30 Apr 2010, 11:45pm
Latest Wildlife News
by admin

The Humane Society and Big Ag slug it out over animal rights

By Kristen Hinman, The Pitch, Apr 15 2010 [here]

Around lunchtime on February 5 in Vale, South Dakota, a 33-year-old cattle rancher finished a morning of blogging, then stepped outside with a bottle of wine and a video camera.

“Hello, my name is Troy Hadrick. I’m a fifth-generation United States rancher in South Dakota,” he ad-libbed. “I recently found out that Yellow Tail wines is going to be donating $100,000 to the wealthiest animal-rights organization in the world, the Humane Society of the United States — a group who is actively trying to put farmers and ranchers out of business in this country.” Hadrick said he couldn’