-blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/no-more-excuses-bust-dogs-are-on-bus.html
http://badrap-blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/when-is-bust-dog-just-shelter-dog-and_29.html
http://badrap-blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/hsus-announces-interim-policy-meeting.html

More Facts on the HSUS:
http://www.ohioangus.org/PDFs/newsletters/2009/May 09 Ohio Angus news web.pdf
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/200810_CCF_7Things_HSUS.pdf

Must I keep going?


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

From Badrap.org (emphasis mine)



> Floyd admitted to pitting his dogs back when dog fighting was still legal in Louisiana, but maintained a reputation as a breeder until 2005, when state troopers, *aided by the HSUS*, stormed onto his property and seized his dogs.


http://badrap-blog.blogspot.com/2008/10/floyd-acquitted-bad-law-remains.html


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

KaseyT said:


> You can't prove a negative. If a poster has an accusation against the HSUS, it up to the poster to prove it, not just make unfounded accusation that has been fed to them by ConsumerFreedom.org.


This is not a case of proving a negative. What you are asked to supply is counter-claims or basically proof that the information she provided is false. 

Proving a negative would be me asking you to prove that say, life on other planets doesn't exist. You couldn't prove it because the possibility would continue to exist (no matter how unlikely) even after planet after planet was confirmed "void of life"

Countering darkmoon's information on the other hand should be simple; for example-- to counter this:


> They also "steal" from well intentioned people just by their name. People think that they are donating to shelters across the country when in fact, unless the shelters are holding one of their bust cases, they don't give a penny away. Even if the shelters ARE holding one of their bust cases normally they don't get a penny from the HSUS.


You could show financial data that covers how much money they are giving to local shelters. 

Or to counter this:


> They still don't agree with allowing these dogs to be rehabilitated and made into lovely home dogs.


You could show what actions the HSUS has been taking to rehabilitate these dogs and supporting them into being adopted.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

> Floyd admitted to pitting his dogs *back when dog fighting was still legal in Louisiana*, but maintained a reputation as a breeder until 2005, when state troopers, aided by the HSUS, stormed onto his property and seized his dogs.


WHEN IT WAS STILL LEAGAL

Yes, Floyd fought his dogs, *ALL* PIT BULLS CAME FROM DOG FIGHTING BREEDERS. That is where the breed CAME from. He STOPPED once it became illegal for him to fight dogs.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Darkmoon said:


> WHEN IT WAS STILL LEAGAL
> 
> Yes, Floyd fought his dogs, *ALL* PIT BULLS CAME FROM DOG FIGHTING BREEDERS. That is where the breed CAME from. He STOPPED once it became illegal for him to fight dogs.


OK sure.

and what does any of this have to do with HSUS?


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Darkmoon said:


> WHEN IT WAS STILL LEAGAL
> 
> Yes, Floyd fought his dogs, *ALL* PIT BULLS CAME FROM DOG FIGHTING BREEDERS. That is where the breed CAME from. He STOPPED once it became illegal for him to fight dogs.


Just to be clear Darkmoon, I posted that quote in support of you to make it clear that HSUS was involved in the raid. I understand that what he was doing was legal at the time (legal, although I would say unethical) and he shouldn't be punished for that ex post facto.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

The links! Read!


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Shell said:


> This is not a case of proving a negative. What you are asked to supply is counter-claims or basically proof that the information she provided is false.
> 
> Proving a negative would be me asking you to prove that say, life on other planets doesn't exist. You couldn't prove it because the possibility would continue to exist (no matter how unlikely) even after planet after planet was confirmed "void of life"
> 
> ...


It is not HSUS role to give money to local shelters. They are not affiliated with local HS shelters. It is not in their mission statement that the give money to local shelters, not do they make claims of giving money to local shelters.



Shell said:


> Or to counter this:
> 
> You could show what actions the HSUS has been taking to rehabilitate these dogs and supporting them into being adopted.


They were not in possession of the dogs. The dogs were held and euthanized by the Louisiana SPCA.

$180


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

KaseyT said:


> It is not HSUS role to give money to local shelters. They are not affiliated with local HS shelters. It is not in their mission statement that the give money to local shelters, not do they make claims of giving money to local shelters.
> 
> They were not in possession of the dogs. The dogs were held and euthanized by the Louisiana SPCA.
> 
> $180


Wow, way to completely misunderstand and misquote me and Darkmoon. Reading comprehension is not your strong suite is it?

You cannot counter THIS: They still don't agree with allowing these dogs to be rehabilitated and made into lovely home dogs. 
With THIS: They were not in possession of the dogs. The dogs were held and euthanized by the Louisiana SPCA.

As for the first part, what the HSUS is prey on people's REASONABLE assumptions that a group whose name begins with "Humane Society" would in some way financially support those local shelters whose names begin with "Humane Society"

And you do not get to add to your little $$ donation for any of my posts as I have never purchased from Drs F & S and am not now nor have I ever been on their mailing list so I have no list to remove myself from. 

My posting in this thread is entirely an academic exercise to see if I can get you to comprehend a proper method of debate. So far, I'll admit I'm failing but I think that is due far more to you than it is to any inability on my part.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Mods may i have permission to choke this thread with repetative anti HSUS posts?


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

The HSUS has, in the past, presented itself as being very involved in local affairs. AFter the Michael Vick case they ran an ad on their website asking people to donate money to them to help care for the dogs seized from Vick. None of these dogs were in their care.

In 2008, only 5.29% of the money they raised actually went to them. The rest was flushed away in overhead and advertising their causes. So of the $180 you're giving them only $9.50 is going to fight puppy millsand dog fighting rings.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i say we hardcore post to this thread. lets see if we can get a thousand anti HSUS posts to this thread...$10 x 1000....that's 10,000 dollars....

HSUS is just like almost every other big money animal rights unit. pointless. there is so much taking in and redistribution of wealth that donating to any of them even if they werent great big poopyheads is pointless and an act of lazyness. "im going to throw money at the issues and pretend like ive done something about it" kind of thing


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

> i say we hardcore post to this thread. lets see if we can get a thousand anti HSUS posts to this thread...$10 x 1000....that's 10,000 dollars....


Anyone else here agree with me that KaseyT has made a valid contract by stating this:


> I'm sending and extra $10 to HSUS for everyone who posts here. Up to $120 right now. Can we go for $200?


 ?? 

Alright Kasey, let us know when you plan to make the donation and post a scan of your reciept (feel free to redact personal financial information) to show your commitment to your word.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Personally I don't see what it matters to Kasey one way or another if someone else decides to stop using Foster & Smith. Personally I have never even heard of them so no big deal for me. 



> The HSUS has, in the past, presented itself as being very involved in local affairs. AFter the Michael Vick case they ran an ad on their website asking people to donate money to them to help care for the dogs seized from Vick. None of these dogs were in their care.
> 
> In 2008, only 5.29% of the money they raised actually went to them. The rest was flushed away in overhead and advertising their causes. So of the $180 you're giving them only $9.50 is going to fight puppy millsand dog fighting rings.


Yep. There are much better ways to effectively help animals.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

As for their political stances, whether they are radical or not really depends on your definition of radical. The more controversial things they support include:

They initially opposed Trap/Neuter/Return as a method of dealing with feral cats.
They oppose greyhound racing and are not fans of zoos and aquariums either.
They encourage people to reduce their consumption of meat.
They oppose hunting for fun.

If I'm incorrect on any of those statements, please correct me.


----------



## pittsabowawa (Jul 26, 2009)

I'm down.. I just don't have the links like the rest of you fine people.. up until last year (when I joined) I though HSUS was a good thing.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Shell said:


> Wow, way to completely misunderstand and misquote me and Darkmoon. Reading comprehension is not your strong suite is it?
> 
> You cannot counter THIS: They still don't agree with allowing these dogs to be rehabilitated and made into lovely home dogs.
> With THIS: They were not in possession of the dogs. The dogs were held and euthanized by the Louisiana SPCA.
> ...


How do you now what "they" "agree" with? Do you sit in the board meetings? How do you know "they" had any input whatsoever on the fate of these dogs.

As as for you people supporting Floyd Boudreaux like he was some find of hero, the guy tortured, maimed, and killed dogs for 50 years as a hobby.

I have no doubt that if I created a poll requiring you to chose between the end of all dog fighting and the end of HSUS, most of you would choose the latter.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KaseyT said:


> As as for you people supporting Floyd Boudreaux like he was some find of hero, the guy tortured, maimed, and killed dogs for 50 years as a hobby.



which is not cool. what is cool is that he stopped, willingly. and he didnt have to be arrested to do it.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

KaseyT said:


> As as for you people supporting Floyd Boudreaux like he was some find of hero, the guy tortured, maimed, and killed dogs for 50 years as a hobby.


No one called Boudreaux a hero. No one condoned what he did. Fact is, he was not a dogfighter when he was charged and his dogs were killed. You cannot be charged for doing something that is now illegal back when it was legal regardless of how morally wrong it is. The dogs were killed for no reason by groups that are supposed to be 'helping' them nonetheless.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Shell said:


> Anyone else here agree with me that KaseyT has made a valid contract by stating this:
> ??
> 
> Alright Kasey, let us know when you plan to make the donation and post a scan of your reciept (feel free to redact personal financial information) to show your commitment to your word.


How about I add them as one of the charities in my will. Say $5000. When I make the change I will post it here.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> No one called Boudreaux a hero. No one condoned what he did. Fact is, he was not a dogfighter when he was charged and his dogs were killed. You cannot be charged for doing something that is now illegal back when it was legal regardless of how morally wrong it is. The dogs were killed for no reason by groups that are supposed to be 'helping' them nonetheless.


The dogs he killed and maimed are still just as dead and maimed. So dogfighting is only wrong when is illegal? The dogs don't suffer exactly the same in legal dog fights?

What specifically did HSUS have to do with the LA SPCA euthanizing the dogs? Why isn't the LA SPCA being blamed for their choice to do this?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

KaseyT said:


> The dogs he killed and maimed are still just as dead and maimed. So dogfighting is only wrong when is illegal? The dogs don't suffer exactly the same in legal dog fights?


I don't think you read anything that I wrote, lol.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Here, from the HSUS themselves.

http://www.hsus.org/acf/news/pressrel/dogfighter_floyd_boudreaux_property_raid.html


Remember, he was found NOT guilty of fighting his dogs.


----------



## pittsabowawa (Jul 26, 2009)

We're not arguing if its wrong... You must have missed Laur's first two sentences. The fact is he was charged with doing something that he was not doing at the time of being charged.. what he did in the past is negligable.. despite what our moral feelings about it are.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Here, from the HSUS themselves.
> 
> http://www.hsus.org/acf/news/pressrel/dogfighter_floyd_boudreaux_property_raid.html
> 
> ...


What in this link has anything to do with the decision to euthanize the dogs? It hadn't even occurred yet when the piece was written.

As for arresting him, they had every reason in the world to do that. There was certainly plenty of evidence that he was fighting dogs. Evidence is all the police ever have when they arrest someone. 

If you can't raid his place, you might as well completely give up on stopping dog fighting.


----------



## Miranda16 (Jan 17, 2010)

you are arguing new points that are trying to answer your other questions .... i dont think you read very well because i can follow this very clearly and very clearly understand the evidence of each one of these peoples arguements .... 

the police may have had evidence but they are not allowed to charge somebody for something they did, no matter how bad it was, if it was legal at the time .... THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED *LEGALLY* TO DO SO

yes he faught dogs WHEN IT WAS LEGAL he then stopped and was no longer doing so ... he was then therefore considered a normal citizen with dogs ... NO MATTER WHAT HE DID IN THE PAST and therefore the police as well as the spca or hsus or whoever his dogs were in the care of had no right to euthinize his dogs .... ALSO hsus supported the louisiana spca in their raid ... that shows their connection .... weather they had a connection to the dogs' euthinization or not is regaurdless considering they supported what the spca was doing .....

none of us are saying what he did was right when he was fighting dogs ... we are saying nothing could have been done about it and the fact that his dogs were killed when he had done nothing LEGALLY wrong was unethical and the hsus (supporting the spca of louisiana) did nothing about it ... ergo supporting the unethical killing of his dogs


----------



## Miranda16 (Jan 17, 2010)

also i am not supporting any evidence (via websites) because it has already been posted and you havent read it with a good sense of reading comprehension


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KaseyT said:


> http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2008/10/floyd-boudreaux-is-aquitted.html
> 
> Floyd Boudreaux was raided by the police, and the dogs were euthanized by the Louisiana SPCA.
> 
> ...


A-may-zing.

You're okay with perpetuating false information about people you don't like, but if anyone does the same to HSUS it's a sacrilege. 

Boudreaux was acquitted. And yet, you say he's definitely guilty and got away with it, despite having no evidence of him being guilty.

Super double standard.


----------



## Miranda16 (Jan 17, 2010)

haha all i can say to this is UGH REALLLLLY!!! in response to KaseyT that is ......


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

KaseyT said:


> What in this link has anything to do with the decision to euthanize the dogs? It hadn't even occurred yet when the piece was written.


I am not saying the SPCA is innocent but fact is HSUS, the police, and the SPCA are involved (via their own admission) in the case. The raid (that the HSUS supported) ended up in the death of all the dogs. 



> As for arresting him, they had every reason in the world to do that. There was certainly plenty of evidence that he was fighting dogs. Evidence is all the police ever have when they arrest someone.
> 
> If you can't raid his place, you might as well completely give up on stopping dog fighting.


What evidence? There was none, which is why he was not found guilty. I guess if you have a lot of pit bulls, then you're a dog fighter?  

Maybe the worst for me is the HSUS still has that article up about him being one of the countries biggest dog fighters when there was no evidence saying he is. I don't care what the man did in the past, the precedence this case has is scary.

Oh and they still have his arrest as one of the top 10 stories of 2005.

http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/wayne_pacelle_the_animal_advocate/wayne_pacelle_dozen_top.html


----------



## amdeblaey (Jun 27, 2009)

KaseyT said:


> How about I add them as one of the charities in my will. Say $5000. When I make the change I will post it here.


How about you take this money-and put it to better use-the humane society across the street burned down-killing 90 cats, and over 10 dogs, and had to put down more dogs because of the smoke. After 3 months-they are still not up and running because of lack of money and lack of volunteers. They even HSUS, and I don't know jack about it-or the arguments on here-I do know that there are better uses for this so called money you are raising.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KaseyT said:


> BTW: Visa is also a corporate supporter of HSUS, so don't forget to chop up all your cards with the Visa logo.


Done..

Anything else?


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Miranda16 said:


> you are arguing new points that are trying to answer your other questions .... i dont think you read very well because i can follow this very clearly and very clearly understand the evidence of each one of these peoples arguements ....
> 
> the police may have had evidence but they are not allowed to charge somebody for something they did, no matter how bad it was, if it was legal at the time .... THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED *LEGALLY* TO DO SO


The police certainly are allowed to charge someone with dog fighting when dog fighting is illegal, which is exactly what they did. Obviously they did not charge him for dog fighting while it was legal.





Miranda16 said:


> yes he faught dogs WHEN IT WAS LEGAL he then stopped and was no longer doing so ... he was then therefore considered a normal citizen with dogs ... NO MATTER WHAT HE DID IN THE PAST and therefore the police as well as the spca or hsus or whoever his dogs were in the care of had no right to euthinize his dogs .... ALSO hsus supported the louisiana spca in their raid ... that shows their connection .... weather they had a connection to the dogs' euthinization or not is regaurdless considering they supported what the spca was doing .....


If course they supported the raid. Why wouldn't they. They had every reason to believe he was currently dog fighting.



Miranda16 said:


> none of us are saying what he did was right when he was fighting dogs ... we are saying nothing could have been done about it and the fact that his dogs were killed when he had done nothing LEGALLY wrong was unethical and the hsus (supporting the spca of louisiana) did nothing about it ... ergo supporting the unethical killing of his dogs


So you saying people should stop buying from Dr. Fosters because they are supporting the HSUS who participated in the raid of a notorious dog fighter, who admits torturing, maiming, and killing dogs for 50 years, whose property was full of dog fighting paraphernalia, and who's dogs showed all the evidence of dog fighting, who kept fighting chickens and a sawed off shotgun on his property?

And you claim their involvement in this raid make them responsible for the LA SPCAs decision to euthanize the dogs?


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Done..
> 
> Anything else?


That's a good question ... I have to wonder about what other places support HSUS, or any other AR group, in some way.

I'm not an extremist, so I probably wouldn't stop buying from drs F&S if I were happy buying from them. I did used to buy good parrot items from them, but they are rather high & they don't offer whole sale prices to retailers, so I haven't bought from them for a couple years at least anyway.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> What evidence? There was none, which is why he was not found guilty. I guess if you have a lot of pit bulls, then you're a dog fighter?


Wrong. There was a ton of evidence. They just could no proved beyond reasonable doubt the it was used after dog fighting was made illegal. Our system of justice is designed on the presumption that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free then to convict one innocent man.

In 99 out of a 100 cases when you find 50 pit bulls, steroids, tread mills, sawed of shotguns, and scared up dogs you have found a dog fighter. Actually it's probably 100 out of 100 cases. Base on the evidence, to not have raided him would have been an irresponsible dereliction of duty. You just can't get convictions every time.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KaseyT said:


> Wrong. There was a ton of evidence. They just could no proved beyond reasonable doubt the it was used after dog fighting was made illegal. Our system of justice is designed on the presumption that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free then to convince one innocent man.


You heard it here, people. KaseyT knows more about this case than the people actually working on the case.

Image is self-explanatory.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

RBark said:


> A-may-zing.
> 
> You're okay with perpetuating false information about people you don't like, but if anyone does the same to HSUS it's a sacrilege.
> 
> ...


D you think OJ was guilty of murdering Nicole?


----------



## Miranda16 (Jan 17, 2010)

the fact of the matter is he still had all the stuff from when he was fighting ...... the fact that he was no longer fighting means there was no reason that the spca should have euthanized his dogs ..... especially not within 24 hours of their seizure .... they had no right ... especially since he was found NOT GUILTY if you were suspected of dog fighting and they seized your dogs and euthanized them before you were tried and then found not guilty you would feel like they killed your dogs for no reason right ... right ... because its true


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

RBark said:


> You heard it here, people. KaseyT knows more about this case than the people actually working on the case.
> 
> Image is self-explanatory.


I confused. What does the Vick case have to do with this discussion?


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Miranda16 said:


> the fact of the matter is he still had all the stuff from when he was fighting ...... the fact that he was no longer fighting means there was no reason that the spca should have euthanized his dogs ..... especially not within 24 hours of their seizure .... they had no right ... especially since he was found NOT GUILTY if you were suspected of dog fighting and they seized your dogs and euthanized them before you were tried and then found not guilty you would feel like they killed your dogs for no reason right ... right ... because its true


Again, what does the LA SPCA have do do with HSUS?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

KaseyT said:


> Wrong. There was a ton of evidence. They just could no proved beyond reasonable doubt the it was used after dog fighting was made illegal. Our system of justice is designed on the presumption that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free then to convict one innocent man.
> 
> In 99 out of a 100 cases when you find 50 pit bulls, steroids, tread mills, sawed of shotguns, and scared up dogs you have found a dog fighter. Actually it's probably 100 out of 100 cases. Base on the evidence, to not have raided him would have been an irresponsible dereliction of duty. You just can't get convictions every time.


And you have documentation of all this? Cause what I've read stated there were no treadmills at all. 

Also on the note of cockfighting, it was legal in louisiana in 2005. Cockfighting was not illegal until 2007.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KaseyT said:


> I confused. What does the Vick case have to do with this discussion?


Just more, you know, misleading HSUS stuff. Since they did not actually take care of the dogs. I'm sure badrap could have used the money meant to take care of the vick dogs, since well, they are the ones who took care of them.


----------



## nikkiluvsu15 (Jun 18, 2009)

Wow.

Since he had ALL the stuff dog fighters apparently use... He must still be a dog fighter? 

I guess that makes me one to because I have a break stick (which all RESPONSIBLE pit bull owners should have, imo), we have a shotgun (HELLO! We live in the country and there is such a thing called.. hunting season!), Rebel had a flirt pole (it got lost), we're planning on building a spring pole for him this summer, he's used the treadmill before and we've had chickens? Oh and because Rebel is a Pit Bull, no brainer that we must be

Was there ANY evidence on the dogs that they were being used for dog fighting? Scars, bad DA, anything? 

DM and MANY others have given you tons of articles and proof, plus their posts that you don't seem to read. Guess you can't face the fact that your wrong? Who knows

I've never bought anything from Drs. Foster and Smith before, so I have no name to remove. Like Pitts, I never knew that HSUS was like this until I joined here and learned some.


----------



## Binkalette (Dec 16, 2008)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> *Drs Foster & Smith" is a supporter of H$U$... and they have sold their customer list to H$U$! Call 1-800-381-7179 to have your name removed from their mailing list and to tell them you do not approve of their association with H$U$!*
> 
> Permission to forward and crosspost granted
> 
> Call today! I have already called, and this is indeed a fact.


So.. This must be why I've started getting all kinds of HSUS crap in the mail. I've bought things from Dr. F&S before.. They sent me a blanket a few months ago. What a waste of money that could have gone to help an animal.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KaseyT said:


> Again, what does the LA SPCA have do do with HSUS?


The HSUS tried to have the Vick dogs killed. I can't be bothered to look if they tried to get the Bordeaux dogs killed too. But its a no brainer connection. They may not have killed the dogs, but they definitely support the killing of dogs from these busts. You may feel that's acceptable, but many people don't.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> And you have documentation of all this? Cause what I've read stated there were no treadmills at all.
> 
> Also on the note of cockfighting, it was legal in louisiana in 2005. Cockfighting was not illegal until 2007.


http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/3994/LA/US/

Check out the pics. The dogs weren't even allowed contact with each other.

_The animals - most found in healthy condition - will probably be euthanized, said Laura Maloney, director of the Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The New Orleans-based nonprofit was helping in the dog removal. _

So who is reasonable for euthanizing the dogs? Are you folks from LA going to withdraw your support for the LA SPCA?


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

KaseyT said:


> I confused. What does the Vick case have to do with this discussion?


In the Vick case, the HSUS asked that people donate money to them to care for the dogs that were seized. The HSUS at the time did not have control of the dogs and was contributing nothing at all to their care. How many people do you think donated money to the HSUS to care for Vick's dogs? You don't think those people were gypped out of their money? The HSUS knew they were wrong too. When people called them on it, they pulled the ad immediately.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

hulkamaniac said:


> In the Vick case, the HSUS asked that people donate money to them to care for the dogs that were seized. The HSUS at the time did not have control of the dogs and was contributing nothing at all to their care. How many people do you think donated money to the HSUS to care for Vick's dogs? You don't think those people were gypped out of their money? The HSUS knew they were wrong too. When people called them on it, they pulled the ad immediately.


The HSUS pulled this stunt again recently with the 5 state dog fighting bust dogs. One dog, Fay, had her lips cut off and she was rehabbing with a rescue in St. Louis. The HSUS used her picture and story for fundraising purposes, basically saying the funds would go to her and the other bust dogs. They raised a whole heck of a lot of money with this campaignuntil they were called on it by the rescue that actually had custody of Fay, Mutts-N-Stuff.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

RBark said:


> The HSUS tried to have the Vick dogs killed. I can't be bothered to look if they tried to get the Bordeaux dogs killed too. But its a no brainer connection. They may not have killed the dogs, but they definitely support the killing of dogs from these busts. You may feel that's acceptable, but many people don't.


Evedence?

The only reason Vicks dogs were able to be re-homed was because of the funds generated from the massive publicity of the case. Re-homing such dogs is very expensive and most fighting dogs are routinely euthanized by local shelters and HSUS has nothing to do with that.

Do you realize the liability a shelter takes on when it re-homes a known fighting dog? None of the shelters in Richmond will do it. Not the HS. Not the SPCA. Not the local pit bull rescues. All this organizations have to have insurance and no insurance company is going to allow them to do that.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

brandiw said:


> The HSUS pulled this stunt again recently with the 5 state dog fighting bust dogs. One dog, Fay, had her lips cut off and she was rehabbing with a rescue in St. Louis. The HSUS used her picture and story for fundraising purposes, basically saying the funds would go to her and the other bust dogs. They raised a whole heck of a lot of money with this campaignuntil they were called on it by the rescue that actually had custody of Fay, Mutts-N-Stuff.


Can you link to something about this please? It's only fair that if we're asking Kasey for proof we should provide some too.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

brandiw said:


> The HSUS pulled this stunt again recently with the 5 state dog fighting bust dogs. One dog, Fay, had her lips cut off and she was rehabbing with a rescue in St. Louis. The HSUS used her picture and story for fundraising purposes, basically saying the funds would go to her and the other bust dogs. They raised a whole heck of a lot of money with this campaignuntil they were called on it by the rescue that actually had custody of Fay, Mutts-N-Stuff.


Link to the fundraising add please, or any evidence whatsoever that what you are saying is true.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KaseyT said:


> http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/3994/LA/US/
> 
> Check out the pics. The dogs weren't even allowed contact with each other.


Are you talking about their shelter and how the chain was not long enough for them to interact with the next dog? If so, then that's not even an argument at all. 

That kind of housing setup is used extensively by owners of sled dogs. Obviously sled dogs are not DA. The dogs aren't allowed to interact with each other unsupervised. Not to mention the risks of the chains tangling with each other.



> _*The animals - most found in healthy condition* - will probably be euthanized, said Laura Maloney, director of the Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The New Orleans-based nonprofit was helping in the dog removal. _
> 
> So who is reasonable for euthanizing the dogs? Are you folks from LA going to withdraw your support for the LA SPCA?


Bolded a important part of your quote. That's 64 dogs where the majority were healthy. Yeah, definitely sounds like a dog fighting ring. 

And yes, I am sure that the same people who withdrew support for HSUS due to their involvement in this also withdrew support for LA SPCA. 

The HSUS supported the killing of these animals. They may not have killed them themselves, but if they support the killing of these animals, and people like Darkmoon and Redyre don't support the killing of these animals, then yes, they would be correct for not supporting HSUS and focusing their money on those who support what they do.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

hulkamaniac said:


> Can you link to something about this please? It's only fair that if we're asking Kasey for proof we should provide some too.


They eventually DID send money for Fay but only AFTER being called out about it,

http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/12/04/hsus-fund-raising-pitch-raises-hackles/

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogb...e-creditdonations-for-the-work-of-others.html


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> Can you link to something about this please? It's only fair that if we're asking Kasey for proof we should provide some too.





KaseyT said:


> Link to the fundraising add please, or any evidence whatsoever that what you are saying is true.


http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/12/04/hsus-fund-raising-pitch-raises-hackles/


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

http://www.animalagalliance.org/images/ag_insert/20091214_Dishonest.pdf


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KaseyT said:


> Evedence?


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/sports/football/01vick.html



> The only reason Vicks dogs were able to be re-homed was because of the funds generated from the massive publicity of the case. Re-homing such dogs is very expensive and most fighting dogs are routinely euthanized by local shelters and HSUS has nothing to do with that.
> 
> Do you realize the liability a shelter takes on when it re-homes a known fighting dog? None of the shelters in Richmond will do it. Not the HS. Not the SPCA. Not the local pit bull rescues. All this organizations have to have insurance and no insurance company is going to allow them to do that.


Um, Badrap did it. Badrap is a local pit bull shelter in the SF Bay Area. The HSUS raised money for the vick dogs, and did NOT contribute it to the vick dogs. You can say whatever you want, but Badrap took care of the Vick dogs, and rehomed the majority of them successfully. The money the HSUS raised for the Vick dogs, little to none of it went to help them.




> “Officials from our organization have examined some of these dogs and, generally speaking, they are some of the most aggressively trained pit bulls in the country,” Wayne Pacelle, the president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “Hundreds of thousands of less-violent pit bulls, who are better candidates to be rehabilitated, are being put down. *The fate of these dogs will be up to the government, but we have recommended to them, and believe, they will be eventually put down.*”


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> Can you link to something about this please? It's only fair that if we're asking Kasey for proof we should provide some too.


We've offered at least 20 links to proof in this thread alone, and another 20 in the vaccine thread. He never responds with any proof, and he will continue to respond with nothing but conjecture and baseless information. It's a lesson in redudancy.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/linked/dubiousdeals.pdf


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KaseyT said:


> Evedence?
> 
> The only reason Vicks dogs were able to be re-homed was because of the funds generated from the massive publicity of the case. Re-homing such dogs is very expensive and most fighting dogs are routinely euthanized by local shelters and HSUS has nothing to do with that.
> 
> Do you realize the liability a shelter takes on when it re-homes a known fighting dog? None of the shelters in Richmond will do it. Not the HS. Not the SPCA. Not the local pit bull rescues. All this organizations have to have insurance and no insurance company is going to allow them to do that.


HSUS has nothing to do with it eh?

Here's a bit of court transcript for ya... 127 dogs put to death, including pups born in the shelter after the siezure.



> MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: Amanda Arrington. I'm the North Carolina State Director for the Humane Society of the united States. And our concern is that the only offer of help has been from Best Friends, but they are not offering to take these dogs.
> 
> THE COURT: They are not offering to take the dogs?
> 
> ...


$190,000 to rehabilitate a dog? ROFL..

Where are the millions of donations for seized dogs to HSUS going?


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

RBark said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/sports/football/01vick.html
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Badrap did it. Badrap is a local pit bull shelter in the SF Bay Area. The HSUS raised money for the vick dogs, and did NOT contribute it to the vick dogs. You can say whatever you want, but Badrap took care of the Vick dogs, and rehomed the majority of them successfully. The money the HSUS raised for the Vick dogs, little to none of it went to help them.



Wrong. Bad Rap did it because had large donations and special facilities made available to them because of the notoriety of the case. In addition Vick payed $928,000 for the care of the dogs. 

Seriously, think about it. A shelter re-homes a dog it knows was a fighting dog and it bites some kid. A lawyers dream and the end of that organisation.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KaseyT said:


> Wrong. Bad Rap did it because had large donations and special facilities made available to them because of the notoriety of the case. In addition Vick payed $928,000 for the care of the dogs.


Uh, that has nothing to do with anything. Yes bad rap did it because of large donations. NONE of that donations came from HSUS, who claimed to be raising funds for that purpose. Badrap got the money from other sources, not the HSUS. The argument here is the misleading that HSUS does. Again, I repeat, they raised funds to help the Vick dogs and did not help them, instead, recommended to euthanize all of them.




> Seriously, think about it. A shelter re-homes a dog it knows was a fighting dog and it bites some kid. A lawyers dream and the end of that organisation.


I hate to do the common sense thing but, Dog Aggression != Human Aggression. They are not connected in any way whatsoever. That is basic dog psychology. That said, Bad Rap DID rehome the Vick dogs. When your hypothetical situation that's not based on reality happens, maybe that would be a halfway decent argument. But until then, it's just your imaginary justification.

And of course, you ignored all the other evidence. Typical. And offered no evidence other than your baseless conjecture. Also typical.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

RBark said:


> I hate to do the common sense thing but, Dog Aggression != Human Aggression.


I know that. You know that. The shelters know that. 

Do you expect insurance companies to lawyers of have common sense about this. The same insurance companies that refuse to provide homeowners insurance for people with pit bull, or allow kennels to board pit bulls?

Any half decent lawyer would still win a huge award if it happened. 

There is also the dilemma of insuring that fighting dogs are not being re-handed back into fighting. Some of these dogs are worth a ton of money. Requires a whole new level of background investigation beyond what local shelters are capable of.

Here is a fact. Almost all fighting dogs are euthanized. Happens every day. Only the big cases make the news and cause a hub bub. Dog fighters are busted every day and their dogs euthanized without fanfare.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Here's the president of HSUS's words... Wayne Pacelle..



> We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding. (Animal People News, May 1, 1993)





> We would be foolish and silly not to unite with people in the public health sector, the environmental community, [and] unions, to try to challenge corporate agriculture. ("Animal Rights Convention 2002" convention, July 1, 2002)





> Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.Bozeman (MT) Daily Chronicle (October 8, 1991)



Hmm...

How about Dr, Jim?



> Mar 15 2010
> Daybreak USA with Dr. Jim
> A major tip of the hat to Dr. Jim Humphries of the Veterinary News Network and Pet Docs On Call. Appearing on the USA Radio Network's "Daybreak USA" program, Dr. Jim is spreading the word about what the Humane Society of the United States is--and what it isn't....
> 
> ...



So out of every sucker who donates the $19 a month, or $228 a year, a whopping dollar and three cents actually goes to help shelters...


And that doesn't even touch their legislative agenda, and the bills they push to remove pet owner's rights.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KaseyT said:


> I know that. You know that. The shelters know that.
> 
> Do you expect insurance companies to lawyers of have common sense about this. The same insurance companies that refuse to provide homeowners insurance for people with pit bull, or allow kennels to board pit bull?
> 
> ...


Whether these dogs should be rehomed or not is not the issue at hand. I have no opinion on that matter. The issue that people don't like is, as we have shown excessive evidence of (court transcripts, ny times quotes, pictures of hsus's own fundraiser ads, etc etc etc) the HSUS requesting money to rehabilate dogs rescued from fighting pits, and using none of that money to help them.

The why's don't matter, whether you agree the dogs should be euthanized don't matter. Fact is they pull that crap, and there are people who won't support it.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KaseyT said:


> Here is a fact. Almost all fighting dogs are euthanized. Happens every day. Only the big cases make the news and cause a hub bub. Dog fighters are busted every day and their dogs euthanized without fanfare.


Interesting fact without evidence (as usual). But again, true or not, still has nothing to do with the fact HSUS misleads people.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

We are not arguing whether fighting dogs should or shouldn't be rehomed or euthed (but I will remind you Boudreaux's dogs were never found to be fighting dogs). That is irrelevant. HSUS uses pictures of fighting dogs to drum up donations from people wanting to help these dogs. Then they turn around and give nothing to the dogs. That's wrong.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

HSUS doesn't 'rescue' any animals. They come in with cameras and cops to a Puppy Mill or Dog Fighting bust, shut the place down, dump the animals on the local shelters and rescues, and drive off once they're done taking the pictures of themselves 'being heroic' that they can put on their next direct mail advertisement.

Most of those local shelters don't have the capacity or funds to properly care for or rehab the large influx of animals the HSUS hands off to them. They're left to work out all the issues and labor involved in handling the actual animals day to day and finding them homes, while the HSUS often trying to take credit for their efforts to raise money (like they did with Faye).

Give to your local shelter or rescue, not the HSUS. Because the local guys are doing the all the real work after the cameras stop rolling.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> *Drs Foster & Smith" is a supporter of H$U$... and they have sold their customer list to H$U$! Call 1-800-381-7179 to have your name removed from their mailing list and to tell them you do not approve of their association with H$U$!*
> 
> Permission to forward and crosspost granted
> 
> Call today! I have already called, and this is indeed a fact.


It's interesting that they confirmed it because they issued a denial of this rumor on their facebook page yesterday.



> Drs. Foster and Smith Pet Supplies Recently through means and for reasons unknown to us, Drs. Foster and Smith has been falsely accused of financially supporting a particular advocacy group, HSUS and further that HSUS has a list of Drs. Foster and Smith's customers. We have not financially supported HSUS or any other advocacy group of perhaps a different persuasion than HSUS.
> 
> At no time has HSUS or any other advocacy group ever had a list of Drs. Foster and Smith customers. Thank you for understanding that our focus as a company is on providing quality products and services related to superior pet healthcare.
> 
> ...


I also didn't find VISA on a list of corporate sponsors though I imagine it's difficult to get a complete list.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> They eventually DID send money for Fay but only AFTER being called out about it,
> 
> http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/12/04/hsus-fund-raising-pitch-raises-hackles/
> 
> http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogb...e-creditdonations-for-the-work-of-others.html


Thank you for finding those. I just saw the post asking for links. Looks like you've got it covered!


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

waterbaby said:


> It's interesting that they confirmed it because they issued a denial of this rumor on their facebook page yesterday.


HA HA HA

I'd be interested in hearing again from the people that said they called them and checked.



waterbaby said:


> I also didn't find VISA on a list of corporate sponsors though I imagine it's difficult to get a complete list.


http://www.hsus.org/shops/hsus_checking_a_new_way_to.html


----------



## Rowdy (Sep 2, 2007)

KaseyT said:


> HA HA HA
> 
> I'd be interest in hearing again from the people that said they called them and checked.
> 
> ...


When I called them yesterday I specifically asked the woman who answered the phone. She said that yes, they do support HSUS. Now, given, she may just be a phone answering peon, but she did tell me yes.

If the official line from the company is no and that is actually true, then better for them.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

waterbaby said:


> It's interesting that they confirmed it because they issued a denial of this rumor on their facebook page yesterday.


Yet many people report getting this form e-mail in response from them...



> Just FYI, I received info that DR. Foster Smith catalog had shared info from their database with the HSUS. I wrote to them and received this response:
> 
> 
> Dear Elizabeth,
> ...


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

^^^Yeah, I'm not saying it's not true, just that there's conflicting information.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KaseyT said:


> HA HA HA
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing again from the people that said they called them and checked.
> 
> ...


Real mature.

Redyre and co most likely did call and get confirmation. More likely, the receptionist did not know all the info. And relayed to the bosses that they are getting a bunch of calls about it. So the bosses responded with denial.

Miscommunications happen and the people who called should be appreciated not mocked.

And I mean, its not like they lost anything. They found out that Fosters is not giving money to HSUS. Lucky them! They don't have to boycott a company! Wins all around except for HSUS who got nothing.

So petty.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

I would like to hear Kasey's response to the false advertising. Why would you choose to support an organization that flat out lies to the public to raise money? And it's not a matter of opinion either. They are telling the public that the money you give them will go to help these dogs and not a penny of it does. 

Best case scenario is they're so incompetent that they think they really do have control of these dogs and they really do think they're giving money to them when they're not. If that's the case, then I would ask why you would give money to an orgainzation that is that disorganized and that incompetent?

Worst case scenario is they know they're not giving a penny to help these dogs and they don't care and openly lie to the public anyway. Why would you want to support that?


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

So this was another rumor thread...like the"PETA putting antifreeze in the water at the dog show" thread. Never did see any proof of that.

Sure wish people would fact check before posting all of these "ZOMG the mean AR people, PETA and HSUS are killing our pets, and soon we won't be able to own pets!!!" threads.

Oh, and using Richard Berman companies (activistcash, CCF, Humanewatch) as PROOF that everyone else's groups are bad but they are lily-white with no agenda...yeah, right.


----------



## Thracian (Dec 24, 2008)

> They will bust anyone who owns more then one Pit Bull, has equipment like a break stick, treadmills, slant mills, medical supplies, spring poles, and flirt poles.


OK, that is scary. I don't have a pit bull, but I do have a toy poodle who will not be happy if anyone tries to take away his flirt pole.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

spotted nikes said:


> So this was another rumor thread...like the"PETA putting antifreeze in the water at the dog show" thread. Never did see any proof of that.
> 
> Sure wish people would fact check before posting all of these "ZOMG the mean AR people, PETA and HSUS are killing our pets, and soon we won't be able to own pets!!!" threads.
> 
> Oh, and using Richard Berman companies (activistcash, CCF, Humanewatch) as PROOF that everyone else's groups are bad but they are lily-white with no agenda...yeah, right.


Hardly. There is conflicting information out there on the subject. It seems the company gave out two different stories. 

And there were a lot of links posted that weren't related to Berman in the slightest.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

spotted nikes said:


> So this was another rumor thread...like the"PETA putting antifreeze in the water at the dog show" thread. Never did see any proof of that.
> 
> Sure wish people would fact check before posting all of these "ZOMG the mean AR people, PETA and HSUS are killing our pets, and soon we won't be able to own pets!!!" threads.
> 
> Oh, and using Richard Berman companies (activistcash, CCF, Humanewatch) as PROOF that everyone else's groups are bad but they are lily-white with no agenda...yeah, right.


Um.

Did you even read the thread?

Only maybe one of the several dozen links was one of those groups.

And I don't support CCF or any of Berman's groups any more than I support HSUS.

The Fosters thing was confirmed by people who emailed them and called them. It wasn't until days later that the company made a official statement. You can't blame anyone for interpreting their customer service reps telling them that they do support HSUS as, well, them supporting HSUS.

Read the thread before you make stuff up.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

KaseyT said:


> HA HA HA
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing again from the people that said they called them and checked.
> 
> ...


Visa is not a corporate sponsor of HSUS. 

The link you provided shows you can get a Bank of America HSUS Visa.

You know what? 

You can get a Bass Pro Shops Visa and earn points from all your spending towards Bass Pro Shops. You can get a Wal Mart Visa, An NRA Visa, AQHA Visa, AKC Visa, etc etc etc.

That does not mean they sponsor HSUS.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

I just called and spoke to someone named Mary who was a supervisor in the call center. She said Foster and Smith do not support any political organization and never, ever have. She flat out told me that they do not support the HSUS and told me she has no idea where the rumor started. 

True or not, I don't think it changes the fact that the HSUS is not worth supporting period. At least not IMHO.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Conflicting reports..... I had already called when this thread went out. 
Before I said anything else, I asked if they supported the HSUS. I was told yes.

I canceled. 

Today a friend of mine called and asked the same question and was told no. 

And Fosters and Smith published their statement on their facebook page.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Well yeah, the customer service reps were probably told to deny any affilation with any political groups. So they have it under control now.


----------



## BellaPup (Jul 7, 2007)

RBark said:


> Well yeah, the customer service reps were probably told to deny any affilation with any political groups. So they have it under control now.


Yup...I work customer service in my company...MAJOR rumors always start with a forum. We get calls "well, I read on such and such a forum that this and that is happening". It takes up our whole day when we could actually be talking to people who need assistance.

Unreal. One forum post gets us a boat-load of calls over someone's opinion or what they "thought" they heard or read. 99% of the time it is either an "opinion" read to be "fact", misinformation or made up mumbo-jumbo because someone has a gripe. In my company we call these people "basement dwellers"...people who have nothing better to do than sit in their parent's basement and post flaming topics just to see what will happen. "OMG"! PETA mentioned AFLAC in their newsletter because they abuse ducks!"..._just a fictional example_ of course.

People will believe what they want to believe...truth or fiction. You can copy all the links you want...it still won't be the Real Truth to someone who wants to deny or accept it.

I love being part of a group forum, but I would never post something as a major headline unless I had actual proof that I know to be true. And I would never dispute a post unless I had proof of it to be untrue. It's that ASSUME thing I think we are all familiar with.

A truce is needed.


----------



## alphadoginthehouse (Jun 7, 2008)

^^^^Very well written Bella!


----------



## MafiaPrincess (Jul 1, 2009)

HSUS is currently being charged with racketeering.. http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4111-federal-racketeering-lawsuit-stuns-hsus

During Katrina and Gustav they collected money and it seems it was misused, and a lot of it didn't go to the targets that they claim they are raising money for. I had better links when Katrina had more recently happened. Some of them are dead these days. Not all that scholarly.. but interesting to read. 

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/2879-animal-rights-avarice-in-katrinas-wake

http://whyhsuslies.blogspot.com/2008/10/humane-society-of-united-states.html

http://www.hsussucks.com/


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

spotted nikes said:


> So this was another rumor thread...like the"PETA putting antifreeze in the water at the dog show" thread. Never did see any proof of that.
> 
> Sure wish people would fact check before posting all of these "ZOMG the mean AR people, PETA and HSUS are killing our pets, and soon we won't be able to own pets!!!" threads.
> 
> Oh, and using Richard Berman companies (activistcash, CCF, Humanewatch) as PROOF that everyone else's groups are bad but they are lily-white with no agenda...yeah, right.


From what I gather the whole situation is that they shared or sold customer contact data to HSUS. Or shared data with a third party who did. Not something they likely thought about or thought would be a big deal. 

Contact info for pet owners who spend money on animals is a pre screened and high quality list for them to use to ask for donations. Especially if the online store allows say a check box for a dollar to go to rescue fund or something. The list of people who checked that box would be valuable to HSUS.

Customer lists and data are commonly shared/sold by businesses and oganizations, it's not uncommon at all.

Why do you think every store hands out a card that if you fill out all your detailed data they give you a discount? Tracking your individual buying habits and having your detailed demographic data and buying history to go with it is a commodity with a value and is frequently bought and sold to other companies or organizations.

Same if you make all your purchases on a debit or credit card, that purchasing information goes into a database with other info about you and and can be bought and sold and is.

Read the privacy policies when you use an online retailer, catalog retailer, or sign up for a store discount card, or a credit card. You agree to these terms, they can have lower prices, because they make up for it in part by selling your info and purchase history.


For example, petsmart...



> We may share your personal information with carefully selected third-party service providers in order to provide services to you, such as to fulfill orders (U.S. Postal Service, Canada Post, or other delivery companies we or you select); process payments; provide customer service; send PetSmart Marketing Communications; maintain our PetPerks savings card program and other programs; monitor Site activity; conduct surveys; maintain our customer database; send regular mail and e-mail; and administer drawings, contests, and rebates. We will share your personal information with our carefully selected third-party services providers on a confidential basis. These service providers are prohibited from using your personal information for any purpose other than providing PetSmart services.
> 
> We may partner with carefully selected third-party financial service/product providers, such as for credit cards, and may use the information collected by these third parties in order to send Marketing Communications. These third-party providers have their own privacy policies. When you conduct business with third-party providers, we encourage you to read their privacy policies to learn how they collect and use information about you.
> 
> We may combine the personal information you provide to us (on our Site, at our stores, through our programs) with publicly available information and information we receive from or cross-reference with our marketing partners and others. We use the combined information to enhance and personalize your experience with us; improve the accuracy of our customer database (such as the U.S. Post Office to verify accuracy of addresses); increase our understanding of our customers; identify potential customers; and send PetSmart Marketing Communications.


They say this as innocently as they can, but sharing your data with a third party to "maintain our PetPerks savings card program and other programs" means selling it for money.

"We may partner with carefully selected third-party financial service/product providers, such as for credit cards, and may use the information collected by these third parties in order to send Marketing Communications." Means they buy information from credit card company databases, likely filtered lists of people who purchase pet related items anywhere else, and use it to send marketing.

The amount of personal information collected, stored, shared, bought and sold about us these days involving every aspect of our lives from what we eat, to what we buy in all aspects of our lives is truly staggering and growing all the time. In a cashless society virtually no detail of your life is private.


----------



## alphadoginthehouse (Jun 7, 2008)

Can someone suggest other places to purchase online pet products? I haven't decided what to think about all of this but would like other options.


----------



## Miranda16 (Jan 17, 2010)

petexpertise.com is good .....
dogsupplies.com ... they are okay ... not as nice but cheaper
fetchdog.com is pretty good


----------



## aisling (Feb 1, 2010)

I've always liked http://www.revivalanimal.com and http://www.kvsupply.com/Shop


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

KaseyT said:


> You people want to get off a mailing list because they support a group that is busting dog fighting rings and closing puppy mills?
> 
> Most of you don't even know why you don't like HSUS except that other people in the forum don't. Forum Groupthink is really sad.
> 
> I'm sending and extra $10 to HSUS for everyone who posts here. Up to $120 right now. Can we go for $200?


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."
And if I said every time you posted about getting a designer dog from a breeder, I was going to donate 10 bucks to a purebred dog association, would you care? Probably not


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

alphadoginthehouse said:


> Can someone suggest other places to purchase online pet products? I haven't decided what to think about all of this but would like other options.


Healthypets.com
KVVets.com
EntirelyPets.com
OnlyNaturalPet.com

you can google those if the links don't work. I generally use KV Vets because 85% of their stuff has free shipping and the prices are good to begin with


----------



## BobSD (Feb 1, 2008)

I stop reading the post 50% through because it is more about the U$H$, then OP was talking about Foster & Smith!!!

I have dealed with them, (Dr Fosters & Smith), for years mostly for my fish hobby, but I did buy five dogy beds from them and they are really good especially the slumber beds keep them warm in the very cold winters we have here in SD.

There return policy is so great they even pay the shipping back if you are not satisfied for any reason! 

I sometime really believe some of you just enjoy "getting it on" maybe because you have a boring life A little excitement can juicy up your lack luster daily routine. What ever the main thing is to have fun! lololo

I will continue to buy from Fosters & Smith if they have what I want!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

InkedMarie said:


> Healthypets.com
> KVVets.com
> EntirelyPets.com
> OnlyNaturalPet.com
> ...


Oh, I *love* KVvets.com! I could spend my life savings there  I love Pet Edge as well; we've gotten a lot of our grooming/kennel supplies there, and their products are great and the Customer Service has been awesome. They treat you right


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> 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."


Incomplete quotes taken out of context are great, aren't they? You can make people say anything you want.

If you're going to throw that quote around, at least fill in the whole story. During a question and answer session on animal welfare in American agriculture, Pacelle was asked if there should be an effort to preserve all breeds of livestock, including heirloom breeds that no longer have commercial purposes.

Wayne Pacelle, not even a part of HSUS in 1993, said “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding... One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”

I know it's not as much fun that way, since you can't use it to bash HSUS about pet ownership. Still, it's much more reasonable to actually consider what the words meant when he said them.

http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2007/07/desperate-disto.html has the whole story if you want to hear it. It's not paid for by anyone representing industrial agriculture, but hopefully it will be informative.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

AccidentalChef said:


> http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2007/07/desperate-disto.html has the whole story if you want to hear it. It's not paid for by anyone representing industrial agriculture, but hopefully it will be informative.


No, it's not paid for anyone representing industrial agriculture, it's paid for by HSUS... It is Wayne Pacelle's blog.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

HSUS is also against BSL, but no one wants to mention that. HSUS also lobbies for regulating puppy mills, and humane handling law enforcement at slaughterhouses. 

Richard Berman's groups (Humanewatch, activistcash, Center for Consumer freedom) also lobbies AGAINST regulating puppy mills...but that is ok with everyone. And they lobby against the ban against using Downer cows, and requiring certificate of origin info on all meat products.




Accidental chef- haven't you figured out yet that facts don't make as interesting threads as rumors do?
We never did get any proof about the "Peta putting anti-freeze in water bowls at a dog show" thread. Funny when proof is asked for, the rumormonger disappears.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

How is this quote from him out of context?

“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”

And this gem..

When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, "If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born." 

Wayne Pacelle quoted in
Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266.

And then there are other HSUS notables like Goodwin with even more extreme rhetoric. People who tired of activist protesting and being arrested and have moved to slick fund raising and political lobbying instead and the fat salaries and pensions that go with it.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

TxRider said:


> No, it's not paid for anyone representing industrial agriculture, it's paid for by HSUS... It is Wayne Pacelle's blog.


Exactly. Taking a portion of something said by Pacelle from the CCF is quoting him out of context. Looking at the question he was asked, the forum in which it was asked, and his complete answer is quoting him in context. Only one of these things is a logical fallacy.



TxRider said:


> How is this quote from him out of context?
> 
> “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”


I never said that one was out of context. I'm curious what you're trying to accomplish by quoting the president of an organization that publicly opposes hunting describing how he would like to stop hunting. This isn't a hunting forum, and that quote doesn't relate to pet ownership in any way. You might as well find a quote from the president of Porsche talking about making a fast car and post it on a gardening forum.



TxRider said:


> And this gem..
> 
> When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, "If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born."
> 
> ...


This one is taken out of context. Have you actually looked up the things you're posting, or are you just copying them from other people who haven't looked them up either? Here's the complete discussion on that page, including context. Before this question, he is discussing fishing. After, he is discussing dumplings.



> —"How about pets, Wayne? Would you envision a future with no pets in the world?"
> —"I wouldn't say that I envision that, no. If I had my personal view perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don't want to see another cat or dog born. It's not something I strive for, though. If people were very
> responsible, and didn't do manipulative breeding, and cared for animals in all senses, and accounted for their nutritional needs as well as their social and psychological needs, then I think it could be an appropriate thing. I'm not sure. I think it's one of those things that we'll decide later in society. I think we're still far from it." (p. 266)


Taken from http://humanewatch.org/index.php/do...ature_culture_and_the_hunt_ted_kerasote_1994/ strangely enough. The site includes a link to scanned pages of the book.

For future reference, here's some information about quoting out of context, taken from wikipedia.



> The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
> 
> Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.


The full page can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context



TxRider said:


> And then there are other HSUS notables like Goodwin with even more extreme rhetoric. People who tired of activist protesting and being arrested and have moved to slick fund raising and political lobbying instead and the fat salaries and pensions that go with it.


More extreme than describing how an anti-hunting organization would like to stop hunting, or how he doesn't envision or strive for a world without pets and thinks pets are an appropriate thing as long as they're cared for in all senses? Are you saying that people who have tired of being stuck in an entry level position and worked their way to top to receive fat salaries and pensions have some inherent flaw?


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> Oh, I *love* KVvets.com! I could spend my life savings there  I love Pet Edge as well; we've gotten a lot of our grooming/kennel supplies there, and their products are great and the Customer Service has been awesome. They treat you right


I can't believe I forgot about Pet Edge, tho I still think of them as New England Serum, LOL. I used to order from them twenty something years ago, when there was no online and I'd order by the phone with the catalog they sent me. I think Kathy or Nicole told me about KV Vet.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

AccidentalChef said:


> Exactly. Taking a portion of something said by Pacelle from the CCF is quoting him out of context. Looking at the question he was asked, the forum in which it was asked, and his complete answer is quoting him in context. Only one of these things is a logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ok but nothing you have quoted*in context* makes it sound any better, not at all. what im reading now is classic tactical speech...political doubletalk to be exact...of the exact nature i used to use to tell my mom something without having to actually tell her. its stil a bunch of hooey...him and his HSUS.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

InkedMarie said:


> I can't believe I forgot about Pet Edge, tho I still think of them as New England Serum, LOL. I used to order from them twenty something years ago, when there was no online and I'd order by the phone with the catalog they sent me. I think Kathy or Nicole told me about KV Vet.


I forgot it used to be called NES! Years ago  I remember Groomer to Groomer magazine used to be called Groom and Board, that's just weird to me now.
I love all the horse stuff in KV vet, like I have the money or space for a bunch of equine stuff I don't even need. Still; it's fun to look!


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

BobSD said:


> I sometime really believe some of you just enjoy "getting it on" maybe because you have a boring life A little excitement can juicy up your lack luster daily routine. What ever the main thing is to have fun! lololo
> 
> I will continue to buy from Fosters & Smith if they have what I want!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I think there are some people that are so anti AR groups that they have become basically just like them in order to suit their own anti AR groups agenda. People who go from forum to forum "spreading the word" & stirring up the pot real well - BEFORE all facts have been thoroughly looked at & confirmed.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

AccidentalChef said:


> Are you saying that people who have tired of being stuck in an entry level position and worked their way to top to receive fat salaries and pensions have some inherent flaw?


It's fine if long time radical animals rights activists find a way to actually make money and a well paying career from being an activist. They should just be a bit more honest in their fund raising, their agenda and where all the donated money goes.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> ok but nothing you have quoted*in context* makes it sound any better, not at all.


Claiming that we have no ethical responsibility to preserve heirloom livestock breeds doesn't sound any better than implying all domestic animals should be extinct in a generation? So, in your opinion, letting any breeds of livestock that are no longer commercially useful become extinct is the moral equivalent of pushing for the extinction of all domestic animals?

And really, you're criticizing the president of the Humane Society of the United States because he doesn't envision or strive for an end to pet ownership, and thinks it's appropriate if owners are responsible and animals are well cared for? What's he supposed to believe? He could argue against regulating puppy mills and anti-tethering laws, but then he'd be the AKC.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> what im reading now is classic tactical speech...political doubletalk to be exact...of the exact nature i used to use to tell my mom something without having to actually tell her. its stil a bunch of hooey...him and his HSUS.


I'm curious what you are reading now, since you didn't see the difference between quotes in and out of context. Still, tactical speech might be an accurate description for these quotes from 1993 and 1994. The word tactical implies a small scale action carried out with a limited or immediate goal. Tactical speech from 20 years ago would have very little relevance today. If "political doubletalk" is being exact, as you put it, I'm really not sure what you're reading.


> Main Entry: po·lit·i·cal
> 1 a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
> 2 : of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
> 3 : organized in governmental terms <political units>
> 4 : involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system <political prisoners>





> Main Entry: dou·ble–talk
> 1 : language that appears to be earnest and meaningful but in fact is a mixture of sense and nonsense
> 2 : inflated, involved, and often deliberately ambiguous language


Both definitions taken from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ with unnecessary information removed to save space. I don't see any mention of government or governmental policy in either of the in context quotes, which makes them something other than "exact" political doubletalk. The quotes in context are not inflated, involved, or ambiguous. You'd be making quite a stretch to claim they're a mixture of sense and nonsense. Some definitions of doubletalk include evasiveness, but his statements are not evasive. Other definitions are based on the distortion or reversal of the meanings of words, which is not apparent here except in your usage of "exact".

For future reference, referring to your own dishonesty in order to discredit someone else may not be the most effective strategy. Also, claiming that he and his organization are "hooey" shows bias, which may hurt the credibility of your argument.



TxRider said:


> It's fine if long time radical animals rights activists find a way to actually make money and a well paying career from being an activist. They should just be a bit more honest in their fund raising, their agenda and where all the donated money goes.


I agree that they should be honest about their finances. Fortunately, their annual reports are available on their website. If those aren't sufficient for your needs, their tax documents are available as well. Both are available from http://www.humanesociety.org/about/overview/annual_reports_financial_statements.html if you're interested. For an independent perspective on their funding, visit Charity Navigator or  the BBB. Their annual report breaks down spending by category, and includes animal care facilites as one category. As for their agenda, they state their primary issues clearly, and place yearly goals in their annual report. The information you want them to be honest about is all readily available on their web site.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I would be curious AccidentalChef, how you felt about the:

Felds Entertainment Racketeering Lawsuit

The fundraising for the Vick Dogs

The Katrina Fundraising

The Haiti Fundraising


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

AccidentalChef said:


> I agree that they should be honest about their finances. Fortunately, their annual reports are available on their website. If those aren't sufficient for your needs, their tax documents are available as well. Both are available from http://www.humanesociety.org/about/overview/annual_reports_financial_statements.html if you're interested. For an independent perspective on their funding, visit Charity Navigator or  the BBB. Their annual report breaks down spending by category, and includes animal care facilites as one category. As for their agenda, they state their primary issues clearly, and place yearly goals in their annual report. The information you want them to be honest about is all readily available on their web site.


Yes like the ad to donate money to provide direct care for the Vick dogs, which were not even in their care, and that they lobbied the court to euthanize en masse. That disappeared after a week when they were called on it.

Charity navigator is only showing info HSUS provided, it is no real measure and the organization clearly states it is simply financial heath measure..

The heat put on them has started to change their policies, they are absorbing a few wildlife sanctuaries, they are saying they will rework their policy of advocating blanket euthanasia of all dogs seized from alleged dog fighters.

If you want to know the truth of what HSUS is doing, it is in their tax filings and reports, other than spending the majority of donations on things like more fund raising, marketing communications and legal campaigns, read the detailed text of the bills they are pushing for in many state legislative sessions and not the PR fluff on their web site.

They do not state their intention clearly, they spend millions in tear jerking TV ads filled with shelter dogs pleading for money to care for those dogs. People donate thinking their money is going to care for dogs and cats in shelters, when it isn't. This is very calculated misrepresentation.

As for this thread, the company did admit they gave some customer data to HSUS, not that they supported them, and said they would rethink sharing data with them again. Not something I would boycott them for.

Here's a vid that might be of interest...

http://ar-hr.com/hsus-expose-wsb-tv/


----------



## kagome100 (May 26, 2008)

i dont really understand whats going on but i buy stuff from there site for my reptiles. I even have there visa card.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I think it's funny that a lot of the "alternatives" to Drs F&S that people linked to are heavily used by puppymills. They possibly support puppymills, or run one themselves. Has anyone bothered to check? 

I do have more to say but I'm due at a party at 6. Of course it's 6:02 now....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/a/184-7-things-you-didnt-know-about-hsus

7 Things You Didn't Know About HSUS



1) The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a “humane society” in name only, since it doesn’t operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility anywhere in the United States. During 2007, HSUS contributed only 3.64 percent of its budget to organizations that operate hands-on dog and cat shelters. In reality, HSUS is a wealthy animal-rights lobbying organization (the largest and richest on earth) that agitates for the same goals as PETA and other radical groups.


2) Beginning on the day of NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s 2007 dogfighting indictment, HSUS raised money online with the false promise that it would “care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case.” The New York Times later reported that HSUS wasn’t caring for Vick’s dogs at all. And HSUS president Wayne Pacelle told the Times that his group recommended that government officials “put down” (that is, kill) the dogs rather than adopt them out to suitable homes. HSUS later quietly altered its Internet fundraising pitch.

3) HSUS’s senior management includes a former spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a criminal group designated as “terrorists” by the FBI. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle hired John “J.P.” Goodwin in 1997, the same year Goodwin described himself as “spokesperson for the ALF” while he fielded media calls in the wake of an ALF arson attack at a California veal processing plant. In 1997, when asked by reporters for a reaction to an ALF arson fire at a farmer’s feed co-op in Utah (which nearly killed a family sleeping on the premises), Goodwin replied, “We’re ecstatic.” That same year, Goodwin was arrested at a UC Davis protest celebrating the 10-year anniversary of an ALF arson at the university that caused $5 million in damage. And in 1998, Goodwin described himself publicly as a “former member of ALF.” 

4) According to a 2008 Los Angeles Times investigation, less than 12 percent of money raised for HSUS by California telemarketers actually ends up in HSUS’s bank account. The rest is kept by professional fundraisers. And if you exclude two campaigns run for HSUS by the “Build-a-Bear Workshop” retail chain, which consisted of the sale of surplus stuffed animals (not really “fundraising”), HSUS’s yield number shrinks to just 3 percent. Sadly, this appears typical. In 2004, HSUS ran a telemarketing campaign in Connecticut with fundraisers who promised to return a minimum of zero percent of the proceeds. The campaign raised over $1.4 million. Not only did absolutely none of that money go to HSUS, but the group paid $175,000 for the telemarketing work. 

5) Research shows that HSUS’s heavily promoted U.S. “boycott” of Canadian seafood—announced in 2005 as a protest against Canada’s annual seal hunt—is a phony exercise in media manipulation. A 2006 investigation found that 78 percent of the restaurants and seafood distributors described by HSUS as “boycotters” weren’t participating at all. Nearly two-thirds of them told surveyors they were completely unaware HSUS was using their names in connection with an international boycott campaign. Canada’s federal government is on record about this deception, saying: “Some animal rights groups have been misleading the public for years … it’s no surprise at all that the richest of them would mislead the public with a phony seafood boycott.” 

6) HSUS raised a reported $34 million in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, supposedly to help reunite lost pets with their owners. But comparatively little of that money was spent for its intended purpose. Louisiana’s Attorney General shuttered his 18-month-long investigation into where most of these millions went, shortly after HSUS announced its plan to contribute $600,000 toward the construction of an animal shelter on the grounds of a state prison. Public disclosures of the disposition of the $34 million in Katrina-related donations add up to less than $7 million. 

7) After gathering undercover video footage of improper animal handling at a Chino, CA slaughterhouse during November of 2007, HSUS sat on its video evidence for three months, even refusing to share it with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. HSUS’s Dr. Michael Greger testified before Congress that the San Bernardino County (CA) District Attorney’s office asked the group “to hold on to the information while they completed their investigation.” But the District Attorney’s office quickly denied that account, even declaring that HSUS refused to make its undercover spy available to investigators if the USDA were present at those meetings. Ultimately, HSUS chose to release its video footage at a more politically opportune time, as it prepared to launch a livestock-related ballot campaign in California. Meanwhile, meat from the slaughterhouse continued to flow into the U.S. food supply for months. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I would be curious AccidentalChef, how you felt about the:
> 
> Felds Entertainment Racketeering Lawsuit
> 
> ...


I don't believe I brought my beliefs on HSUS into the discussion, and I wasn't planning to. Quoting out of context was rampant in this thread, and there is no excuse for not checking given that it took me less than 5 minutes to find both of those examples. Regardless of the truth about HSUS, all credibility is lost when the argument against them is based on logical fallacies. There's enough purposeful misinformation and wilful ignorance out there already. This forum doesn't need to add to it.

I haven't researched all of the issues you mentioned, and it's unlikely that I ever will. I did look into the lawsuit, but the fundraising issues take more work and time to get to the bottom of. I've looked into them briefly but have primarily found rumors and hearsay. Most of the accusations I've come across are on blogs or forums, and either don't cite sources at all, or cite sources with clear bias or lack of credibility.

The Feld Entertainment Racketeering Lawsuit is a pretty simple case. As an unsettled lawsuit, this one is totally irrelevant. To add lack of credibility to the irrelevance, information on the trial is available only from HumaneWatch.org, a site known to be funded by industrial agriculture and biased against the HSUS. I haven't been able to find any information about the case that isn't being quoted from a CCF/Richard Berman site, so until this lawsuit is reported on by a neutral third party, it isn't worth considering.

For the fundraising issues, I've looked into them briefly, but sufficient reliable information is hard to find. Since you're asking, I'm assuming you've done the research on them. Could you provide links to some sources? Primary sources or reports from neutral third parties would be preferred. Organizations who promote killing animals for fun or profit, or groups funded by them, cannot reasonably be considered unbiased with regards to an organization that opposes killing animals, so citing any of them as sources is unnecessary. If the claim is that HSUS asked for funds for a specific purpose but did not use them for that purpose, could you provide a source documenting that? It would be nice to see exactly what HSUS said they would do along with evidence that they did not follow through with their promises. Because gathering all of this information would be time consuming, and because I personally don't believe the answer is relevant, I'm not going to take the time to do it. If you have enough information for me to draw a conclusion, I'm happy to give you my opinion. Otherwise, I'd prefer to withhold judgement rather than risk spreading misinformation.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Er, it doesn't take much time. The evidence of their misleading fundraising is clear as day.

1) There's photographic and documented proof that they asked for help to raise money for Fay, and the Vick dogs.

2) Fay's owner responded to it saying they have not given a dime to her. Badrap (who took care of the vick dogs) did not get a dime from HSUS. Both of them have documented that.

There's no... murky ground. We have documents and photographic evidene of HSUS's fundraising requests, and we have documents that the parties who actually took care of the animals did not get a dime. There's simply... no way to twist that.

If you want to read links, read the thread. I'm not going to go over it all to link it all over again.


EDIT: All the sources for this information is not CCF or it's related groups. All the sources are from humane societies, HSUS's own site claiming to raise money for it, badrap's site, fay's foster group's site, and so on.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

AccidentalChef said:


> I don't believe I brought my beliefs on HSUS into the discussion, and I wasn't planning to. Quoting out of context was rampant in this thread, and there is no excuse for not checking given that it took me less than 5 minutes to find both of those examples. Regardless of the truth about HSUS, all credibility is lost when the argument against them is based on logical fallacies. There's enough purposeful misinformation and wilful ignorance out there already. This forum doesn't need to add to it.
> 
> I haven't researched all of the issues you mentioned, and it's unlikely that I ever will. I did look into the lawsuit, but the fundraising issues take more work and time to get to the bottom of. I've looked into them briefly but have primarily found rumors and hearsay. Most of the accusations I've come across are on blogs or forums, and either don't cite sources at all, or cite sources with clear bias or lack of credibility.
> 
> ...



The Feld Entertainment lawsuit is not irrelevant. It is a counter suit in response to a suit that the HSUS had leveled against Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus. The suit brought forth by HSUS was dismissed in December when evidence was brought forth to the judge that the primary witness in the case sole income in over several years, in the amount of 190 grand, came from the HSUS. Hence the dismissal by the judge and the racketeering counter suit. 

As far as citing sources on the Vick fundraising situation. I am not sure what sources are needed. We know that HSUS had a fundraising campaign to help the Vick dogs, we know that the HSUS stood before a judge and reccomended that those dogs be put down. We know that Bad Rap and other organizations took the dogs. We know that the HSUS did not contribute financially to the care of those dogs. So they collected funds under false pretenses. 

As far as sources on other issues. Finding an "independent" source might be a bit difficult. Because any source is going to be discredited by someone. But that is the same on both sides. But I ask you this..... Where do those sites that get their biased sites get their financial information? Straight from the HSUS tax records. 

One (I don't anyway) need to go past the HSUS own website to know I disagree with them. I don't need to go past their financial records to know that they are a dishonest organization.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

AccidentalChef said:


> I don't believe I brought my beliefs on HSUS into the discussion, and I wasn't planning to. Quoting out of context was rampant in this thread, and there is no excuse for not checking given that it took me less than 5 minutes to find both of those examples. Regardless of the truth about HSUS, all credibility is lost when the argument against them is based on logical fallacies. There's enough purposeful misinformation and wilful ignorance out there already. This forum doesn't need to add to it.


I don't see where quotes were shown out of context.

You claim to provide context to the extinction of domestic animals quote by pointing to Pacelle's blog, but all he does is dance around about what he meant. He did not provide the exact context, the story/transcript the quote was taken from. He did not present the question as asked, nor the complete answer, he merely provided spin.

And that he says he isn't actively seeking to see no more cats or dogs born, doesn't put the quote that his personal view is that he would prefer to see no more born out of context that I can see. 

Your provided context doesn't alter his personal view at all, it just states he doesn't think he can achieve it, and he might settle for less.


----------



## littleblackdogs (Mar 22, 2010)

Jeeze-marie...!!!
I just joined this site to get away from all the anti-HSUS nutbags on Craigslist..

My bad.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

TxRider said:


> Yes like the ad to donate money to provide direct care for the Vick dogs, which were not even in their care, and that they lobbied the court to euthanize en masse. That disappeared after a week when they were called on it.


Assuming this is true, am I suddenly supposed to hate an entire organization because their advertisements were not completely truthful? If I am, can you please find me an organization I can trust? If you want me to believe the HSUS is unusually bad, please cite some unbiased sources.



TxRider said:


> Charity navigator is only showing info HSUS provided, it is no real measure and the organization clearly states it is simply financial heath measure..


Charity Navigator uses each organization's tax documents to calculate financial health. This information is easy to find on their site. Here are the FAQs that contain it http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=483#49 You asked for information about their income and expenses, which is financial data. Financial health seems relevant. If you're not interested, I didn't say you had to read it. 



TxRider said:


> The heat put on them has started to change their policies, they are absorbing a few wildlife sanctuaries, they are saying they will rework their policy of advocating blanket euthanasia of all dogs seized from alleged dog fighters.


Are you arguing for HSUS or against them? I would have thought that doing things to care for more animals and save more dogs would be a good thing. Either way, if HSUS has changed their policies due to public pressure, they're just like countless other organizations who have done the same thing.



TxRider said:


> If you want to know the truth of what HSUS is doing, it is in their tax filings and reports, other than spending the majority of donations on things like more fund raising, marketing communications and legal campaigns, read the detailed text of the bills they are pushing for in many state legislative sessions and not the PR fluff on their web site.


I provided a link to their annual reports and tax filings. If you had read it, you would have been able to cite the costs of their expenses. In 2008, they spent 51.5% of their revenue on fundraising, strategic communication, campaigns, litigation, and investigation. It seems unlikely that campaigns and investigation made up less than 1.5% of their revenue, so it's certainly not the majority spent on just marketing, fundraising, and legal campaigns.

As for complaining about fundraising costs, how else do you expect them to get donations? Even a guy standing on a corner in a gorilla suit costs money. National fundraising drives are not cheap, but necessary for all large charities. HSUS does not spend excessive amounts on fundraising compared to other similarly large charities.

Please provide links to the bills you find to be in conflict with HSUS's stated policies. I'll reserve judgement on this until I've had a chance to read them.



TxRider said:


> They do not state their intention clearly, they spend millions in tear jerking TV ads filled with shelter dogs pleading for money to care for those dogs. People donate thinking their money is going to care for dogs and cats in shelters, when it isn't. This is very calculated misrepresentation.


Their intention is clearly stated on their web site. It is no fault of theirs that donors do not bother to read the information they have made public. Tear jerking TV ads are trying to appeal to the viewer's emotion. This is a very common strategy in advertising, used by many organizations other than HSUS. It is certainly very calculated, but it is no more of a misrepresentation than any other advertisement on television. Advertisers show you things to make you want to buy or donate. If you want more information on what they could fit in the 30-60 second time slot, finding it is your responsibility.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

littleblackdogs said:


> Jeeze-marie...!!!
> I just joined this site to get away from all the anti-HSUS nutbags on Craigslist..
> 
> My bad.


If you were looking to get away from them.. why in the world would you open a thread with HSUS in the title? Seems like a pretty easy thing to avoid. And ahem, being anti-HSUS doesn't make you a nut bag. It makes you informed and at the very least able to read EDIT: That sounds a bit more rude than I meant it to come across, but so does nutbag. I simply mean I don't personally understand how someone would defend HSUS with all the information out there. 

I personally love these threads and watching them unfold. Typically I know they're going to blow up when ONE certain person finally sees them.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Their intention is clearly stated on their web site.












Really? It's really clearly stated? I clearly see it saying it's going to help the Vick dogs. Not one cent went to the Vick dogs.



> Assuming this is true, am I suddenly supposed to hate an entire organization because their advertisements were not completely truthful? If I am, can you please find me an organization I can trust? If you want me to believe the HSUS is unusually bad, please cite some unbiased sources.


You're not _supposed_ to do anything. *I* chose to donate money to people that are _actually_ helping the Vick dogs (Badrap), the Louisana Humane Societies who *actually* helped the Katrina dogs, the Red Cross who are really there helping in Haiti, the local SPCA ho is actually finding homes for dogs, and so on.

Why anyone, in their right mind, would think that asking for donations for one thing, and using it for something else, is okay is beyond me. But if that's okay with you, then by all means, do it.

The people here in this thread gave people facts about HSUS to make a informed opinion on the HSUS before they donate their money. Again, why that's a bad thing is beyond me. They ARE a questionable organization with questionable motives, just like the CCF is a questionable organization with questionable motives. Both of them are equally bad. There are much better places to put your money.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/a/184-7-things-you-didnt-know-about-hsus


You have cited an article written by an organization with a clear bias against HSUS that did not provide any sources for its claims and is filled with logical fallacies. You could have provided just as much conclusive evidence about HSUS by posting a video of a dog sleepwalking.



JohnnyBandit said:


> The Feld Entertainment lawsuit is not irrelevant. It is a counter suit in response to a suit that the HSUS had leveled against Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus. The suit brought forth by HSUS was dismissed in December when evidence was brought forth to the judge that the primary witness in the case sole income in over several years, in the amount of 190 grand, came from the HSUS. Hence the dismissal by the judge and the racketeering counter suit.


A civil suit that has not been decided is actually pretty irrelevant, particularly if there is no independent source reporting on it. As an extreme (and intentionally slightly ridiculous) example, someone who disliked you could file suit against you for genocide, cannibalism, and a bad haircut. They could put up a web site about it, and issue a press release about it. Until the case was decided, the fact that it had been filed and posted on a web site would say nothing about whether or not you are a genocidal cannibal with a combover.



JohnnyBandit said:


> As far as citing sources on the Vick fundraising situation. I am not sure what sources are needed. We know that HSUS had a fundraising campaign to help the Vick dogs, we know that the HSUS stood before a judge and reccomended that those dogs be put down. We know that Bad Rap and other organizations took the dogs. We know that the HSUS did not contribute financially to the care of those dogs. So they collected funds under false pretenses.


You believe those things, but without concrete evidence, you do not know them. It took me 2 minutes of research to find evidence that at least one of your statements is faulty. HSUS's tax forms, available through the link in one of my previous posts, show a grant to Bad Rap. You might say that they didn't donate enough, but that's a very different argument. RBark's picture disproves your conclusion there. You may not like the way they worded it but that does not make it false.



JohnnyBandit said:


> As far as sources on other issues. Finding an "independent" source might be a bit difficult. Because any source is going to be discredited by someone. But that is the same on both sides. But I ask you this..... Where do those sites that get their biased sites get their financial information? Straight from the HSUS tax records.


An independent source does not mean a source that can't be discredited by anyone. It means a source that is not a member of the groups in question. In this case, that means finding a source that is not affiliated with either the animal rights movement or the factory farming industry. I think I've just shown that the biased sites do not actually accurately portray the information in the tax records.



JohnnyBandit said:


> One (I don't anyway) need to go past the HSUS own website to know I disagree with them. I don't need to go past their financial records to know that they are a dishonest organization.


Your statement that you're biased against them really just makes me want more citations of sources for your claims. You don't seem to have looked at their financial records in enough detail to determine their honesty, so I'm going to assume that's a hypothetical statement based on your stated bias.



TxRider said:


> I don't see where quotes were shown out of context.


The quotes that were shown were only fragments of his entire statements, and did not include a sufficient description of the situation in which they were said. The remainder of those statements plus the relevant situation are the context. Providing the fragment of the quote without the context makes them out of context. I did quote the posts that the out of context quotes were in, so it should be clear where they were.



TxRider said:


> You claim to provide context to the extinction of domestic animals quote by pointing to Pacelle's blog, but all he does is dance around about what he meant. He did not provide the exact context, the story/transcript the quote was taken from. He did not present the question as asked, nor the complete answer, he merely provided spin.


No, in fact, he describes the situation he was in, the question he was asked, and states his response. Context does not have to be exact or word for word to prevent a logical fallacy, but it must provide enough information so that the speaker's original meaning is intact. Here is the relevant section from Pacelle's blog, linked earlier in the thread. That's a very clear statement of the context of his answer, even though the question was not stated word for word.



> Here’s what happened with this supposed iteration. Several years before I joined the staff of The HSUS, in 1992 or 1993, I appeared at an agricultural forum to address the issue of animal welfare in American agriculture. In the question and answer session, an attendee asked whether there should be an attempt to preserve all breeds of exotic livestock. I was specifically queried about so-called “heirloom breeds” (older breed variations that are often not used any longer for a commercial purpose and whose continued survival as a breed may be in jeopardy) and their value to agriculture.


No more description of the context is necessary to understand what was meant by his answer, and there is no spin or dancing. His statement is a straightforward account of the event. You are free to disagree with his answer if you want, but it would be dishonest to manipulate his words and change their meaning by removing the context.



TxRider said:


> And that he says he isn't actively seeking to see no more cats or dogs born, doesn't put the quote that his personal view is that he would prefer to see no more born out of context that I can see.
> 
> Your provided context doesn't alter his personal view at all, it just states he doesn't think he can achieve it, and he might settle for less.


Your context free fragment of his quote implies that a pet free future is his goal. Leaving out the critical parts where he states that he does not see and is not working towards a pet free future, that he thinks pet ownership is appropriate if the owners are responsible and the animals are well cared for, and that he thinks society will decide about pets some time in the future completely changes the meaning of his statement.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

AccidentalChef said:


> You have cited an article written by an organization with a clear bias against HSUS that did not provide any sources for its claims and is filled with logical fallacies. You could have provided just as much conclusive evidence about HSUS by posting a video of a dog sleepwalking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The proof about the Vick stuff is a couple of posts up. And I have seen the grant to Bad Rap in HSUS records. I have also seen Bad Rap go on record saying they never got it. Whom am I am to believe? The organization that collected money for the dogs then stood in front of a judge and said they should be killed. Or the organization that took the dogs in and worked with them? 
Here is a newspaper article on the dismissal.
http://www.macon.com/2010/03/14/1057489/animal-rights-lawyers-a-three.html

The Felds Entertainment suit IS relevant because the HSUS suit against Fields got dismissed because HSUS conducted inappropriate activities. Those activities are a matter of court record. And yes anyone can file suit on anyone. But your comparison is bordering on ridiculous because there is a thing called Frivolous Lawsuit. 

You can assume anything you choose about my personal investigation was not in depth. That is your choice. 

I will take this up again tomorrow. Right now I am going to sleep. 

Although I am not sure anything anyone posts in the way of unbiased sources will satisfy you.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

RBark said:


> Er, it doesn't take much time. The evidence of their misleading fundraising is clear as day.
> 
> 1) There's photographic and documented proof that they asked for help to raise money for Fay, and the Vick dogs.
> 
> ...


Based on the picture you posted, they stated that they were caring for the dogs in cooperation with other shelters, and any funds raised would be used for the Vick dogs and other programs. Someone wearing a HSUS shirt is pictured with one of the dogs, so we have evidence that they provided at least some small amount of care. As I mentioned, their tax records for 2007 show a grant to Bad Rap. You're welcome to download the tax records and check for other shelters involved in the dogs' care. You may argue that they did not provide enough care or donate enough money, but that does not make their ad dishonest or misleading.

As for Fay's care, it appears that the HSUS did contribute. The article is from the HSUS site, which might indicate bias, but it also includes an interview with Fay's foster mom. It seems unlikely that she would have participated had there been no donation. The article and interview can be found at http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2009/12/fay_dogfight_survivor_121009.html

You were right about one thing. It didn't take long to find the evidence about their fundraising.



RBark said:


> If you want to read links, read the thread. I'm not going to go over it all to link it all over again.
> 
> EDIT: All the sources for this information is not CCF or it's related groups. All the sources are from humane societies, HSUS's own site claiming to raise money for it, badrap's site, fay's foster group's site, and so on.


I read all of the links that related to fundraising for Vick dogs. There were not nearly enough to provide conclusive evidence. Most of the links related to a different case altogether. The picture you posted, the HSUS tax documents, and the article/interview with Fay's caretaker seem to provide sufficient evidence that the HSUS was not deceptive in this case. Mutts n Stuff's blog entry at http://muttsnstuff.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/a-big-thank-you-to-the-humane-society-of-missouri/ provides evidence that they assisted in rescue and transport of the dogs. You are free to argue that they should have contributed more money and care, and I would most likely agree with you.



RBark said:


> Really? It's really clearly stated? I clearly see it saying it's going to help the Vick dogs. Not one cent went to the Vick dogs.


See above, and HSUS tax documents.



RBark said:


> You're not _supposed_ to do anything. *I* chose to donate money to people that are _actually_ helping the Vick dogs (Badrap), the Louisana Humane Societies who *actually* helped the Katrina dogs, the Red Cross who are really there helping in Haiti, the local SPCA ho is actually finding homes for dogs, and so on.
> 
> Why anyone, in their right mind, would think that asking for donations for one thing, and using it for something else, is okay is beyond me. But if that's okay with you, then by all means, do it.


You're setting up a straw man here. I never stated that was ok, or even mentioned it. No charity uses your money for exclusively what they claim to. They all have expenses and programs that need funding. HSUS, in the picture you posted, stated that the money was going to the Vick dogs and other programs. That's what it did. And, for what it's worth, my donations go to local shelters and rescues. I'm glad there are people like you who will help the Katrina and Haiti dogs, since they need(ed) it desperately, but I personally choose to support some of the many dogs near me who need help.



RBark said:


> The people here in this thread gave people facts about HSUS to make a informed opinion on the HSUS before they donate their money. Again, why that's a bad thing is beyond me. They ARE a questionable organization with questionable motives, just like the CCF is a questionable organization with questionable motives. Both of them are equally bad. There are much better places to put your money.


Providing facts to enable people to make an informed decision on the HSUS is not a bad thing. It just wasn't happening. Many claims were being made with no backup, or faulty backup. That does not enable people to make an informed decision. The HSUS is questionable, the CCF is questionable, and so is every other person or organization on the planet. The important thing is to be able to question them and receive an accurate answer.



ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> If you were looking to get away from them.. why in the world would you open a thread with HSUS in the title? Seems like a pretty easy thing to avoid. And ahem, being anti-HSUS doesn't make you a nut bag. It makes you informed and at the very least able to read EDIT: That sounds a bit more rude than I meant it to come across, but so does nutbag. I simply mean I don't personally understand how someone would defend HSUS with all the information out there.


Being anti-HSUS may or may not make you informed or literate. The anti-HSUS information out there may or may not be true. However, believing everything you read without doing your own research does not make you informed, and does not make all the information out there true. I have not at any point in this thread taken a position on the HSUS. I have asked for evidence of claims and pointed out factual errors, logical fallacies, and bias. I hope people believe that regardless of their final decision regarding the HSUS, it is important to have the facts straight when the decision is made.



ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I personally love these threads and watching them unfold. Typically I know they're going to blow up when ONE certain person finally sees them.


I have to agree with you here, at least in general. I must admit this is the first time it's been me. It's amazing how quickly things blow up just by trying to clarify the facts and find the truth.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

AccidentalChef said:


> Being anti-HSUS may or may not make you informed or literate. The anti-HSUS information out there may or may not be true. However, believing everything you read without doing your own research does not make you informed, and does not make all the information out there true. I have not at any point in this thread taken a position on the HSUS. I have asked for evidence of claims and pointed out factual errors, logical fallacies, and bias. I hope people believe that regardless of their final decision regarding the HSUS, it is important to have the facts straight when the decision is made.
> I have to agree with you here, at least in general. I must admit this is the first time it's been me. It's amazing how quickly things blow up just by trying to clarify the facts and find the truth.


I did amend what I said. I got momentarily annoyed and then realized what I said came across too harsh. 
But.. I did not mean you when I referenced one person. You've not been around long enough to earn that title yet.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

AccidentalChef said:


> The quotes that were shown were only fragments of his entire statements, and did not include a sufficient description of the situation in which they were said.


That is what most quotes are.




> No, in fact, he describes the situation he was in, the question he was asked, and states his response. Context does not have to be exact or word for word to prevent a logical fallacy, but it must provide enough information so that the speaker's original meaning is intact. Here is the relevant section from Pacelle's blog, linked earlier in the thread. That's a very clear statement of the context of his answer, even though the question was not stated word for word.
> 
> 
> 
> No more description of the context is necessary to understand what was meant by his answer, and there is no spin or dancing. His statement is a straightforward account of the event. You are free to disagree with his answer if you want, but it would be dishonest to manipulate his words and change their meaning by removing the context.


It is a statement about the context of the quote, but it is also spin. summarizing the question and answer in the most positive light without actually supplying the exact context himself.

It could easily be just as manipulative as you maintain the quote is. Why not smply present the question and answer from the record and leave no doubt?




> Your context free fragment of his quote implies that a pet free future is his goal.


No only that it is his preference, what he would personally like to see in the future.



> Leaving out the critical parts where he states that he does not see and is not working towards a pet free future, that he thinks pet ownership is appropriate if the owners are responsible and the animals are well cared for, and that he thinks society will decide about pets some time in the future completely changes the meaning of his statement.


Actually in the text you use to supply context he says he thinks it "might be an appropriate thing", and that he is "not sure".

No context is changed, he would prefer to see a pet free future. That is his personal view.

None of which speaks to my main beef which I think amounts to false advertising in collecting money ostensibly to provide for shelter animals they flash across the screen in TV ads, when in reality they dump those rescued animals into local shelters for the local shelters to fund care for on their own, and frequently advise the court to euthanize.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> The proof about the Vick stuff is a couple of posts up. And I have seen the grant to Bad Rap in HSUS records. I have also seen Bad Rap go on record saying they never got it. Whom am I am to believe? The organization that collected money for the dogs then stood in front of a judge and said they should be killed. Or the organization that took the dogs in and worked with them?


There has been no proof that HSUS didn't give money or didn't provide care to the Vick dogs. If you can show me a legitimate source stating that Bad Rap was not paid, I will believe it over the HSUS tax records. On the other hand, the HSUS most definitely contributed to Fay's care at the very least. Gale of Mutts-n-Stuff posted a comment stating that she had received the money from the HSUS. See comment 90 here: http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/12/04/hsus-fund-raising-pitch-raises-hackles/



JohnnyBandit said:


> Here is a newspaper article on the dismissal.
> http://www.macon.com/2010/03/14/1057489/animal-rights-lawyers-a-three.html
> 
> The Felds Entertainment suit IS relevant because the HSUS suit against Fields got dismissed because HSUS conducted inappropriate activities. Those activities are a matter of court record. And yes anyone can file suit on anyone. But your comparison is bordering on ridiculous because there is a thing called Frivolous Lawsuit.


The newspaper article is written by the CCF. Putting it onto paper instead of on the web doesn't change that, and it's essentially the same story as on their web site. If it is true that the HSUS paid off a witness, then they did something unethical and got caught. I don't support corruption of the justice system by anyone. However, I don't believe that their actions are unique or even uncommon. I believe you would be hard pressed to find anyone with a 9 figure bank account who wouldn't manipulate a trial, given the opportunity. Does that make it ethical? Not at all. It makes me lose respect for the organization, but certainly not enough to make me think they're entirely evil.

For now, I neither believe nor disbelieve the claims that they paid off a witness. Coming from a biased source does not automatically make the statement false, but it doesn't inspire enough confidence to consider it true. If I see confirmation of this from a neutral source, I'll decide how much it impacts my respect for the HSUS at that time. Also, I stated that my example was intentionally ridiculous, so I'm glad you feel that I was successful in meeting that goal. Still, until the case was dismissed as frivolous, anyone could claim you were in court fighting the allegations without lying.



JohnnyBandit said:


> You can assume anything you choose about my personal investigation was not in depth. That is your choice.
> 
> I will take this up again tomorrow. Right now I am going to sleep.
> 
> Although I am not sure anything anyone posts in the way of unbiased sources will satisfy you.


Looking back at the discussion here, you're right that I was making an assumption. I assumed that the dishonesty you were referring to was related to the Vick fundraising. If I was incorrect, would you mind explaining which parts of their financial records led you to believe they're dishonest?

You're assuming that I won't accept a reasonable source. I'm still waiting to see one. The newspaper article, the video, and the 7 "facts" are all the standard CCF lines.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> On the other hand, the HSUS most definitely contributed to Fay's care at the very least. Gale of Mutts-n-Stuff posted a comment stating that she had received the money from the HSUS. See comment 90 here: http://www.petconnection.com/blog/20...aises-hackles/


I'm too tired to take part in this debate anymore, this is basically rehashing the same debate that happened several pages ago. But a quick thing about this. It seems you are ignoring everything except the part where she eventually got money.



> I am rather sad that HSUS has chosen to use Fay (not Faye)in their fund drive. Fay has never received a dime from HSUS. How do I know? Because I am the one that is fostering Fay. Fay is currently going through expensive surgeries to recreate medically need lips so her teeth do not fall out, her jaw bone stops deterioating, and she can live a normal life. HSUS never contacted us regarding Fay. In the video John states she is in a loving home…really…thanks for the compliment but Fay is LOOKING for her forever home.
> 
> If you really want to help Fay, please go to our website, http://www.muttsandstuff.com and click on the donate now button. If you want to help the other 35 dogs we took with their own health issues….please donate. We are a small group that can use the help.


They did not ask for permission to use Fay's story, nor did they send a check until they were called out on it. Just like how they retracted their ads once they were called out on the Vick thing. All I see here is complete dishonesty.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

TxRider said:


> That is what most quotes are.


To some extent, you're correct. However, it becomes a fallacy as soon as sufficient context is removed and the meaning of the quote is manipulated away from the speaker's intent.



TxRider said:


> It is a statement about the context of the quote, but it is also spin. summarizing the question and answer in the most positive light without actually supplying the exact context himself.
> 
> It could easily be just as manipulative as you maintain the quote is. Why not smply present the question and answer from the record and leave no doubt?


Calling it spin implies that it's intentionally deceptive or manipulative. The relevant paragraph, which I quoted earlier, is a very straightforward account, and the only detail that might be missing is the exact wording of the question. Again, in this particular case, the exact wording of the question is not relevant. As a reminder, this is what I initially responded to:



> 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."


As you see, the sentence that refers to livestock breeds has been removed. This appears to be a common out of context usage of his words, especially on pet forums. It's usually used as "proof" that the HSUS wants to end pet ownership completely. The more complete quote is as follows:



> “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding... One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”


Now you can see that he is very clearly not talking about pets at all. That first sentence drastically reduces the amount by which the rest of his words can be manipulated. Still, the quote is commonly used to suggest that the HSUS wants to do away with all livestock. Now, we just have to add even a very small amount of information about the question he was answering:



> In the question and answer session, an attendee asked whether there should be an attempt to preserve all breeds of exotic livestock. I was specifically queried about so-called “heirloom breeds” (older breed variations that are often not used any longer for a commercial purpose and whose continued survival as a breed may be in jeopardy) and their value to agriculture.


The exact phrasing of the question does not have any significance. The records of that session may be lost, or he may not have access to them. They may not have been kept at all. In any case, it doesn't matter. There is essentially no room for ambiguity once we know the topic of the question and the complete answer. It is clear now that he is stating that we have no ethical obligation to preserve heirloom livestock breeds that likely serve no commercial purpose, and we should stop breeding them solely for preservation.



TxRider said:


> No only that it is his preference, what he would personally like to see in the future.
> Actually in the text you use to supply context he says he thinks it "might be an appropriate thing", and that he is "not sure".
> No context is changed, he would prefer to see a pet free future. That is his personal view.


Here is the full quote again so you don't have to scroll half a mile:



> "I wouldn't say that I envision that, no. If I had my personal view perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don't want to see another cat or dog born. It's not something I strive for, though. If people were very
> responsible, and didn't do manipulative breeding, and cared for animals in all senses, and accounted for their nutritional needs as well as their social and psychological needs, then I think it could be an appropriate thing. I'm not sure. I think it's one of those things that we'll decide later in society. I think we're still far from it."


Again, the first sentence is the key. He is asked if he envisions a future without pets. He says no. If you throw away that first sentence, you can manipulate the perhaps/might/could/I don't know/I think lines to say whatever you want. That's what you're doing to claim he wants a pet free future. You're changing the meaning of what he said in order to make him appear to say something that fits your beliefs or agenda. To look at it another way, there are three definitive statements in the quote. I'll paraphrase them here:

1. I do not envision a pet free future.
2. I do not want to see dogs and cats born.
3. I am not working towards #2.

The rest of the quote is conditional, so it doesn't have such a well defined meaning. You are trying to keep #2 and throw away the rest, while claiming the meaning doesn't change when you do so. Simplifying the entire quote leaves the basic idea that 16 years ago, Wayne Pacelle said that he didn't see an end to pet ownership and wasn't trying to end it. Phrasing it like that certainly leaves out some detail, including his lack of desire to see cats and dogs born. However, it retains his intention.



TxRider said:


> None of which speaks to my main beef which I think amounts to false advertising in collecting money ostensibly to provide for shelter animals they flash across the screen in TV ads, when in reality they dump those rescued animals into local shelters for the local shelters to fund care for on their own, and frequently advise the court to euthanize.


You are certainly free to like or dislike HSUS as you see fit, and I won't try to stop you from either. On the other hand, false advertising is a term I've seen thrown around a few times in HSUS threads. It seems preferable to clearly state what they do, rather than give it a potentially inaccurate name with no clear explanation. As I've stated and shown, they do provide funds to the shelters and organizations that they claim to, so their advertising is not false. They may not donate as much money as you would like them to, but that's a separate issue. Their annual reports and tax documents are freely available on their web site, and a full explanation of where the funds go would not fit into a standard commercial. You can check their tax documents for a list of grants given to shelters to see which ones receive funding. You wouldn't blame a car company if a consumer purchased a car based solely on a commercial and didn't get what they expected. The consumer clearly didn't do their research. Why are charities any different?

As far as euthanizing former fighting dogs goes, I disagree with the idea of it However, I do see logic in it. There is certainly no shortage of pit bulls in American animal shelters. Personally, I would be worried that releasing dog aggressive pit bulls to homes while plenty of dog friendly ones are being killed in shelters will only serve to further harm the breed's reputation. In reality, each dog is an individual and should be treated as one regardless of its background. Fortunately, i believe HSUS has changed their beliefs here and no longer advises euthanasia.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

RBark said:


> I'm too tired to take part in this debate anymore, this is basically rehashing the same debate that happened several pages ago. But a quick thing about this. It seems you are ignoring everything except the part where she eventually got money.


You clearly stated that the rescues involved in the Vick rescue did not receive a dime. One of the rescues clearly received a check for the equivalent of a very large number of dimes. A similar discussion did take place earlier in the thread, regarding Fay. Interestingly, you were involved in that discussion and even provided a link to the page where Gale from Mutts n Stuff announced that she had received the HSUS funding. I'm curious why you would continue to state that the HSUS did not provide any funding to rescues when you had evidence to the contrary. 

Your claim that I'm ignoring things because I did not mention them in my post is a fallacy. To counter a claim that no money was paid to rescues, I only need to show that money was actually given out. Any details of how the money was distributed are irrelevant to the argument. If you would like to discuss the process of receiving grant money from HSUS for the Vick dogs, you'll have to give up on the claim that they didn't give out the grant money.



RBark said:


> They did not ask for permission to use Fay's story, nor did they send a check until they were called out on it. Just like how they retracted their ads once they were called out on the Vick thing. All I see here is complete dishonesty.


HSUS involved in the rescue and transportation of the dogs according to http://muttsnstuff.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/a-big-thank-you-to-the-humane-society-of-missouri/ . Since they were there, they had first hand experience with Fay. This is what was said about Fay in their fundraising letter:



> I’ll never forget Faye's story. I bet you won't, either. Our team met her in Missouri, when The Humane Society of the United States helped rescue hundreds of animals from the horrors of dogfighting. She’d been wounded badly in a fight, and a dogfighter had mercilessly cut off her lips. She was in tough shape, but we found her in the nick of time. Faye's a lucky survivor: She now sleeps in a warm bed in a safe place.


from http://action.humanesociety.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=6805.0&dlv_id=0

I am not a lawyer, so I can't comment on the legality of using the image and story of a dog you helped to rescue but do not own. As far as I can tell, Gale was contacted within 24 hours of the fundraising letter being released, with the HSUS offering her $5000 towards Fay's surgery. Soon after, Gale was interviewed for the HSUS's web site (5). Based on her comments (4), she was quite unhappy with her dealings with HSUS. I'll be the first to say that HSUS should have made a much stronger effort to keep Gale happy. Not doing that might make them inconsiderate jerks, but if there was an agreement made between Gale and HSUS when she received the $5000 and HSUS kept their end of the deal, none of this implies any dishonesty.

Your claim that they did not send a check until they were called on it may be accurate, but it's also a bit misleading. You make it sound like the fundraising campaign ran for some time before HSUS had to pay due to some sort of pressure. I've been able to piece together the timeline surrounding these events reasonably well, assuming the dates are correct on each site referenced below.

11/11/09: Fay's surgery is announced on her rescue's blog. (1)
12/03/09: Pacelle announces December fundraising drive, featuring Fay. (2)
12/04/09: HSUS announces that they're paying for Fay's surgery (3)
12/08/09: Fay's foster mom receives the check from HSUS (4)
12/10/09: Gale's interview is posted on the HSUS website (5)

There is one day between starting the fundraising drive and offering Gale $5000. There is less than one month from Fay's surgery to Gale's interview appearing on the site. It would be difficult to accuse HSUS of dragging things out here. An earlier donation would have been ideal, but as of right now, I have seen no evidence that HSUS was made aware of Fay's surgery at any earlier date.

I'm not even going to touch on the retracted ads. If you're claiming any sort of legal or ethical misconduct by HSUS, the burden of proof is on you. If you can provide legitimate sources and rational arguments to back up your claims, I'll believe them. If you continue to make statements without citing sources and claim that the links are already elsewhere in the thread without pointing to them directly, I'm going to have to assume that your argument is faulty.

I have to wonder why some people are so repulsed by the idea of posting accurate, truthful information about HSUS. Is it really so hard to check your sources and make sure your facts are correct? Don't you want to know that your beliefs have a strong correlation with reality? If you're very strongly opposed to the HSUS but can't find any legitimate sources to back up your views, maybe it's a sign that you should try to change your opinion, rather than trying to change the facts.

(1): http://muttsnstuff.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/new-life-and-new-face-for-fay/
(2): http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2009/12/survivors-fund.html
(3): http://twitter.com/HumaneSociety/status/6350817375
(4): http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/12/04/hsus-fund-raising-pitch-raises-hackles/
(5): http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2009/12/fay_dogfight_survivor_121009.html


----------



## elah42 (Feb 12, 2010)

I have to come to the defense of Accidental Chief here. I am not a fan, nor a supporter of the HSUS, because I do remember the Vick case and what happened with Katrina.

But if I did not remember those incidences, or had not heard about them, much of the evidence posted on here against the HSUS would not persuade me. It's not primary data and it's not quoted from credible sources. I think that's all Accidental Chief is asking for.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

AccidentalChef said:


> You clearly stated that the rescues involved in the Vick rescue did not receive a dime. One of the rescues clearly received a check for the equivalent of a very large number of dimes. A similar discussion did take place earlier in the thread, regarding Fay. Interestingly, you were involved in that discussion and even provided a link to the page where Gale from Mutts n Stuff announced that she had received the HSUS funding. I'm curious why you would continue to state that the HSUS did not provide any funding to rescues when you had evidence to the contrary.


Okay now I'm having no idea what you are saying. 

You are also doing a strawman. Reasons I do not like HSUS is, they raised millions for the Vick dogs, and gave precious little of that to the Badrap. However much they gave Badrap is chump change. They raised the money for the care of the Vick dogs, and went to court to recommend them all being put down. 

They use Fay's picture, raise millions for "stories like fay", and give money to Fay's owners after people stirred a fuss about it, and less than 5% of their money goes to "stories like Fay." (That's also in the tax records).

They raise millions for Katrina, Haiti, and very little if any of it went to them.

To you, that might not seem misleading. Millions of people donated to them, thinking they were going to help with these things. Very little of it actually did. Those people would feel misled if they knew where the money actually went.

You say that it's not HSUS's fault the donator is misled, they should have done the research. That's fine for you, but I believe that it is the responsibility of all humane organizations to make a honest representation of what they are doing with the money. If they told people where the money actually went, they would get far less donations.

You are justifying all of this stuff with trivialities. To me, and most of the world, dishonesty is dishonesty, no matter what justification is. Yes, I believe that if you ask for money to help the Vick dogs, you do not get to turn around and recommend them all to be killed and spend most of it on legislative efforts in other areas. Most people believe that. All the legality in the world that HSUS may have, the technicalities, and all of that... doesn't justify it.

Raising millions of dollars for "stories like Faye" when all you did was provide a car or two, and giving $5000 of it to one of the cases, no, that simply is not right. You can twist it with technicalities all you want, but it is cut and dry to me, and most of the people who thought they were helping.

As for my argument being faulty because I am tired of being asked to prove stuff by people who refuse to read the proof, I really simply do not care. You are one person, the evidence offered in this thread is plenty for most. I'm not going to present my case to everyone who shows up late in this thread with a opinion if I've already presented it.





> Your claim that I'm ignoring things because I did not mention them in my post is a fallacy. To counter a claim that no money was paid to rescues, I only need to show that money was actually given out. Any details of how the money was distributed are irrelevant to the argument. If you would like to discuss the process of receiving grant money from HSUS for the Vick dogs, you'll have to give up on the claim that they didn't give out the grant money.


Again, you're just arguing semantics. 




> HSUS involved in the rescue and transportation of the dogs according to http://muttsnstuff.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/a-big-thank-you-to-the-humane-society-of-missouri/ . Since they were there, they had first hand experience with Fay. This is what was said about Fay in their fundraising letter:


A car or two, where the HSMO did most of the work, and Mutts n Stuff did most of the work. And HSUS got millions for it. Sorry, raise all the technicalities you want, this is simply wrong to me.




I am not a lawyer, so I can't comment on the legality of using the image and story of a dog you helped to rescue but do not own. As far as I can tell, Gale was contacted within 24 hours of the fundraising letter being released, with the HSUS offering her $5000 towards Fay's surgery. Soon after, Gale was interviewed for the HSUS's web site (5). Based on her comments (4), she was quite unhappy with her dealings with HSUS. I'll be the first to say that HSUS should have made a much stronger effort to keep Gale happy. Not doing that might make them inconsiderate jerks, but if there was an agreement made between Gale and HSUS when she received the $5000 and HSUS kept their end of the deal, none of this implies any dishonesty.







> I have to wonder why some people are so repulsed by the idea of posting accurate, truthful information about HSUS. Is it really so hard to check your sources and make sure your facts are correct? Don't you want to know that your beliefs have a strong correlation with reality? If you're very strongly opposed to the HSUS but can't find any legitimate sources to back up your views, maybe it's a sign that you should try to change your opinion, rather than trying to change the facts.


Because people dismiss them all on trivial stuff. You want unbiased sources, but no source is unbiased. You want people to build a case that is so good that we could probably take the HSUS to court and get them to pay what people are owed. But that's what *you* want. To the rest of us, the evidence provided in this thread is cut and dry of HSUS's wrongdoing. They may be legally and technically right. But that'll help them in court. I do not see it as right, and therefore, I do not provide them with money. A lot of people do not see it as right, and therefore, they don't care that they may have technically told the truth. You say you're going to do one thing, you do it, you don't distort it.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

AccidentalChef said:


> The exact phrasing of the question does not have any significance. The records of that session may be lost, or he may not have access to them. They may not have been kept at all. In any case, it doesn't matter. There is essentially no room for ambiguity once we know the topic of the question and the complete answer. It is clear now that he is stating that we have no ethical obligation to preserve heirloom livestock breeds that likely serve no commercial purpose, and we should stop breeding them solely for preservation.


That is if you choose to believe he is being completely honest about the topic of the question. I have no such faith.




> Again, the first sentence is the key. He is asked if he envisions a future without pets. He says no. If you throw away that first sentence, you can manipulate the perhaps/might/could/I don't know/I think lines to say whatever you want. That's what you're doing to claim he wants a pet free future. You're changing the meaning of what he said in order to make him appear to say something that fits your beliefs or agenda. To look at it another way, there are three definitive statements in the quote.  I'll paraphrase them here:
> 
> 1. I do not envision a pet free future.
> 2. I do not want to see dogs and cats born.
> ...


Taken in full context, the quote when accurately read states he would like to see a future without pets, but he doesn't see it being a realistic goal so he is not actively seeking it, but it may be a realistic goal in the future..





> You are certainly free to like or dislike HSUS as you see fit, and I won't try to stop you from either. On the other hand, false advertising is a term I've seen thrown around a few times in HSUS threads. It seems preferable to clearly state what they do, rather than give it a potentially inaccurate name with no clear explanation. As I've stated and shown, they do provide funds to the shelters and organizations that they claim to, so their advertising is not false. They may not donate as much money as you would like them to, but that's a separate issue.


They give almost none. The ads insinuate that your money is going to care for animals, I think most would be shocked to find out how little actually does.



> Their annual reports and tax documents are freely available on their web site, and a full explanation of where the funds go would not fit into a standard commercial. You can check their tax documents for a list of grants given to shelters to see which ones receive funding. You wouldn't blame a car company if a consumer purchased a car based solely on a commercial and didn't get what they expected. The consumer clearly didn't do their research. Why are charities any different?


Not everyone is going to check the tax records of a charity they donate to. It is a problem with many charities that say they are spending money on thing like feeding children for example, when in fact only tiny bit of the money given ever reaches a hungry child.

They could quite easily be less manipulative and misleading in their advertising for donations. In fact it would be difficult to be more misleading than they are.



> As far as euthanizing former fighting dogs goes, I disagree with the idea of it However, I do see logic in it. There is certainly no shortage of pit bulls in American animal shelters. Personally, I would be worried that releasing dog aggressive pit bulls to homes while plenty of dog friendly ones are being killed in shelters will only serve to further harm the breed's reputation. In reality, each dog is an individual and should be treated as one regardless of its background. Fortunately, i believe HSUS has changed their beliefs here and no longer advises euthanasia.


They haven't changed their beliefs as far I have seen. They have only committed to talking about doing so.

Point is HSUS swoops in and grabs media attention for being part of a seizure of fighting, puppy mill or disaster dogs, who are then immediately dumped into local shelters. They then run ads with these same dogs on TV raising money, tens of millions of dollars, money they imply is going to be used to care for those animals that the local shelters who are actually caring for the dogs never receive.

As an animal right organization I have no problem with them spending the majority of their donations on legislative and lobbying agendas, I think they should simply be more straight forward about it. But that would not bring in as much money in donations.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

elah42 said:


> I have to come to the defense of Accidental Chief here. I am not a fan, nor a supporter of the HSUS, because I do remember the Vick case and what happened with Katrina.
> 
> But if I did not remember those incidences, or had not heard about them, much of the evidence posted on here against the HSUS would not persuade me. It's not primary data and it's not quoted from credible sources. I think that's all Accidental Chief is asking for.


Finally, someone seems to understand what I'm talking about here. Every HSUS thread I have seen on this forum is filled with accusations of anything that might cause a reaction. Only a very small number of those claims provide any documentation. If you claim the organization is not what it says it is, the burden of proof is on you. If you intentionally provide misleading information in order to make HSUS look bad, you are no better than you claim they are.

Oh, and it's Accidental Chef. I used to cook for a living  I'm not sure I'm cut out to be a chief, but maybe I'll consider it someday!



RBark said:


> Okay now I'm having no idea what you are saying.


I'll rewrite it using simpler language. You said the HSUS did not give rescues a dime. I pointed out that at least one rescue received funding. Because you said the debate was being rehashed, I looked at your earlier posts, and saw that one of your posts provided proof that HSUS did contribute to Fay's care. I then asked you why you claimed that the rescues have not received any money when you had evidence that they did receive funding.

Some of your quotes from this thread, relevant to the above paragraph:


> 2) Fay's owner responded to it saying they have not given a dime to her. Badrap (who took care of the vick dogs) did not get a dime from HSUS. Both of them have documented that.


 Taken from post 135, in case you edit it. Also, you stated they did not receive any money here:


> Really? It's really clearly stated? I clearly see it saying it's going to help the Vick dogs. Not one cent went to the Vick dogs.


 Taken from post 141. I'll also note that the second post quotes the HSUS ad out of context. "Help the Vick dogs" means one thing. "Help the Vick dogs and support other vital animal protection programs" means something else. 

Your link that provides evidence of HSUS contributing to Fay's care came in post 77:


RBark said:


> http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/12/04/hsus-fund-raising-pitch-raises-hackles/


The previous post (76), by Laurelin, also states that funding was received by the rescue.

If you still have no idea what I'm talking about, please ask me to clarify the specific statement that's confusing you. If there's a specific issue with my argument, please point it out so that I can either clarify it out or concede that I was incorrect. In this case, I believe I've clearly shown that you knew HSUS had given money to Fay's rescue, yet you still claimed they did not. So, to restate my previvous question, why have you continued to state that HSUS did not fund Fay's rescue when you have had evidence that they did?



RBark said:


> You are also doing a strawman. Reasons I do not like HSUS is, they raised millions for the Vick dogs, and gave precious little of that to the Badrap. However much they gave Badrap is chump change. They raised the money for the care of the Vick dogs, and went to court to recommend them all being put down.


I am not doing anything that resembles a straw man. I merely questioned why you're making posts that contradict evidence you yourself provided, as mentioned above. Now, you appear to be changing your story as the statements in your previous posts are being proven incorrect. First you claimed that no money at all was given to support the Vick dogs, now you claim that it simply wasn't enough.

I guess we need even more clarification of the events surrounding the Vick case. Let's take a look. On July 17, Vick was indicted by the grand jury. The picture of HSUS's fundraising letter you posted is dated July 18. It very specifically says, "We need your help to care for these dogs *while the case is pending*". The HSUS assisted with the rescue, transport, and care of these dogs On November 27, Vick agreed to set aside $928,000 for the care of the dogs, according to http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/local/11868241.html . Vick was convicted December 10. The facts state that HSUS had no responsibility at all for donating to the rescues housing the Vick dogs, because they only claimed to be raising money to help care for them during the trial, and because Vick himself was forced to set aside nearly a million dollars to care for the dogs, or nearly $20,000 per dog. However, HSUS still donated to the 3 involved rescues that I'm aware of (Best Friends, Bad Rap, and Mutts-n-Stuff). Based on this information, any claims against HSUS for the amount given to the rescuers of the Vick dogs would be fallacious. If you have evidence that the HSUS did not contribute to the care of the dogs during the trial, then you have something to discuss.

As I have stated in this thread, I disagree with the decision to euthanize the Vick dogs. However, there is logic behind it, and a quote you posted yourself describes it.


> “Officials from our organization have examined some of these dogs and, generally speaking, they are some of the most aggressively trained pit bulls in the country,” Wayne Pacelle, the president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “Hundreds of thousands of less-violent pit bulls, who are better candidates to be rehabilitated, are being put down. The fate of these dogs will be up to the government, but we have recommended to them, and believe, they will be eventually put down.”


Reading his entire statement, he did recommend the dogs be put down because there are so many other pit bulls being euthanized who are better candidates for rehabilitation. Again, I disagree with their recommendation, but they now disagree with it too and have changed their policy. Either way, raising money to care for the dogs during the trial implies nothing about what should be done with the dogs after the trial. It is not hypocritical to want to provide the best possible care for a dog while it is alive while believing the dog should be euthanized at some point in the future.

Looking at the entire case, you're really running out of things to argue. Based on a variety of independent or primary sources, we have established that HSUS was raising money to care for the Vick dogs during the trial, and for other programs. We have established that HSUS was involved in the rescue of the dogs. We know HSUS's reason for recommending euthanasia of the dogs after the trial was to give other dogs more suitable to rehabilitation a better chance. We know that Michael Vick set aside $928,000 to provide for the care of the dogs after the trial, at which point any obligation HSUS had to support the dogs would end. We know that even after this obligation had ended, HSUS contributed to rescues that should have been receiving Vick's money. Best Friends and Bad Rap are listed in their tax documents, an the source for Mutts-n-Stuff has been posted numerous times. I don't see how you have any arguments left open to you unless you can provide proof that the HSUS did not contribute to the care of the Vick dogs during his trial.




RBark said:


> They use Fay's picture, raise millions for "stories like fay", and give money to Fay's owners after people stirred a fuss about it, and less than 5% of their money goes to "stories like Fay." (That's also in the tax records).


Your wording is misleading. In order to provide a clear statement of fact, it would be necessary to provide more complete information that you have here. In fact, you have provided essentially none, and what you have provided appears to be inaccurate. Based on HSUS's 2008 annual report, they spend $13,173,670 on field and disaster response programs. Their 2008 budget after operational expenses was $92,723,352. This represents over 14% of their total budget for animal protection programs.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

RBark said:


> They raise millions for Katrina, Haiti, and very little if any of it went to them.


The burden of proof is most definitely on you here. Your claims about the Vick case have been shown to be inaccurate, so before I even bother with Katrina and Haiti, I'd like to see the proof you have to offer.



RBark said:


> To you, that might not seem misleading. Millions of people donated to them, thinking they were going to help with these things. Very little of it actually did. Those people would feel misled if they knew where the money actually went.
> 
> You say that it's not HSUS's fault the donator is misled, they should have done the research. That's fine for you, but I believe that it is the responsibility of all humane organizations to make a honest representation of what they are doing with the money. If they told people where the money actually went, they would get far less donations.


Again, the burden of proof is on you to show that they did not do what they said they would do. If you happen to be correct, that still doesn't change your next paragraph. I'm going to say this as plainly as I can. The HSUS provides detailed information about how it spends its money. It is easy to find. It is 3 mouse clicks away from their front page, and in a logical place. The HSUS has shown people where the money goes. They bear absolutely no responsibility if people don't bother to read it. This is not specific to the HSUS. If any person, organization, or company provides you with easily accessible information, you have no right to complain that you did not know that information because you chose not to access it.




RBark said:


> You are justifying all of this stuff with trivialities. To me, and most of the world, dishonesty is dishonesty, no matter what justification is. Yes, I believe that if you ask for money to help the Vick dogs, you do not get to turn around and recommend them all to be killed and spend most of it on legislative efforts in other areas. Most people believe that. All the legality in the world that HSUS may have, the technicalities, and all of that... doesn't justify it.


I am justifying all of this stuff with the facts of the case. I am providing credible and relevant sources. You can say that dishonesty is dishonesty, but you have done nothing to prove that statement applies to the HSUS in your examples, since the examples are made up of factual errors and logical fallacies. As for your Vick comment, see above, then check the HSUS's annual report to see if they spend "most of it" on legislative efforts.




RBark said:


> Raising millions of dollars for "stories like Faye" when all you did was provide a car or two, and giving $5000 of it to one of the cases, no, that simply is not right. You can twist it with technicalities all you want, but it is cut and dry to me, and most of the people who thought they were helping.


If you have evidence that they did nothing more than provide a car or two, please post it. Sufficient information about Fay's case and HSUS's spending to counter the rest of your statement is already in this post.




RBark said:


> As for my argument being faulty because I am tired of being asked to prove stuff by people who refuse to read the proof, I really simply do not care. You are one person, the evidence offered in this thread is plenty for most. I'm not going to present my case to everyone who shows up late in this thread with a opinion if I've already presented it.


The problem is that you have not actually offered any evidence in this thread. It's just not here to support your claims. Your statements are misleading because you imply that you have factual sources, when those sources do not exist. Implying that I have not read page 1 because I'm posting on page 4 is a fallacy. Claiming that I'm showing up with an opinion when I haven't ever stated my opinion is inaccurate. The wording of your last sentence implies that my posts are all opinion, when in fact my posts contain citations of the sources I used which document that they are facts, not opinions.



RBark said:


> Because people dismiss them all on trivial stuff. You want unbiased sources, but no source is unbiased. You want people to build a case that is so good that we could probably take the HSUS to court and get them to pay what people are owed. But that's what *you* want. To the rest of us, the evidence provided in this thread is cut and dry of HSUS's wrongdoing. They may be legally and technically right. But that'll help them in court. I do not see it as right, and therefore, I do not provide them with money. A lot of people do not see it as right, and therefore, they don't care that they may have technically told the truth. You say you're going to do one thing, you do it, you don't distort it.


That is a straw man. You are claiming that I want an airtight case that would hold up in court, and attacking that claim. My request was that you cite sources for your claims. You have not done so. You're claiming that my request for sources with cut and dry facts is absurd, but that the lack of evidence you have provided is cut and dry proof of HSUS' wrongdoing. I do not care who you donate your money to and for what reasons. I am concerned that you make claims about an organization which you represent as facts, yet are unable and/or refuse to cite any evidence proving that your claims are facts.



TxRider said:


> That is if you choose to believe he is being completely honest about the topic of the question. I have no such faith.


Given that you're calling the man a liar, I have a request. In the future, rather than quoting him, please just say "I believe Wayne Pacelle is a liar". As it is, you have waited until it was made absolutely clear that the quote was out of context and misrepresenting the intent of the original statement, only to say that it doesn't matter because he's lying anyway. Even with your new claim, you're still misrepresenting him when you take his quote out of context. Your original quote implied that he was in favor of the extinction of all domestic animals within a generation. When context is included, we see that he believes it would be ethically acceptable to allow heirloom livestock breeds to become extinct. If he is a liar, then he really believes that no heirloom livestock breeds can be ethically allowed to become extinct, and so the original quote, taken out of context and used to imply his desire for the extinction of all domestic animals, remains misleading.



TxRider said:


> Taken in full context, the quote when accurately read states he would like to see a future without pets, but he doesn't see it being a realistic goal so he is not actively seeking it, but it may be a realistic goal in the future.


You're still changing the meaning of what he said. At no point in the quote did he say anything about it being a goal that he would seek if it were realistic. He specifically says that he does not envision a future without pets, and that he does not strive for a world without pets. You're implying that he would be working towards it if he thought it were possible. Whether or not that is true, he did not say it. You are saying that it may be realistic to work towards in the future, implying that he may work towards it someday. He said that society may decide someday, which does not imply anything at all about his goals. Words have specific meanings, and your words mean a different thing than his words. 

I believe I've covered your complaints about HSUS' use of funding elsewhere in this response, so I'll simply make another request. If you want to inform people about how the HSUS spends their money, inform them. Go look at the tax records yourself and figure out where it goes. Then, if you want to post about it, you can make credible statements. If you don't want to look at tax records (I don't blame you), the financial statement in the annual report is very easy to read.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Reasons I don't like HSUS:

Every single person I've talked to who donates to them truly believes they're donating to their local Humane Society. I work at the Post Office and hear it a lot, mostly from older people...."oh, it was in the newspaper that the HS needed some dog food, and look! they sent me a fundraising envelope so I thought I'd send some money". Sure it's their responsibility to know where their money is going but these are older people who don't have internet access and how are they going to find these facts? I think HSUS should put it in their fundraising letters, just a small footnote: "we do not fund local shelters" or something like that. Most people still probably wouldn't see it or pay attention to it but it would demonstrate good faith efforts to prevent misunderstandings. If all that money went to our local shelter they could afford to have a spay/neuter program and save manymany lives.

Their stand on feral cats. I believe they're still against TNR (I know PETA is) and I can't support that.

Their pit bull policies. 

They "helped" the local shelter raid a puppymill. Then they disappeared leaving the shelter to care for a couple hundred dogs with no HSUS funding. Real nice.

Their position on captive wildlife.....banning it completely never works. I would prefer my neighbor keep a properly licensed tiger kept in an approved enclosure than keep an illegal tiger in his basement.

And so on. Other things have been mentioned here. 

But they also do good things:

Educating people about non-lethal wildlife management. This is very good; most people around here blast first and think later. And then they bring the orphan baby skunks to the local HS because they feel bad  . Too late.

Fighting for protections for farm animals and other non-pet animals. Many farmers would like for all farm animals to be exempt from cruelty laws. One wonders why they're so worried....
Deliberate cruelty should be punished, no matter what kind of animal it is.

Their work against puppymills, dog fighting, etc. and their advocacy for lab animals. 

Their opposition to de-clawing.....the enemy of my enemy is my friend.


I have come to dislike anti-AR nuts much more than I dislike AR nuts. The AR nuts at least think animals should be treated well. The anti-AR people seem to think cruelty is okey-dokey, it's all part of our American freedoms. "Be cruel to an animal, it's your patriotic duty!" But extremism on either side is scary no matter what.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Reasons I don't like HSUS:
> 
> Every single person I've talked to who donates to them truly believes they're donating to their local Humane Society. I work at the Post Office and hear it a lot, mostly from older people...."oh, it was in the newspaper that the HS needed some dog food, and look! they sent me a fundraising envelope so I thought I'd send some money". Sure it's their responsibility to know where their money is going but these are older people who don't have internet access and how are they going to find these facts? I think HSUS should put it in their fundraising letters, just a small footnote: "we do not fund local shelters" or something like that. Most people still probably wouldn't see it or pay attention to it but it would demonstrate good faith efforts to prevent misunderstandings. If all that money went to our local shelter they could afford to have a spay/neuter program and save manymany lives.


I understand the issue, but I hadn't thought of those without internet access. Since HSUS does provide some funding to some local shelters, it doesn't seem necessary to claim that they do not fund local shelters. If the mailing has a phone number where someone can answer questions about the donation, I think they're covering their bases. 

The list of grants in their 2007 tax documents is 36 pages long, so there's no way they could reasonably include the exact list of organizations they support. I'm sure their mailings list their website, where their financial documents are found. To be fair to those without internet access, the mailing should also list a phone number where questions about donations or funding can be answered. I have never received a HSUS mailing, so I have no idea what's actually on there.



Willowy said:


> Their stand on feral cats. I believe they're still against TNR (I know PETA is) and I can't support that.
> 
> Their pit bull policies.
> 
> ...


I agree with most of these, and disagree with one or two, but I certainly won't tell you what your opinions should be. I will say that a quick search for "feral cats" on the HSUS web site returned a few articles that were speaking in favor of TNR, so it appears that policy has changed. Some of their pit bull policies appear to have changed since the Michael Vick case, so it may be worth looking to see if you feel they've gotten better or worse.



Willowy said:


> I have come to dislike anti-AR nuts much more than I dislike AR nuts. The AR nuts at least think animals should be treated well. The anti-AR people seem to think cruelty is okey-dokey, it's all part of our American freedoms. "Be cruel to an animal, it's your patriotic duty!" But extremism on either side is scary no matter what.


I can't argue with that. Especially the last sentence.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

AccidentalChef said:


> I guess we need even more clarification of the events surrounding the Vick case. Let's take a look. On July 17, Vick was indicted by the grand jury. The picture of HSUS's fundraising letter you posted is dated July 18. It very specifically says, "We need your help to care for these dogs *while the case is pending*". The HSUS assisted with the rescue, transport, and care of these dogs On November 27, Vick agreed to set aside $928,000 for the care of the dogs, according to http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/local/11868241.html . Vick was convicted December 10. The facts state that HSUS had no responsibility at all for donating to the rescues housing the Vick dogs, because they only claimed to be raising money to help care for them during the trial, and because Vick himself was forced to set aside nearly a million dollars to care for the dogs, or nearly $20,000 per dog. However, HSUS still donated to the 3 involved rescues that I'm aware of (Best Friends, Bad Rap, and Mutts-n-Stuff). Based on this information, any claims against HSUS for the amount given to the rescuers of the Vick dogs would be fallacious. If you have evidence that the HSUS did not contribute to the care of the dogs during the trial, then you have something to discuss.
> 
> .


Maybe you need to clarify this one a little more. Because the HSUS shows no donations to Best Friends or Mutts -n- stuff in 2007 or 2008. They do show $1500 to Bad Rap in 2007 and none in 2008. And 1500 is a drop in the bucket.


----------



## Juniper's mom (Jun 13, 2009)

elah42 said:


> I have to come to the defense of Accidental Chief here. I am not a fan, nor a supporter of the HSUS, because I do remember the Vick case and what happened with Katrina.
> 
> But if I did not remember those incidences, or had not heard about them, much of the evidence posted on here against the HSUS would not persuade me. It's not primary data and it's not quoted from credible sources. I think that's all Accidental Chief is asking for.


Me, too. Again, I have no particularly strong opinion of HSUS and PETA but I have to tell you this thread was making me want to leave Dogforums. I mean, it's a lot of biased right-wing propaganda getting ridiculously inflated into irrational rumors about these organizations doing terrible, nefarious things, up to that crazy thing about antifreeze in water bowls. 

You might as well go after the Red Cross as well. They've been criticized for their allocation of funds after major disasters. Everyone should check out UNBIASED sources of information like Charity Navigator before making contributions. If you'd rather elect to give your money to the local shelter or tuck it into the collar of a stray you see running down the street, you are totally free to do that. But don't believe all the wild things you read on internet forums.

I do appreciate Accidental Chef for standing up for some restraint and common sense.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

AccidentalChef said:


> Given that you're calling the man a liar, I have a request. In the future, rather than quoting him, please just say "I believe Wayne Pacelle is a liar". As it is, you have waited until it was made absolutely clear that the quote was out of context and misrepresenting the intent of the original statement, only to say that it doesn't matter because he's lying anyway.


Not at all, I'm simply saying he is a biased source, and is providing an explanation that sounds good for himself, not providing the exact context.

He may or may not be stretching the truth.




> You're still changing the meaning of what he said. At no point in the quote did he say anything about it being a goal that he would seek if it were realistic. He specifically says that he does not envision a future without pets, and that he does not strive for a world without pets. You're implying that he would be working towards it if he thought it were possible. Whether or not that is true, he did not say it. You are saying that it may be realistic to work towards in the future, implying that he may work towards it someday. He said that society may decide someday, which does not imply anything at all about his goals. Words have specific meanings, and your words mean a different thing than his words.


They do not mean a different thing.
He said he does not envision such a future.

Then he qualifies that statement with his personal view that if his personal view prevailed it might happen, and exactly what his prsonal view is.. 

"If I had my personal view perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don't want to see another cat or dog born." but he says he isn't striving for it.

Meaning clearly he would rather see a world without pets, but doesn't strive for it because not enough people hold his view on the subject for it to be a realistic goal to work toward.

He then states that if people were very good to animals in every way he thinks pet ownership "might be appropriate", but that "I'm not sure".

It's a pretty clear viewpoint.

I don't envision a future without nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see it, or if I had my view it wouldn't happen.



> I believe I've covered your complaints about HSUS' use of funding elsewhere in this response, so I'll simply make another request. If you want to inform people about how the HSUS spends their money, inform them. Go look at the tax records yourself and figure out where it goes. Then, if you want to post about it, you can make credible statements. If you don't want to look at tax records (I don't blame you), the financial statement in the annual report is very easy to read.


I have read their annual report, and it clearly shows how manipulative and unrepresentative their rescue animal ads and fund raising campaigns are in the name of higher donations..

They do some good works, but they should not take advantage of people's ignorance.

If you want to donate money to actually care for rescued animals, give to someone who actually makes that their main mission.

If you want to donate to an organization who's main mission is Animal rights political lobbying efforts, legislative efforts, agricultural livestock and commercial breeding regulation, give to HSUS.

HSUS donation ads should be in that vein, though that honesty would surely reduce their donation levels. I "do not envision a future" with more honest ads.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Maybe you need to clarify this one a little more. Because the HSUS shows no donations to Best Friends or Mutts -n- stuff in 2007 or 2008. They do show $1500 to Bad Rap in 2007 and none in 2008. And 1500 is a drop in the bucket.


First of all, aside from your question about the Best Friends donation, this entire post is a straw man argument. You're asking me to clarify something that I never claimed. Tax documents clearly show donations to Bad Rap (and Best Friends, see below) in 2007. I made no claims about donations in 2008, and I made no claims that the donation to Mutts-n-Stuff was made outside of early December, 2009. Specifically the donation was promised on December 4 at 2:07 PM, and delivered on December 8. It was deposited into the rescue's bank account on the morning of December 9.

The donation to Best Friends is on page 29 of their 2007 IRS form 990. That's contained in part 1, available from http://www.humanesociety.org/about/overview/annual_reports_financial_statements.html in pdf form. The grants are listed in alphabetical order. If that's not sufficient to find the grant, it's listed 5th on page 29, in between Beirut for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Blaze's Tribute Equine, Inc. I'm not sure I can clarify that any more. I made no claims about donations in 2008, and I made no claims that the donation to Mutts-n-Stuff was made outside of early December, 2009. Specifically the donation was promised on December 4 at 2:07 PM, and delivered on December 8. It was deposited into the rescue's bank account on the morning of December 9.

You've gone from claiming that they did not support the rescues at all to complaining about the amount of support the rescues received. So, since the $1500 was not enough to help Bad Rap care for the ten dogs they took in, how much did Bad Rap spend caring for those dogs? What percentage of that amount do you feel the HSUS was obligated to pay? Since HSUS stated their fundraising was to care for the dogs until the trial was over, why are they obligated to pay at all, especially when Michael Vick was ordered to set aside almost $1 million for the dogs?



TxRider said:


> Not at all, I'm simply saying he is a biased source, and is providing an explanation that sounds good for himself, not providing the exact context.
> He may or may not be stretching the truth.


Actually, he is a primary source. He has first hand knowledge of the event. Primary sources are generally considered far more valuable than secondary sources. If you believe his statements to be inaccurate, then you need to find a legitimate source that disputes what he said. 

You seem to be stuck on him providing exact context, which seems somewhat ironic given your treatment of his statements. However, I have already shown that in this instance, the exact wording of the question he was asked does not matter. Additionally, this is a pet forum. Unless you start removing words from his statement, it would be very difficult to come up with a realistic scenario where his answer concerns pet ownership in any way. He could be skydiving wearing a bunny suit and be asked if he would like mayo on his sandwich, and his statement would still say absolutely nothing about pet ownership. You keep pushing for exact wording, but there is no way he could have made that statement at an agricultural forum and meant that he wants to take away our dogs. It does not matter how much he might stretch the truth either. His statement is not about pets. His statement is documented. There is no possible relevance to quoting it here, and taking it out of context is simply misrepresenting reality.



TxRider said:


> They do not mean a different thing.
> He said he does not envision such a future.


"I think it's one of those things we'll decide later in society" does not mean the same thing as "I don't see it being a realistic goal so I am not actively seeking it, but it may be a realistic goal in the future". 

In fact, he does not say anything about goals at all. He does not state that he does not strive for the end of dogs and cats, but he would if he thought he could make it happen. Adding words can change meanings just as easily as removing them.



TxRider said:


> Then he qualifies that statement with his personal view that if his personal view prevailed it might happen, and exactly what his prsonal view is..
> 
> "If I had my personal view perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don't want to see another cat or dog born." but he says he isn't striving for it.
> 
> Meaning clearly he would rather see a world without pets, but doesn't strive for it because not enough people hold his view on the subject for it to be a realistic goal to work toward


It does not clearly mean what you wrote. It clearly means "I don't want to see another cat or dog born. It's not something I strive for, though." Nowhere in his statement does he claim that he does not strive for it because not enough people hold his view on the subject for it to be a realistic goal to work toward. He doesn't give a reason at all, he doesn't discuss popular support for his ideas, and he doesn't imply that he would be working toward it if enough people agreed. You're adding a lot of words here that he never said in order to change the meaning of his statement into something that suits your agenda.



TxRider said:


> He then states that if people were very good to animals in every way he thinks pet ownership "might be appropriate", but that "I'm not sure".
> 
> It's a pretty clear viewpoint.


He also states that if he had his personal view, "perhaps" that "might" take hold. You are correct that it's a pretty clear viewpoint, though. Unless you add or remove words to what he said, there is absolutely no evidence that he will ever work towards ending pet ownership.



TxRider said:


> I don't envision a future without nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see it, or if I had my view it wouldn't happen.


This is true. And if you don't want to see another nuclear weapon built, but don't strive for that, then you will not stop them from being built, even if you don't like them.



TxRider said:


> I have read their annual report, and it clearly shows how manipulative and unrepresentative their rescue animal ads and fund raising campaigns are in the name of higher donations..


Which annual report? Which statements within that report show evidence of your allegations? Please state the year of the annual report and the page number. 



TxRider said:


> They do some good works, but they should not take advantage of people's ignorance.
> 
> If you want to donate money to actually care for rescued animals, give to someone who actually makes that their main mission.
> 
> ...


As I've stated before, they have provided more than enough information on their finances and policies to answer any potential donor's questions. What would you like them to do to ensure they're not taking advantage of the people who choose not to read the information they provide? Should they require a signed contract stating that all official HSUS documents will be read thoroughly before attempting to donate? 

People are free to donate to any organization they wish, and for any reason. Organizations are free to advertise any of their products or activities they choose, and are not dishonest for choosing the most effective ones for their advertisements. None of these points make it reasonable to try to discredit the president of an organization by quoting him out of context.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

TxRider said:


> They haven't changed their beliefs as far I have seen. They have only committed to talking about doing so.


HSUS changed their policy regarding dogs seized from dogfighting operations almost a year ago. It was very easy to find. If you actually want to know about HSUS policies on pit bulls, a good start would be going to their web site and searching for "pit bull", which would lead you to this page: http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2009/04/best_friends_pit_bull_summit_041009.html This is an example of why citing sources is necessary to maintain credibility. Finding sources requires checking your facts, and checking your facts reduces the spread of misinformation.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Accidental Chef, great posts!


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

AccidentalChef said:


> HSUS changed their policy regarding dogs seized from dogfighting operations almost a year ago. It was very easy to find. If you actually want to know about HSUS policies on pit bulls, a good start would be going to their web site and searching for "pit bull", which would lead you to this page: http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2009/04/best_friends_pit_bull_summit_041009.html This is an example of why citing sources is necessary to maintain credibility. Finding sources requires checking your facts, and checking your facts reduces the spread of misinformation.


It's not something I go looking for. Last statement I saw they were talking about it due to bad press they were getting but hadn't changed policy.

Which is 100% factual, and exactly what I said. No need to check it.

Good for them they changed the policy. A decision too long in coming.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> You've gone from claiming that they did not support the rescues at all to complaining about the amount of support the rescues received. So, since the $1500 was not enough to help Bad Rap care for the ten dogs they took in, how much did Bad Rap spend caring for those dogs? What percentage of that amount do you feel the HSUS was obligated to pay? Since HSUS stated their fundraising was to care for the dogs until the trial was over, why are they obligated to pay at all, especially when Michael Vick was ordered to set aside almost $1 million for the dogs?


This argument is getting weary, and now I see it's because you see the world completely different from the rest of us.

HSUS says it costs $190,000 to rehabilitate one dog (read the court transcript where they recommended to euthanize the Vick dogs while they raised funds to support them). Bad Rap got 10 dogs. That's $1,900,000. I can't find where Vick's money went, but since Bad Rap is not the only one who got Vick dogs, I assume it was spread around among the 49 dogs. That's approx. $20,000 per dog, and theoretically Bad Rap got $200,000.

So that's $1,798,500 remaining. Hey, this is HSUS's own word about the costs of rehabilitating dogs. Even assuming they got all of the Vick money, that's $998,500 remaining.

The debate here won't go anywhere. You see they gave 1,500 to badrap, and say they supported them. You see they made a fundraiser ad, and blame the donors for not reading more. You see the millions, and they give $5,000 of it away and say they are supporting a group.

You see they drive a car, two, or even ten and say they support the care. But in their own words, Fay and the group of dogs she rescued with are going to cost a grand total of $7,410,000 to rehabilitate. I transport dogs for the local rescues for free. Sorry, that's chump work. But you see it as a qualifier. I see the people who actually have to work with the dogs, as the one caring for them.

All of your stuff works real well in the advertising ring. But I simply see $1500 to badrap as chump change, I see $5000 to fay as trivial, I see transporting a few cars as hardly anything. I do that stuff, and I'm not even a half-million dollar organization, let alone a 120 million dollar organization.

I know you're going to respond with more trivialities that qualify them to say the things they do. But it ain't gonna fly with anyone except lawyers and you.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

TxRider said:


> It's not something I go looking for. Last statement I saw they were talking about it due to bad press they were getting but hadn't changed policy.
> 
> Which is 100% factual, and exactly what I said. No need to check it.


Strive does not mean "go looking for". Its meaning is not the same as seek or search, its meaning is try, fight, or make an effort towards. When he says he does not strive for it, it means he is not fighting for it, he is not trying for it, and he is not expending great effort for it. It's a very clear statement.

What you are saying here is technically correct. You do not need to fact check your statement that last time you saw, they were only talking about changing their policy. If you're claiming that they did it because of bad press, you do need to cite a source supporting that. There are very few people with flawless memory. Since none of us have any evidence that you are one of those people, just claiming that you remember their statement to be a certain way is not sufficient proof that it was that way. Additionally, you used this as a response to my claim that they had changed their policies. In this case, you are either making a fallacious argument or you do need to cite a source. Claiming that something is false because it was false in the past is a fallacy, as is implying that my statement is false because it was false in the past. If you want to make a valid argument, cite a source showing that my claim remains false.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

AccidentalChef said:


> Actually, he is a primary source. He has first hand knowledge of the event. Primary sources are generally considered far more valuable than secondary sources. If you believe his statements to be inaccurate, then you need to find a legitimate source that disputes what he said.


Nixon was a primary source in Watergate too, he said "I'm not a crook!" We know how that went... There is a primary source, the source of the transcript/quote, the printed story the quote came from I presume, he didn't use it.

It is not a stretch at all to think a person who would rather not see another cat or dog born, would also not mind seeing a future without other domesticated animals existing.

I do not pass judgment on whether that is good thing or a bad thing or whether his view is good or bad, just what his view is.



> Unless you add or remove words to what he said, there is absolutely no evidence that he will ever work towards ending pet ownership.


I don't believe I ever stated that he has, or plans to work to end pet ownership. Only that his personal view is that it should end and stating "I don't want to see another cat or dog born" makes that crystal clear.

You stated that I am taking him out of context, that I am implying that he is working to end pet ownership, that it is his goal. I have never stated, nor have I implied any such thing. Unless you add or subtract words from what I have said.

See how that works?



> Which annual report? Which statements within that report show evidence of your allegations? Please state the year of the annual report and the page number.


All of them. They all show the majority of donations going to purposes other than care for rescued cats and dogs they plead for money to care for in their TV ads.



> As I've stated before, they have provided more than enough information on their finances and policies to answer any potential donor's questions. What would you like them to do to ensure they're not taking advantage of the people who choose not to read the information they provide?


I would like them to make it more clear in their television ads, their primary interface with the public, what their primary mission is, instead of leading people to believe they are donating to directly care for rescued or seized animals, and requiring people to read an annual financial report if they are to find out differently.

Is that such a huge and awful thing to ask for?



> People are free to donate to any organization they wish, and for any reason. Organizations are free to advertise any of their products or activities they choose, and are not dishonest for choosing the most effective ones for their advertisements.


So say an organization that plants 20 trees, would be honest running only an ad that shows them merrily planting 20 little trees, when in reality they clear cut 2 million acres of rain forest last year?

Wayne is a life long animal rights activist who has clearly stated he would prefer to see a future without pet ownership, he would prefer no more cats and dogs ever be born.

He has made the statement "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding..."

"We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” "

He can qualify the statement on his blog as only meaning some special species of domestic animals no longer used for anything, but it's not all that convincing that the term "the different breeds of livestock" and the term "domestic animals" intends such a narrow limitation of species as he states in the context he provides on the blog.

Again I'm not stating he is actively working through HSUS to extinct all domestic animals, only that his personal view is that he has no problem with there extinction. Just as his statement says in plain english.

I don't intend to discredit him either. He has a perfectly valid position, I just want to be clearer on what his personal position is. I do not see where the quotes are out of context at all when taken in that context for that purpose.

It is only you who imply that I use his statements for a different purpose, that they mean something other than what I said, for a purpose other than what I use them for, and in doing so taking my statements out of context.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

RBark said:


> This argument is getting weary, and now I see it's because you see the world completely different from the rest of us.


This is called an ad hominem attack. It is commonly used to attack an opponent when his position is too strong. However, it appears you are growing weary because I'm refuting all of the claims you're making, which is easy to do since you're not citing any sources. Also, it seems unlikely that I'm the one living in a different world, since I am able to easily find sources that support my statements.



RBark said:


> HSUS says it costs $190,000 to rehabilitate one dog (read the court transcript where they recommended to euthanize the Vick dogs while they raised funds to support them). Bad Rap got 10 dogs. That's $1,900,000. I can't find where Vick's money went, but since Bad Rap is not the only one who got Vick dogs, I assume it was spread around among the 49 dogs. That's approx. $20,000 per dog, and theoretically Bad Rap got $200,000.
> 
> So that's $1,798,500 remaining. Hey, this is HSUS's own word about the costs of rehabilitating dogs. Even assuming they got all of the Vick money, that's $998,500 remaining.


HSUS did not say it costs $190,000. HSUS said that Best Friends claimed it cost $190,000. This is very clear if you read the transcript:


> THE COURT: $190,000 to rehabilitate a dog?
> 
> MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: Yes, sir.
> 
> ...


I did not ask you to show what Best Friends claimed it cost to rehabilitate a dog. I asked you to show me what Bad Rap spent rehabilitating their 10 dogs, which you have not done. I then asked you to state what percentage of that total HSUS was obligated to pay, even though their fundraising clearly stated that they were assisting with the care for the dogs until the trial was decided. You have not stated that percentage. Your math is irrelevant since it's based on faulty premises. Bad Rap never claimed it cost $190,000 to rehabilitate a dog, so using the number from Best Friends to apply to them is inappropriate. Your response here just adds more logical fallacies to this thread, which is well beyond its quota already.



RBark said:


> The debate here won't go anywhere. You see they gave 1,500 to badrap, and say they supported them. You see they made a fundraiser ad, and blame the donors for not reading more. You see the millions, and they give $5,000 of it away and say they are supporting a group.


Donating $1500 is supporting the group. Donating $5000 is supporting the group. Placing an ad that states they are caring for the dogs until the end of the trial leaves them with no obligation to care for the dogs after the trial. The fundraising ad states in bold print at the beginning of the third paragraph, "*We desperately need your help to care for these dogs while the case is pending.*". Since it's in the ad in bold print, it is reasonable to expect donors will see it and read it.



RBark said:


> You see they drive a car, two, or even ten and say they support the care. But in their own words, Fay and the group of dogs she rescued with are going to cost a grand total of $7,410,000 to rehabilitate. I transport dogs for the local rescues for free. Sorry, that's chump work. But you see it as a qualifier. I see the people who actually have to work with the dogs, as the one caring for them.


You have not yet cited any information about how many cars they drove or anything else relevant to their assistance. In the words of Best Friends as quoted by HSUS, the dogs are going to be expensive to rehabilitate. If you can provide evidence to me that the dogs did in fact cost over $7 million to rehabilitate, and evidence that HSUS agreed to pay for this rehabilitation after the trial was complete, you have an argument. Otherwise, you have more unsupported claims and fallacies.



RBark said:


> All of your stuff works real well in the advertising ring. But I simply see $1500 to badrap as chump change, I see $5000 to fay as trivial, I see transporting a few cars as hardly anything. I do that stuff, and I'm not even a half-million dollar organization, let alone a 120 million dollar organization.
> 
> I know you're going to respond with more trivialities that qualify them to say the things they do. But it ain't gonna fly with anyone except lawyers and you.


It works in the real world, because I can provide evidence that it is true. You can choose to believe otherwise after seeing the evidence, but that does not make you correct, and it does not make the evidence faulty. You've stopped arguing that they did not donate any money once I proved that you were incorrect. Now you're arguing that they gave too little money, but your arguments are based on misquotations and logical fallacies. If you actually read my posts and the sources I cite, you'll see that I've clearly shown that HSUS has met every obligation they had with regard to the Vick dogs based on the fundraising ad you posted, and you have been unable to cite a source refuting my claims. I have a feeling you're going to carry on misusing the $190,000 number until someone documents what was spent on the dogs while in rescue, but you'll never actually look for that information yourself.

Calling things trivialities does not make them so. You continue to make claims without providing evidence for those claims, and I continue to provide evidence that those claims are incorrect. This in no way makes the evidence I post trivial, it makes it clear and relevant to the argument. It is not an effective debating technique to simply state that your opponents points are all trivialities.

Your entire argument against HSUS regarding the Vick case has fallen apart because you are unwilling or unable to cite sources. I hope that in the future you will learn that in order to make a compelling argument, you need to be able to cite relevant, credible sources and do so accurately and completely. If you can't do that, you are likely to continue to lose any debates you decide to enter.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Good god man, your entire post is a perfect example of what I am trying to tell you and you are not hearing.

First of all:



> This is called an ad hominem attack. It is commonly used to attack an opponent when his position is too strong. However, it appears you are growing weary because I'm refuting all of the claims you're making, which is easy to do since you're not citing any sources. Also, it seems unlikely that I'm the one living in a different world, since I am able to easily find sources that support my statements.


No, it's not a ad hominem attack. No, it's not because your position is too strong. This is your interpretation of my comment, not mine. You really do not get it. Egads.

The sources you are citing? Yeah, they are the SAME sources I cited. My comment on you seeing the world differently is not me saying you are a looney bin. You are reading the same sources I am, and you are interpreting the facts differently than I am. Does this make sense at all to you?

You have not once refuted my claims. All this time you've been supporting my claims, you just interpret the stuff differently than I do. And that's OK! Everyone in the world is different, nobody interprets facts the same way. MY interpretation of the same facts you cite is misleading, YOURS is that it's not misleading. The reasons why we interpret it differently is because we are different people, and the things we value are different. Not right, not wrong, just different.

That's why I keep saying that arguing with you is redundant. Not because you're wrong. Because we simply see the exact same thing differently. If I cited a source, and if you read back on the thread, you'll see that I've cited the same sources as you do, you would interpret it to support your argument. So yeah, the two of us debating against each other? Completely and utterly pointless.



> HSUS did not say it costs $190,000. HSUS said that Best Friends claimed it cost $190,000. This is very clear if you read the transcript:


Yes, I know that. HSUS cited it in the court, and if they disagreed with it they would not have cited it. Yes, I know why you think that absolves them of it. This is me and you seeing the same thing and interpret it differently.



> I did not ask you to show what Best Friends claimed it cost to rehabilitate a dog. I asked you to show me what Bad Rap spent rehabilitating their 10 dogs, which you have not done. I then asked you to state what percentage of that total HSUS was obligated to pay, even though their fundraising clearly stated that they were assisting with the care for the dogs until the trial was decided. You have not stated that percentage. Your math is irrelevant since it's based on faulty premises. Bad Rap never claimed it cost $190,000 to rehabilitate a dog, so using the number from Best Friends to apply to them is inappropriate. Your response here just adds more logical fallacies to this thread, which is well beyond its quota already.


There's no logical fallacies, it does not follow your logic. That's all.



> Donating $1500 is supporting the group. Donating $5000 is supporting the group. Placing an ad that states they are caring for the dogs until the end of the trial leaves them with no obligation to care for the dogs after the trial. The fundraising ad states in bold print at the beginning of the third paragraph, "We desperately need your help to care for these dogs while the case is pending.". Since it's in the ad in bold print, it is reasonable to expect donors will see it and read it.


Again, yet another thing we see the same thing, and interpret differently. Yes, I know that you believe that your view is the only one in the world, and that you're the only one in the world who sees this logically. That's super-fantastic for you. 



> You have not yet cited any information about how many cars they drove or anything else relevant to their assistance. In the words of Best Friends as quoted by HSUS, the dogs are going to be expensive to rehabilitate. If you can provide evidence to me that the dogs did in fact cost over $7 million to rehabilitate, and evidence that HSUS agreed to pay for this rehabilitation after the trial was complete, you have an argument. Otherwise, you have more unsupported claims and fallacies.


Yet another example of you misinterpreting what I say. This is getting silly.



> ou've stopped arguing that they did not donate any money once I proved that you were incorrect.


More misinterpreting and strawman. Yes, I always knew that they gave Bad Rap $5000 and Fay $1500. I also see that as chump change and not worth mentioning. You want me to make a college-level debate. That ship has sailed. You did not prove I was incorrect, I adapted my argument to yours. Since you were persistent about it, I started saying that yes they did donate, and explaining that those donations are insignificant. The rest is your interpretation, not mine.



> If you actually read my posts and the sources I cite, you'll see that I've clearly shown that HSUS has met every obligation they had with regard to the Vick dogs based on the fundraising ad you posted, and you have been unable to cite a source refuting my claims.


The sources you cite, again, are the same sources I would site. You've clearly shown HSUS has met what you feel is their obligation. There's no point in me citing a source to refute the claim, because the source I cite is going to be the same as yours. I interpret it differently than you. I look at it, and I see that they did not meet their obligation. You look at it, and think they met their obligation. It is as simple as that.



> It is not an effective debating technique to simply state that your opponents points are all trivialities.


That is your interpretation of my statement, not mine. All the reasons you provided that HSUS has met it's obligation are trivial *to me.* You want it to mean more than that. But it simply does not work like that. 

There is a difference between facts and bias. Facts are the raw information. Bias is our interpretation of it. The second you took those facts to support your argument, you added bias. And it's not just you, I do the same thing. I am reading the same facts as you, and believing something entirely different from you. That does not make me wrong, nor does that make you wrong. Both of our debates are grounded in fact, it is our interpretation that you have difficulty with.



> Your entire argument against HSUS regarding the Vick case has fallen apart because you are unwilling or unable to cite sources. I hope that in the future you will learn that in order to make a compelling argument, you need to be able to cite relevant, credible sources and do so accurately and completely. If you can't do that, you are likely to continue to lose any debates you decide to enter.


I am unsure how I could possibly lose this debate. If you indeed, proved that HSUS is a fantastic organization that spends it's money wisely and did not mislead the donors about how they use their funds.. how is that bad for me???? How could I possibly lose if that's true? It means the millions of dollars that they raised were used to help animals. That sounds like a call for celebration! Cheers, beer all around! Best news I've heard this year!

If it's proven that HSUS does mislead it's donors, then people have been educated! The money goes to other groups that don't mislead their donors. Cheers! Celebrations all around! Animals are helped! Woo hoo! Fantastic news! Either way, I win.

Your interpretation of my arguments is truly silly. You're interpreting my weariness as weakness. You're interpreting my lack of citing facts as having no facts. I was debating on this thread, spending hours and hours researching, citing sources, making arguments for 2 days and many hours spent building it. 

Then the debate died down. I was done with it, having done as much research as I cared to do. Then you join in, and revive the debate again. And you ask me to do all that same research all over again. Sorry just, no. I'm done with this debate, I told you what I believe and you keep trying to egg me back into the debate. It ain't happening. 

Then you finally gave in and started citing your sources. The sources you started citing is exactly the same ones we cited to our defense. The court transcript you quoted was used earlier in this thread too. You have not provided one new source. And now I am seeing that you are interpreting it in a way I do not.

What you see as "clearly telling people what they will do" is what I see as the same as when people do fine print. "Yeah, it was in the fine print!" Are you wrong for that? No, of course not. It's in all your right if that's OK with you. By all means, support HSUS. But good god man, quit trying to stroke your ego here. You're practically holding yourself up as a shining example of a debater because you're poking at someone who does not want to get in one with you. If that's what you need for your ego, then by all means do so.

But the only one who sees this as a winning and losing situation is you, not me.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

TxRider said:


> Nixon was a primary source in Watergate too, he said "I'm not a crook!" We know how that went... There is a primary source, the source of the transcript/quote, the printed story the quote came from I presume, he didn't use it.


Evidence showed that Nixon was lying, hence he was discredited. You have not shown any evidence that Pacelle was lying, so he stands as a valid primary source.



TxRider said:


> It is not a stretch at all to think a person who would rather not see another cat or dog born, would also not mind seeing a future without other domesticated animals existing.
> 
> I do not pass judgment on whether that is good thing or a bad thing or whether his view is good or bad, just what his view is.


Whether or not it is a stretch is irrelevant. His quote does not support that, which is my entire point. Providing only fragments of his statements allows the reader to make that stretch, even when the parts of his statement that you omitted state otherwise.



TxRider said:


> I don't believe I ever stated that he has, or plans to work to end pet ownership. Only that his personal view is that it should end and stating "I don't want to see another cat or dog born" makes that crystal clear.
> 
> You stated that I am taking him out of context, that I am implying that he is working to end pet ownership, that it is his goal. I have never stated, nor have I implied any such thing. Unless you add or subtract words from what I have said.
> 
> See how that works?


You entered a thread where a debate over the HSUS was taking place, and posted a fragment of a quote. The entire quote makes it clear that he is not working towards ending pet ownership. The fragment of the quote does not provide this information. Therefore, by removing the context from his quote, you have allowed an interpretation that is clearly not possible with the original statement. 

You have been arguing this entire time that your quote out of context does not change anything. It very obviously does. Again, it allows the reader to interpret the quote as stating that he intends to end pet ownership. This is clearly not the case.

If you believe that I have quoted you out of context and misinterpreted your statements, please provide the exact statement and response. If I have actually done so, I apologize. 



TxRider said:


> I would like them to make it more clear in their television ads, their primary interface with the public, what their primary mission is, instead of leading people to believe they are donating to directly care for rescued or seized animals, and requiring people to read an annual financial report if they are to find out differently.
> 
> Is that such a huge and awful thing to ask for?


You're entitled to your opinion, certainly. However, it is just that, your opinion. The HSUS does give money to local shelters, does spend money caring for rescued animals, and does assist in removing animals from situations involving cruelty. They also lobby and campaign to pass laws that help prevent those situations from occurring in the first place. You don't have to read annual reports or tax documents to find out their goals. I merely cite them because they're the most specific. Five minutes spent on their site will clearly inform you what they're currently working towards, so your implication that they have to read annual financial reports is incorrect. Can you provide evidence that their TV ads are their primary interface to the public? Do they reach more people there than online or through the mail? I'd like to see the numbers.



TxRider said:


> So say an organization that plants 20 trees, would be honest running only an ad that shows them merrily planting 20 little trees, when in reality they clear cut 2 million acres of rain forest last year?


A better example would be an organization that runs an ad showing them planting 20 trees, while they encourage others to plant trees and use legal means to prevent others from engaging in deforestation. Your example has absolutely no relevance to HSUS at all.



TxRider said:


> Wayne is a life long animal rights activist who has clearly stated he would prefer to see a future without pet ownership, he would prefer no more cats and dogs ever be born.


Let's be clear here. He is a life long animal rights activist who stated in 1994 that he didn't envision and wasn't working towards a future without pet ownership, even though he might like it and he wouldn't like to see any more cats and dogs born.



TxRider said:


> He has made the statement "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding..."
> 
> "We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” "
> 
> He can qualify the statement on his blog as only meaning some special species of domestic animals no longer used for anything, but it's not all that convincing that the term "the different breeds of livestock" and the term "domestic animals" intends such a narrow limitation of species as he states in the context he provides on the blog.


I have clarified this point already. I have provided a primary source that states the question was specifically referring to heirloom breeds of livestock. you have not provided any source at all that refutes that claim. So, by implying that he was talking about more than heirloom breeds of livestock in his statement, you are quoting him out of context, which is a fallacy. Now we've come full circle on this quote. It was out of context when you quoted it the first time, and it remains out of context now. If you would like to quote it in context, the following would be an appropriate method.

In 1993, at an agricultural forum on animal welfare in American agriculture, Wayne Pacelle was asked a question regarding preservation of livestock breeds, specifically heirloom breeds and their value to agriculture. His response was, “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding... One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”

When you do this, you are providing a reasonable amount of information to allow the reader to make his own decision about the meaning of the quote. When you take this away, you are at least partially deciding what the reader can believe about the quote. That is why quoting out of context is a fallacy, and that is why you have been quoting out of context.



TxRider said:


> Again I'm not stating he is actively working through HSUS to extinct all domestic animals, only that his personal view is that he has no problem with there extinction. Just as his statement says in plain english.
> 
> I don't intend to discredit him either. He has a perfectly valid position, I just want to be clearer on what his personal position is. I do not see where the quotes are out of context at all when taken in that context for that purpose.
> 
> It is only you who imply that I use his statements for a different purpose, that they mean something other than what I said, for a purpose other than what I use them for, and in doing so taking my statements out of context.


No, you're not stating that he is actively working to extinct all domestic animals. What you are doing is removing the part of his statement that says that he is not working towards it, which allows the interpretation that he actually is. This is why your quotes are out of context, and this is why I state that you are manipulating the meaning of his statements.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

AccidentalChef said:


> First of all, aside from your question about the Best Friends donation, this entire post is a straw man argument. You're asking me to clarify something that I never claimed. Tax documents clearly show donations to Bad Rap (and Best Friends, see below) in 2007. I made no claims about donations in 2008, and I made no claims that the donation to Mutts-n-Stuff was made outside of early December, 2009. Specifically the donation was promised on December 4 at 2:07 PM, and delivered on December 8. It was deposited into the rescue's bank account on the morning of December 9.
> 
> The donation to Best Friends is on page 29 of their 2007 IRS form 990. That's contained in part 1, available from http://www.humanesociety.org/about/overview/annual_reports_financial_statements.html in pdf form. The grants are listed in alphabetical order. If that's not sufficient to find the grant, it's listed 5th on page 29, in between Beirut for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Blaze's Tribute Equine, Inc. I'm not sure I can clarify that any more. I made no claims about donations in 2008, and I made no claims that the donation to Mutts-n-Stuff was made outside of early December, 2009. Specifically the donation was promised on December 4 at 2:07 PM, and delivered on December 8. It was deposited into the rescue's bank account on the morning of December 9.
> 
> You've gone from claiming that they did not support the rescues at all to complaining about the amount of support the rescues received. So, since the $1500 was not enough to help Bad Rap care for the ten dogs they took in, how much did Bad Rap spend caring for those dogs? What percentage of that amount do you feel the HSUS was obligated to pay? Since HSUS stated their fundraising was to care for the dogs until the trial was over, why are they obligated to pay at all, especially when Michael Vick was ordered to set aside almost $1 million for the dogs?


Your post on the last page... Post 145 I believe it was states that HSUS donated to Bad Rap, Best Friends, and Mutts and Such. My most sincere apologies. as I missed the Best Friends donation. And no you said nothing about 2008. Because I was looking for a sizable donation and I thought it might have carried over into 2008. So I looked there. I was looking for significant donations not a total of $11500.

To answer your question....... How much money should HSUS have donated to the organizations that took over care of the Vick dogs.... All of it. Every penny they raised on their fundraising drive for the Vick dogs. I can see a percentage taken out for advertising, administrative costs, etc. But the rest needed to go to the dogs. IF you gave to the local volunteer fire department to buy new hoses for the fire truck, would you be ticked off if you found out that they bought new nozzles with the some of the money and spent the rest on a spring bbq? 

So the answer is ALL the money. The HSUS raised it for that purpose. To use it for any other purpose is unethical. And....... Bad Rap took custody of 13 dogs which they drove cross country with. That $1500 probably did not cover the fuel to get the dogs to California much less anything else.

Your story spins more than a 45 record set on 78. Frankly if you do not work for the organization you should. 

You speak of unbiased sources. But virtually everything you post is straight out of HSUS playbook. And you know the playbook well. Well enough that I think you either work for the organization or are heavily involved in some other fashion. And that is not an accusation, an insult, or anything else. Or than an observation on my part. 

And when it comes to unbiased sources. You are going to find those few and far between in the Animal Welfare vs Animal Rights arena. The mainstream media does not care. Other organizations do not care. And just because a source may or may not be biased, does not mean they are incorrect. And who says they are inaccurate. The only people I see saying that the Centers for Consumer Freedom, Activist Cash, etc are not accurate are pro HSUS. 


And at the root of it..... Aside from their deceptive fundraising techniques, here is a big problem with HSUS.....From a personal point of view.

The HSUS and I share the same opinion on canned hunts. I do not think there should be any hunting behind high fence, where the game is released shortly before the hunter arrives. etc. In fact I am against exotic game being kept for the purpose of hunting in this country. My opinion is that if you want to hunt something exotic, go to some exotic location to do it. Because shooting an African animal behind a 10 foot fence on a ranch in Florida ain't hunting. I am not in the minority among hunters either. It is discussed time and time again on forums, hunt clubs, and anywhere else hunters gather. 

Canned hunting happens in my state. Quite often in fact. If a measure came up to outlaw such practices, I could without hesitation stand beside the HSUS and support the passage of such a law. But I won't. I won't fight them on the matter with my finances or my voice. But I will not raise my voice in support either. Neither will any other hunters that are opposed to canned hunts. We will all just stand by and let whatever happens happen. And the reason is simple.... Because if we did stand along side the HSUS they would show us no courtesy what so ever in the future. The get canned hunts banned, they will move on to something else. There is nothing in their doctrines, mission statements, or position statements to suggest otherwise. And history proves this to be true. It will be proven true again very soon. Either this year or next right here in Florida. And the subject is going to be Black Bears.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

AccidentalChef said:


> You entered a thread where a debate over the HSUS was taking place, and posted a fragment of a quote. The entire quote makes it clear that he is not working towards ending pet ownership. The fragment of the quote does not provide this information. Therefore, by removing the context from his quote, you have allowed an interpretation that is clearly not possible with the original statement.
> 
> You have been arguing this entire time that your quote out of context does not change anything. It very obviously does. Again, it allows the reader to interpret the quote as stating that he intends to end pet ownership. This is clearly not the case.


It ads no information to my point, you have to add words, add interpretation I do not imply, to make it so. That a statement allows other possible interpretations is irrelevant.





> You're entitled to your opinion, certainly. However, it is just that, your opinion. The HSUS does give money to local shelters, does spend money caring for rescued animals, and does assist in removing animals from situations involving cruelty. They also lobby and campaign to pass laws that help prevent those situations from occurring in the first place. You don't have to read annual reports or tax documents to find out their goals. I merely cite them because they're the most specific. Five minutes spent on their site will clearly inform you what they're currently working towards, so your implication that they have to read annual financial reports is incorrect. Can you provide evidence that their TV ads are their primary interface to the public? Do they reach more people there than online or through the mail? I'd like to see the numbers.


Then answer the question, would it be such an awful thing to make their primary mission more clear in their advertising?




> Let's be clear here. He is a life long animal rights activist who stated in 1994 that he didn't envision and wasn't working towards a future without pet ownership, even though he might like it and he wouldn't like to see any more cats and dogs born.


Exactly. That statement says a lot about them man.



> I have clarified this point already. I have provided a primary source that states the question was specifically referring to heirloom breeds of livestock. you have not provided any source at all that refutes that claim. So, by implying that he was talking about more than heirloom breeds of livestock in his statement, you are quoting him out of context, which is a fallacy. Now we've come full circle on this quote. It was out of context when you quoted it the first time, and it remains out of context now. If you would like to quote it in context, the following would be an appropriate method.


My implication is that he has not provided context that makes sense given the plain wording of the statement. It may or may not be accurate context, he certainly hasn't shown what I perceive as credible evidence, so I must maintain doubt.



> In 1993, at an agricultural forum on animal welfare in American agriculture, Wayne Pacelle was asked a question regarding preservation of livestock breeds, specifically heirloom breeds and their value to agriculture. His response was, “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding... One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
> 
> 
> No, you're not stating that he is actively working to extinct all domestic animals. What you are doing is removing the part of his statement that says that he is not working towards it, which allows the interpretation that he actually is. This is why your quotes are out of context, and this is why I state that you are manipulating the meaning of his statements.


I can only be using them out of context if the context "I" use them in is incorrect. What someone else may interpret out of context is not relevant to the context I use them in.

The implication on domestic animals, clearly in plain language, and even your contextual wrapper, even if the first part concerns only "heirloom animals" he then expands on that initial statement to include all domestic animals, implying the reasoning is that they are subset of "creations of selective breeding by humans" which in turn expands his meaning to imply he has no problem with extinction of all products of selective breeding by humans.

It's quite plain language.

Your reading comprehension could use a little work.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

RBark said:


> Good god man, your entire post is a perfect example of what I am trying to tell you and you are not hearing.
> 
> No, it's not a ad hominem attack. No, it's not because your position is too strong. This is your interpretation of my comment, not mine. You really do not get it. Egads.
> 
> The sources you are citing? Yeah, they are the SAME sources I cited. My comment on you seeing the world differently is not me saying you are a looney bin. You are reading the same sources I am, and you are interpreting the facts differently than I am. Does this make sense at all to you?


Stating that I see the world completely differently from "the rest of us" implies that my statements are less relevant than yours. If you had stated that I see the world differently than you, you would have made a fair and neutral statement. As it is, your statement made an implication that would reduce my credibility with "the rest of us". You made a statement, and are continuing to make statements, that attempt to link the validity of my statements with your perception that I see the world differently than everyone else, which is precisely an argumentum ad hominem.



RBark said:


> You have not once refuted my claims. All this time you've been supporting my claims, you just interpret the stuff differently than I do. And that's OK! Everyone in the world is different, nobody interprets facts the same way. MY interpretation of the same facts you cite is misleading, YOURS is that it's not misleading. The reasons why we interpret it differently is because we are different people, and the things we value are different. Not right, not wrong, just different.
> 
> That's why I keep saying that arguing with you is redundant. Not because you're wrong. Because we simply see the exact same thing differently. If I cited a source, and if you read back on the thread, you'll see that I've cited the same sources as you do, you would interpret it to support your argument. So yeah, the two of us debating against each other? Completely and utterly pointless.


You have made very few citations of anything in this thread. You posted a picture of an HSUS fundraising letter in post 59, cited the page containing proof that the HSUS provided funding to Mutts-n-Stuff, which you later denied, in post 77, The New York Times on 79, and the same image again in post 141. You posted two links and one picture. That's hardly sufficient to claim you've cited the same sources I have. Again, the link you cited in post 77 absolutely, clearly, beyond any shadow of a doubt states that the HSUS provided financial support to Mutts-n-Stuff. There is no room to interpret it any other way. There is no way to claim it is simply my view. $5000 does not equal $0 in this or any other universe. Your own link stated that Mutts-n-Stuff received $5000, yet you continued to state that they received $0.

The exact same argument can be made for Bad Rap and Best Friends. You stated they received $0. They received $1500 and $10,000, respectively, as stated in their 2007 IRS form 990, available from their site. It is not a matter of opinion, and it is not a matter of interpretation. Those numbers are not equal to the $0 you repeatedly claimed HSUS gave them. 



RBark said:


> Yes, I know that. HSUS cited it in the court, and if they disagreed with it they would not have cited it. Yes, I know why you think that absolves them of it. This is me and you seeing the same thing and interpret it differently.


Even if they did agree that it would cost $190,000 for Best Friends to rehabilitate a dog, that says absolutely nothing about how much it would cost for Bad Rap to rehabilitate a dog. To claim that it does is to make a faulty generalization. I only asked how much Bad Rap spent, and what percentage of that you feel HSUS is liable for. You attempted to circumvent those questions by providing an unrelated number.

Their advertisement does in fact absolve them of any obligation to pay for any care of the dogs after the trial ended. This is stated in clear and unambiguous language. The HSUS stated in their fundraising letter that they needed money to help to care for the dogs while the case is pending. They very clearly stated an end point to their care and financial support. Based on the information in this thread, there is no alternate interpretation of their obligation. 



RBark said:


> There's no logical fallacies, it does not follow your logic. That's all.
> 
> Again, yet another thing we see the same thing, and interpret differently. Yes, I know that you believe that your view is the only one in the world, and that you're the only one in the world who sees this logically. That's super-fantastic for you.


The wonderful thing about logic is that, like math, it is absolute. There is no such thing as "my logic" and "your logic". There is only logic. You claimed above that I am reading the same facts as you, but am just interpreting them differently. You claimed that our interpretations are not right, not wrong, just different. However, you also claim to have interpreted the facts to mean that $5000 = $0, $1500 = $0, and $10000 = $0. I'm going to maintain that those statements are wrong. You have argued that promising to provide care while the case is pending implies an obligation to provide care after the case is over, which is also wrong. Numbers have specific meanings, and so do words. You are free to ignore those meanings, but that does not make you correct, and it does not make your interpretation valid.



RBark said:


> Yet another example of you misinterpreting what I say. This is getting silly.


I did not misinterpret what you said. I challenged you to provide proof that your statements were accurate.



RBark said:


> More misinterpreting and strawman. Yes, I always knew that they gave Bad Rap $5000 and Fay $1500. I also see that as chump change and not worth mentioning. You want me to make a college-level debate. That ship has sailed. You did not prove I was incorrect, I adapted my argument to yours. Since you were persistent about it, I started saying that yes they did donate, and explaining that those donations are insignificant. The rest is your interpretation, not mine.


You always knew that they gave money to Bad Rap and Fay. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that swapping the amounts was an honest mistake. You can see it as chump change if you want, and you can see it as not worth mentioning. You claimed that they did not give Bad Rap or Fay's owner a dime, and that both of those organizations documented that. You claimed to have documents stating that neither of those organizations received a dime. In another post you claimed that not one cent went to the Vick dogs.

You stated above that the money was not worth mentioning, but in a previous post you went out of your way to mention that no money was ever given to those organizations. If it was not worth mentioning, you would have said nothing at all. Now you have stated that you knew they received the money, yet you claimed they did not receive a dime. You knowingly posted untruthful information to attempt to discredit the HSUS. I proved your misinformation to be incorrect. You have not shown their donations to be insignificant because you have not shown the actual costs of care for the dogs and stated how much of that the HSUS should have paid. This is not a case of varying interpretations. You posted misleading information, and you have made claims with no evidence to back them up.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

RBark said:


> The sources you cite, again, are the same sources I would site. You've clearly shown HSUS has met what you feel is their obligation. There's no point in me citing a source to refute the claim, because the source I cite is going to be the same as yours. I interpret it differently than you. I look at it, and I see that they did not meet their obligation. You look at it, and think they met their obligation. It is as simple as that.


As stated above, words have specific meanings. "While the case is pending" does not mean "After the case has been decided". There is no correct interpretation in which those two phrases are synonymous. 



RBark said:


> That is your interpretation of my statement, not mine. All the reasons you provided that HSUS has met it's obligation are trivial *to me.* You want it to mean more than that. But it simply does not work like that.


If you believe that doing what they said they would do is a trivial way to meet their obligation, please state clearly exactly what they would have needed to do to satisfy you. Throughout this debate, you have been representing your opinions as fact, and claiming that my facts are opinions. You're continuing to do that here. 



RBark said:


> There is a difference between facts and bias. Facts are the raw information. Bias is our interpretation of it. The second you took those facts to support your argument, you added bias. And it's not just you, I do the same thing. I am reading the same facts as you, and believing something entirely different from you. That does not make me wrong, nor does that make you wrong. Both of our debates are grounded in fact, it is our interpretation that you have difficulty with.


I've shown above that the root of your debate is not grounded in fact. You have effectively admitted it when you stated that you always knew HSUS provided funds to rescues after you had claimed otherwise. I posted the facts, including the sources from which I obtained those facts. You can claim I am biased or that I manipulated the facts, but I provided proof via my sources that I accurately represented the information I had available to me. Unambiguous statements have only one valid interpretation, and there have been many unambiguous statements in this discussion. Since I have been able to provide facts and sources that contradict your statements, it seems unlikely that your interpretation is the valid one.



RBark said:


> I am unsure how I could possibly lose this debate. If you indeed, proved that HSUS is a fantastic organization that spends it's money wisely and did not mislead the donors about how they use their funds.. how is that bad for me???? How could I possibly lose if that's true? It means the millions of dollars that they raised were used to help animals. That sounds like a call for celebration! Cheers, beer all around! Best news I've heard this year!
> 
> If it's proven that HSUS does mislead it's donors, then people have been educated! The money goes to other groups that don't mislead their donors. Cheers! Celebrations all around! Animals are helped! Woo hoo! Fantastic news! Either way, I win.


You are trying to prove that HSUS did not act ethically in the Vick case. You have been unable to do so, so you lose the debate on that point. My intention in this thread has only been to stop the spread of misinformation. If you are stating that the HSUS is a corrupt organization that should be supported when that is not the case, everyone loses because of your misinformation. If I am able to successfully refute that misinformation, I have won the debate.



RBark said:


> Your interpretation of my arguments is truly silly. You're interpreting my weariness as weakness. You're interpreting my lack of citing facts as having no facts. I was debating on this thread, spending hours and hours researching, citing sources, making arguments for 2 days and many hours spent building it.
> 
> Then the debate died down. I was done with it, having done as much research as I cared to do. Then you join in, and revive the debate again. And you ask me to do all that same research all over again. Sorry just, no. I'm done with this debate, I told you what I believe and you keep trying to egg me back into the debate. It ain't happening.
> 
> Then you finally gave in and started citing your sources. The sources you started citing is exactly the same ones we cited to our defense. The court transcript you quoted was used earlier in this thread too. You have not provided one new source. And now I am seeing that you are interpreting it in a way I do not.


You claim to have spent hours researching and citing sources, yet you provided two links and one picture in this thread. You claim that I revived the debate, when I only pointed out that a quotation was taken out of context. In fact, you were the one who responded to me, not the other way around. I was not trying to egg you back into the debate, I was simply asking for sources for your claims, or providing sources to counter your misleading statements. I have cited sources from my first post in this thread, I did not give in and begin citing them. I cited numerous sources which were new to the thread, including specific entries from Mutts-n-Stuff's blog, articles and financial statements from the HSUS website, a tweet from twitter, Wayne Pacelle's blog, Charity Navigator, The Better Business Bureau, and NBC Augusta. You are now making false claims about my conduct within this thread. The evidence for this is the thread itself. There is a clear history of the debate right here, and anyone who has read this far will know that your statements are inaccurate. You certainly are interpreting things differently than I do in this case.



RBark said:


> What you see as "clearly telling people what they will do" is what I see as the same as when people do fine print. "Yeah, it was in the fine print!" Are you wrong for that? No, of course not. It's in all your right if that's OK with you. By all means, support HSUS. But good god man, quit trying to stroke your ego here. You're practically holding yourself up as a shining example of a debater because you're poking at someone who does not want to get in one with you. If that's what you need for your ego, then by all means do so.
> 
> But the only one who sees this as a winning and losing situation is you, not me.


The specific example you like to refer to in this thread, the HSUS fundraising letter, clearly tells people what it will do *in bold print*. This would be the opposite of fine print. 

I'll remind you that you started the debate with me. I did not respond to your post, you responded to mine. Ego is not a factor here, and neither is support of the HSUS. I never claimed to support them, and I only claimed to be looking for the truth in this thread. Since you were unable to provide that truth, I found it myself. Rather than walking away once your claims were shown to be false, you changed your claims and kept arguing. That is not the behavior of someone who does not want to be in a debate.

Still, if you want to be done with the debate, you're welcome to leave at any time. I'm not holding you hostage here. I'd prefer that you concede your points and admit to posting intentionally misleading information, but that seems unlikely. In the end, nobody has ever forced you to reply.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm honestly stunned. You really made that huge reply after I told you, for god knows how many times, that it is pointless.



> Stating that I see the world completely differently from "the rest of us" implies that my statements are less relevant than yours. If you had stated that I see the world differently than you, you would have made a fair and neutral statement. As it is, your statement made an implication that would reduce my credibility with "the rest of us". You made a statement, and are continuing to make statements, that attempt to link the validity of my statements with your perception that I see the world differently than everyone else, which is precisely an argumentum ad hominem.


Good god man. Now you're TRYING to make me appear to have attacked you. I really don't know what to say to this. If it suits your fancy, feel free to interpret it as an ad hominem. I don't care anymore. It was never meant as such. You're really trying so hard to distort my intentions. I am not trying to tell you that you're wrong. Is this comprehensible to you? I. Am. Not. Correcting. You. On. Anything. Nothing. There's nothing to argue in my last post and this one. For the love of god, I do not know how you keep finding things to fight in my posts. It's one hell of a talent. One more time. It was not meant as an attack, or to reduce your credibility. You're doing a fantastic job being credible, honest. Good job! I'm actually impressed with the work you put into the debate. Compared to KaseyT and spotted nikes, you presented an ACTUAL argument. The others presented fantasy. See, this is me complimenting you. I hope that doesn't offend you.



> You have made very few citations of anything in this thread. You posted a picture of an HSUS fundraising letter in post 59, cited the page containing proof that the HSUS provided funding to Mutts-n-Stuff, which you later denied, in post 77, The New York Times on 79, and the same image again in post 141. You posted two links and one picture. That's hardly sufficient to claim you've cited the same sources I have. Again, the link you cited in post 77 absolutely, clearly, beyond any shadow of a doubt states that the HSUS provided financial support to Mutts-n-Stuff. There is no room to interpret it any other way. There is no way to claim it is simply my view. $5000 does not equal $0 in this or any other universe. Your own link stated that Mutts-n-Stuff received $5000, yet you continued to state that they received $0.
> 
> The exact same argument can be made for Bad Rap and Best Friends. You stated they received $0. They received $1500 and $10,000, respectively, as stated in their 2007 IRS form 990, available from their site. It is not a matter of opinion, and it is not a matter of interpretation. Those numbers are not equal to the $0 you repeatedly claimed HSUS gave them.


The difference is you see that money as support. You are technically right. The courts would agree with you. Good job! I would tell you how I see it, again, but you're just going to regurge the same argument that you've said in nearly every one of your posts. Yes, I know that you're correct they did support them with that chump change. *I* think they are obligated to give them several hundred thousand more. Please note the "I think". Do you see it? *I think* they are oblivated. Bolded, underlined, and italicized just for you. I hope you didn't miss that. Yes, I know your arguments for why they are not obligated. You've told it a dozen times. I am not going to debate that with you, because I know it's pointless.



> You claim to have spent hours researching and citing sources, yet you provided two links and one picture in this thread. You claim that I revived the debate, when I only pointed out that a quotation was taken out of context. In fact, you were the one who responded to me, not the other way around. I was not trying to egg you back into the debate, I was simply asking for sources for your claims, or providing sources to counter your misleading statements. I have cited sources from my first post in this thread, I did not give in and begin citing them. I cited numerous sources which were new to the thread, including specific entries from Mutts-n-Stuff's blog, articles and financial statements from the HSUS website, a tweet from twitter, Wayne Pacelle's blog, Charity Navigator, The Better Business Bureau, and NBC Augusta. You are now making false claims about my conduct within this thread. The evidence for this is the thread itself. There is a clear history of the debate right here, and anyone who has read this far will know that your statements are inaccurate. You certainly are interpreting things differently than I do in this case.


Okay? Good for you? The only thing I think about your conduct in this thread is that you're a much better debater than Kasey and spotted nikes. Beyond that I have no opinion, and anything further is your attempts at reading my mind.



> The specific example you like to refer to in this thread, the HSUS fundraising letter, clearly tells people what it will do in bold print. This would be the opposite of fine print.
> 
> I'll remind you that you started the debate with me. I did not respond to your post, you responded to mine. Ego is not a factor here, and neither is support of the HSUS. I never claimed to support them, and I only claimed to be looking for the truth in this thread. Since you were unable to provide that truth, I found it myself. Rather than walking away once your claims were shown to be false, you changed your claims and kept arguing. That is not the behavior of someone who does not want to be in a debate.
> 
> Still, if you want to be done with the debate, you're welcome to leave at any time. I'm not holding you hostage here. I'd prefer that you concede your points and admit to posting intentionally misleading information, but that seems unlikely. In the end, nobody has ever forced you to reply.


There's nothing to concede. And of course I'm not being held hostage. I don't care whether you support HSUS or not. You found relevance in that comment where there is none.

I don't need to change my claims. I do not see $1500 as supporting an organization, when they raised millions. You are trying too hard to pick apart my arguments. Take it easy. I am not running for president here. $0, $1500, where millions are concerned, do not matter to me.

I can't imagine a person who heard "They raised millions to support the vick dogs and spent $10,000 to support the vick dogs" and go "Oh! that's good that they are supporting the vick dogs". That's simply incomprehensible to me. Bold the letters, I don't care. Tell me for the 100th time how they had a line that said they weren't actually going to spend all of it on the vick dogs. I say all of it goes to the vick dogs. Yes, feel free to tear apart this paragraph again with the same facts you've presented. I already know how you're going to do it. It does not matter because you do not understand my perspective here. If you actually stopped trying to tear apart every single sentence I say and listen to the words i'm typing, you might have a easier time understanding.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> As stated above, words have specific meanings. "While the case is pending" does not mean "After the case has been decided". There is no correct interpretation in which those two phrases are synonymous.


Good for them, also good for the courts. What *I* see is they raised money for the care of the vick dogs, while telling the courts to kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out.

*I* think all the money they raised for the vick dogs should go to the vick dogs.

Boldified for your convinence.



> I've shown above that the root of your debate is not grounded in fact. You have effectively admitted it when you stated that you always knew HSUS provided funds to rescues after you had claimed otherwise. I posted the facts, including the sources from which I obtained those facts. You can claim I am biased or that I manipulated the facts, but I provided proof via my sources that I accurately represented the information I had available to me. Unambiguous statements have only one valid interpretation, and there have been many unambiguous statements in this discussion. Since I have been able to provide facts and sources that contradict your statements, it seems unlikely that your interpretation is the valid one.


You're trying too hard still. I have not tried to defend my stance. I have told you my opinion on the matter. I don't know how you interpreted me saying that we are *both* biased as *you* are biased or manipulating facts. You have provided proof for your case, and you did a good job of it. The only thing I told you was that I do not interpret it the same way. You do not understand how I interpret it, so I'm not sure how you could possibly refute my interpretation. The only thing you have done to me, is pick out the little stuff and put a magnifying glass to it when I'm not even trying to present a case to you.



> You are trying to prove that HSUS did not act ethically in the Vick case. You have been unable to do so, so you lose the debate on that point. My intention in this thread has only been to stop the spread of misinformation. If you are stating that the HSUS is a corrupt organization that should be supported when that is not the case, everyone loses because of your misinformation. If I am able to successfully refute that misinformation, I have won the debate.


Unable to do so? I haven't even TRIED to do so. I believe that all the money they made off the vick case should go to the dogs. You can tell me they gave $1500, I'm going to laugh at you. I'm not even trying to win this debate with you. I'm not even trying to have a debate with you. If I was trying to have a debate with you, I would be working at it and citing sources and information to you. But I'm not. If someone wants me to believe they are not misleading the public, the only thing they have to do is show me that every dime of the money they raised went to the vick dogs. Anything less is redundant. I'm well aware of their bold print. I'm well aware of the case pending. I do not give a crap. Every dime should go to the vick dogs.

Have fun picking the details apart and putting words in my mouth again.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Your post on the last page... Post 145 I believe it was states that HSUS donated to Bad Rap, Best Friends, and Mutts and Such. My most sincere apologies. as I missed the Best Friends donation. And no you said nothing about 2008. Because I was looking for a sizable donation and I thought it might have carried over into 2008. So I looked there. I was looking for significant donations not a total of $11500.


I was looking for a sizable donation as well, and so I checked 2008 also. No apology is necessary on your part as it appears that missing the Best Friends donation was an honest mistake rather than intentional misinformation.



JohnnyBandit said:


> To answer your question....... How much money should HSUS have donated to the organizations that took over care of the Vick dogs.... All of it. Every penny they raised on their fundraising drive for the Vick dogs. I can see a percentage taken out for advertising, administrative costs, etc. But the rest needed to go to the dogs. IF you gave to the local volunteer fire department to buy new hoses for the fire truck, would you be ticked off if you found out that they bought new nozzles with the some of the money and spent the rest on a spring bbq?
> 
> So the answer is ALL the money. The HSUS raised it for that purpose. To use it for any other purpose is unethical. And....... Bad Rap took custody of 13 dogs which they drove cross country with. That $1500 probably did not cover the fuel to get the dogs to California much less anything else.


All of it? Even though their ad stated that the money was for the Vick dogs and other programs? Had they not stated that the money was also for other programs I would agree with you. It is stated twice in the three paragraphs of the letter that the money would also be used for other "vital animal protection programs". So, given that they clearly stated that not all of the money was going to go to the dogs, wanting every penny to go to the rescues doesn't seem like the reasonable answer. In fact, if they're claiming the money is for the Vick dogs, I can't see how they'd be obligated to pay any more than the actual costs of caring for those particular dogs. On top of that, if the rescues with the dogs received donations specifically marked for the Vick dogs, then the HSUS might only be responsible for part of the care of the dogs, and the rescue responsible for another part. In addition, Michael Vick contributed over $900,000 to care for the dogs. With all the donations they seem to be entitled to, each of these dogs must have a greater net worth than I do! 

And if the fire department said that they were collecting money for a new truck and other fire department expenses, I would only be ticked off if they did not buy a truck. I would not be ticked off if they bought a cheaper truck, or an old used truck, as long as they said they were buying a truck and bought one. If they bought a truck, some nozzles, and had a spring BBQ, I'd be perfectly happy with it. They bought the truck, and hey, a man's gotta eat.




JohnnyBandit said:


> Your story spins more than a 45 record set on 78. Frankly if you do not work for the organization you should.
> 
> You speak of unbiased sources. But virtually everything you post is straight out of HSUS playbook. And you know the playbook well. Well enough that I think you either work for the organization or are heavily involved in some other fashion. And that is not an accusation, an insult, or anything else. Or than an observation on my part.


At least it's not a 33 set on 78. However, spin is a form of propaganda, and the word is often used to imply deceptive or manipulative tactics. I don't believe any of my posts have been propaganda, or that I've been deceptive or manipulative in any of them. If you disagree, please point to specific examples so that I can either defend my statements or apologize for them. As for the HSUS, I do not volunteer or work for them or any of their affiliated organizations. I have never communicated with them in any way, except possibly to tell their volunteers on the street somewhere that I'm running late and can't stop to talk. I do not receive mail, email, or phone calls from them. I did try to call them yesterday to see if they would answer my questions about how they spend their donations, but I called after hours and so received no answer. If I've left anything out that might leave a loophole open, the truth is that I have no association whatsoever with the HSUS, any of their affiliates, or any animal rights organizations. Aside from the fact that I agree with many of their beliefs, nothing in my past has given me any bias towards the HSUS. If I am biased now, it is only because of the research I have done in order to post in this thread.



JohnnyBandit said:


> And when it comes to unbiased sources. You are going to find those few and far between in the Animal Welfare vs Animal Rights arena. The mainstream media does not care. Other organizations do not care. And just because a source may or may not be biased, does not mean they are incorrect. And who says they are inaccurate. The only people I see saying that the Centers for Consumer Freedom, Activist Cash, etc are not accurate are pro HSUS.


You're right that very few sources are completely unbiased. That is true in all arenas, not just ones related to animals. However, bias is not an all or nothing thing. Someone like you who likes to hunt will naturally have some amount of bias against an anti-hunting organization, and someone like me who chooses not to eat meat produced on factory farms will naturally have some bias towards an organization that fights factory farming. These biases are not necessarily strong enough to make us distort the truth. On the other hand, the CCF represents the factory farmers that the HSUS is trying to regulate. They are in direct conflict. Since the CCF post you quoted above cites no sources and shows clear bias, it isn't a credible source. I would not go to the Chevy dealer to get information on the new Mustang, and I would not go to a lobbyist for the agriculture industry for information on an animal rights/welfare organization.



JohnnyBandit said:


> And at the root of it..... Aside from their deceptive fundraising techniques, here is a big problem with HSUS.....From a personal point of view.
> 
> The HSUS and I share the same opinion on canned hunts. I do not think there should be any hunting behind high fence, where the game is released shortly before the hunter arrives. etc. In fact I am against exotic game being kept for the purpose of hunting in this country. My opinion is that if you want to hunt something exotic, go to some exotic location to do it. Because shooting an African animal behind a 10 foot fence on a ranch in Florida ain't hunting. I am not in the minority among hunters either. It is discussed time and time again on forums, hunt clubs, and anywhere else hunters gather.
> 
> Canned hunting happens in my state. Quite often in fact. If a measure came up to outlaw such practices, I could without hesitation stand beside the HSUS and support the passage of such a law. But I won't. I won't fight them on the matter with my finances or my voice. But I will not raise my voice in support either. Neither will any other hunters that are opposed to canned hunts. We will all just stand by and let whatever happens happen. And the reason is simple.... Because if we did stand along side the HSUS they would show us no courtesy what so ever in the future. The get canned hunts banned, they will move on to something else. There is nothing in their doctrines, mission statements, or position statements to suggest otherwise. And history proves this to be true. It will be proven true again very soon. Either this year or next right here in Florida. And the subject is going to be Black Bears.


I will never argue that you should be a supporter of the HSUS if their goals or beliefs do not match your own. It would be difficult to find an organization that I disagree with in every possible way, but there are many I do not support for the exact reason you don't support HSUS. I am not trying to get anyone to support HSUS, I am only trying to make sure the information posted in this thread is truthful so others have the opportunity to make an informed decision as you have.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

RBark said:


> I don't need to change my claims. I do not see $1500 as supporting an organization, when they raised millions. You are trying too hard to pick apart my arguments. Take it easy. I am not running for president here. $0, $1500, where millions are concerned, do not matter to me.


You want out of the debate, that's fine. However, you're claiming to want out and you keep posting. I'm not going to continue refuting your claims since my goal was only to find the truth about your accusations, and I have done that. I'll just ask you one question. It is a simple question, so please answer it directly. I expect that you'll continue to say $1500 is not enough, and $5000 is not enough, but that isn't the question.

What was your reason for claiming that the HSUS donated $0 to the rescues housing the Vick dogs, and claiming you had documentation stating that no donations were made, when you have stated you always knew that they donated $1500 to Bad Rap and $5000 to Mutts-n-Stuff?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

AccidentalChef said:


> You want out of the debate, that's fine. However, you're claiming to want out and you keep posting. I'm not going to continue refuting your claims since my goal was only to find the truth about your accusations, and I have done that. I'll just ask you one question. It is a simple question, so please answer it directly. I expect that you'll continue to say $1500 is not enough, and $5000 is not enough, but that isn't the question.
> 
> What was your reason for claiming that the HSUS donated $0 to the rescues housing the Vick dogs, and claiming you had documentation stating that no donations were made, when you have stated you always knew that they donated $1500 to Bad Rap and $5000 to Mutts-n-Stuff?


I don't want out, I was never in.

I keep posting because you keep completely changing any intent of my posts. 



> The money the HSUS raised for the Vick dogs, little to none of it went to help them.


That's the first quote I said on the money to Vick dogs. Little to none. Turned out to be little! The rest is me not taking it seriously because there was no reason to. I was not interested in having a debate you're trying to get about it.

And I still am not, for that matter. I do not think you are reading the same thing I am typing. It's pretty frustrating, to be frank. But again, don't care enough to try to explain it all to you.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

TxRider said:


> Then answer the question, would it be such an awful thing to make their primary mission more clear in their advertising?


No it would not. However, since their primary mission is clearly stated in publicly available documents, they are not obligated to provide complete details of their organization in their advertisements. As long as they participate in the activities they are advertising, they are being honest.



TxRider said:


> I can only be using them out of context if the context "I" use them in is incorrect. What someone else may interpret out of context is not relevant to the context I use them in.


This is an incorrect statement. If removing context removes any relevant information which could change the meaning of the quote, you are quoting out of context.



TxRider said:


> The implication on domestic animals, clearly in plain language, and even your contextual wrapper, even if the first part concerns only "heirloom animals" he then expands on that initial statement to include all domestic animals, implying the reasoning is that they are subset of "creations of selective breeding by humans" which in turn expands his meaning to imply he has no problem with extinction of all products of selective breeding by humans.


You are manipulating his statement again. He did not say all domestic animals. The word "all" does not appear in the original quote. 



TxRider said:


> Your reading comprehension could use a little work.


And with that personal attack, I'm done responding to you in this thread. In the future, I hope that you'll provide context for your quotations even in cases where you don't understand the significance of the context. It may be relevant to your readers, and so to leave it out is to deliberately spread misinformation.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

RBark said:


> 2) Fay's owner responded to it saying they have not given a dime to her. Badrap (who took care of the vick dogs) did not get a dime from HSUS. Both of them have documented that.
> 
> There's no... murky ground. We have documents and photographic evidene of HSUS's fundraising requests, and we have documents that the parties who actually took care of the animals did not get a dime. There's simply... no way to twist that..





RBark said:


> Really? It's really clearly stated? I clearly see it saying it's going to help the Vick dogs. Not one cent went to the Vick dogs.


Claiming that you did not take it seriously is not a valid answer to the question. It would have taken no more effort to state the truth, but you went out of your way in two posts to state that no money was given to the rescues housing the dogs. You had the choice between posting facts and posting misinformation. You chose deliberate misinformation. So, to restate my previous question, since you have not answered it:

What was your reason for claiming that the HSUS donated $0 to the rescues housing the Vick dogs, and claiming you had documentation stating that no donations were made, when you have stated you always knew that they donated $1500 to Bad Rap and $5000 to Mutts-n-Stuff?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

AccidentalChef said:


> Claiming that you did not take it seriously is not a valid answer to the question. It would have taken no more effort to state the truth, but you went out of your way in two posts to state that no money was given to the rescues housing the dogs. You had the choice between posting facts and posting misinformation. You chose deliberate misinformation. So, to restate my previous question, since you have not answered it:
> 
> What was your reason for claiming that the HSUS donated $0 to the rescues housing the Vick dogs, and claiming you had documentation stating that no donations were made, when you have stated you always knew that they donated $1500 to Bad Rap and $5000 to Mutts-n-Stuff?


Wh... wha....

Are you seriously telling me my thought process as I made the posts?

I have no idea how to respond to this since you won't accept my answer. This is getting amazingly frustrating. If it were not for your quoting me, I would have thought that my posts were somehow completely rearranging itself in between me hitting submit and it showing up on your screen. Or maybe it's doing that, then when you reply, it arranges itself back to what I typed when I read it so I don't suspect it.

There is no reason other than I did not bother to make a bulletproof case to people who I did not need one against. Arguing with KaseyT and spotted nikes is something akin to kicking puppies. I don't feel the need to fact check and present a airtight case when I know it's the approximate truth.

So yes, I did not take it seriously. If that offends you, you have my apologies, but my intent, then and now, was never to get involved in a serious debate with people who were not responding to it seriously. KaseyT and spotted nikes have hardly ever provided any evidence for their cases (EDIT: I'm not just talking about this thread. Read the vaccination thread http://www.dogforums.com/2-general-dog-forum/72541-should-i-give-annual.html for one of the many references), and I felt no need to go overboard because it was not necessary. 

Notice how I basically gave you the same answer as my last post several times using different words.

But hey, what do I know? You're probably right, I decided right then and there "okay I'm going to give them bad information because um... I'm not sure? Because I'm a dishonest bastard who is delibrately trying to mislead them because of my evil agenda to take down HSUS!" Sorry, that's the best I could do.


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

RBark said:


> More misinterpreting and strawman. *Yes, I always knew that they gave Bad Rap $5000 and Fay $1500.* I also see that as chump change and not worth mentioning. You want me to make a college-level debate. That ship has sailed. You did not prove I was incorrect, I adapted my argument to yours. Since you were persistent about it, I started saying that yes they did donate, and explaining that those donations are insignificant. The rest is your interpretation, not mine.





RBark said:


> 2) *Fay's owner responded to it saying they have not given a dime to her. Badrap (who took care of the vick dogs) did not get a dime from HSUS. Both of them have documented that.*
> 
> There's no... murky ground. We have documents and photographic evidene of HSUS's fundraising requests, and *we have documents that the parties who actually took care of the animals did not get a dime.* There's simply... no way to twist that.





RBark said:


> Really? It's really clearly stated? I clearly see it saying it's going to help the Vick dogs. *Not one cent went to the Vick dogs.*





RBark said:


> There is no reason other than I did not bother to make a bulletproof case to people who I did not need one against. Arguing with KaseyT and spotted nikes is something akin to kicking puppies. *I don't feel the need to fact check and present a airtight case when I know it's the approximate truth.*


Emphasis mine, of course.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

The only thing you proved was your knowledge of the quote feature and bolding. But again, you did not read my post.

Did you not see the part where I said I didn't bother to fact check because its approximately true?

Not that one fact. That my argument that they provided hardly any support to them. Were these things incorrect? Yes, I did not tell you that it was correct. But even if I told them they gave $1500 to badrap it would not have changed my argument at all. It would be just make my argument more accurate.

See above: I did not take the debate seriously so I did not bother to fact check.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

RBark said:


> Wh... wha....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I didn't even post on the vaccination thread. So maybe you can tell me which of my posts on this thread you need proof of...
Or was my name thrown in to try to deflect from the argument?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

spotted nikes said:


> I didn't even post on the vaccination thread. So maybe you can tell me which of my posts on this thread you need proof of...
> Or was my name thrown in to try to deflect from the argument?


Um, how would your name deflect the argument? You are right, though, you're not the one in the vaccination thread. I was referring to the other.


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

I don't know how I'm going to come off, but here it goes:

I think you guys are missing something about KaseyT. Based on my observations, KaseyT likes to argue, and be the devil's advocate. It's a waste of time and effort and research to try and prove a point with this person since they seem like they argue for the sake of arguing.

JMO


----------



## animalcraker (Nov 9, 2006)

<-- There's my thoughts on this thread. I can't belive you guys still have the stamina to debate and eachother for 10 pages. My brain expolded after the 3rd page, lol.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

JLWillow said:


> I don't know how I'm going to come off, but here it goes:
> 
> I think you guys are missing something about KaseyT. Based on my observations, KaseyT likes to argue, and be the devil's advocate. It's a waste of time and effort and research to try and prove a point with this person since they seem like they argue for the sake of arguing.
> 
> JMO


I agree. I have always felt if I said the sky was Blue she would say it was Aquamarine. No sense arguing with that. IMO


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

animalcraker said:


> <-- There's my thoughts on this thread. I can't belive you guys still have the stamina to debate and eachother for 10 pages. My brain expolded after the 3rd page, lol.


I couldn't agree more with that either.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Inga said:


> I agree. I have always felt if I said the sky was Blue she would say it was Aquamarine. No sense arguing with that. IMO


I always thought KaseyT was a guy....


----------



## AccidentalChef (Jan 7, 2010)

animalcraker said:


> I can't belive you guys still have the stamina to debate and eachother for 10 pages.


I've only been in this one for 3 pages or so, and I don't have any more debating in me. No way I would have made it for the whole 10 pages either.


----------



## alphadoginthehouse (Jun 7, 2008)

animalcraker said:


> <-- There's my thoughts on this thread. I can't belive you guys still have the stamina to debate and eachother for 10 pages. My brain expolded after the 3rd page, lol.


I agree with you AC...except I have been following it for the whole thread! I didn't read the really long posts but it has been quite amusing at times.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

HSUS is not like peta. Peta blatantly is against pet ownership which they call speciesism (racism). They want everyone to be vegetarians (want to rename fish - seakittens) HSUS does support local shelters wants to decrease euth, and is against breed specif legislation. 

They are though a confused organization that has SOME peta type nuts in its upper ranks. Like many orgs that aggressively seek donations little actually gets to there stated objectives. Most goes to salaries and marketing. the national ASPCA is often not much diff either (ex- http://www.petsalive.com/oreo.html) 

If you really want to help the animals donate to a local shelter or rescue. donate to the hsus if you want a calander.


----------

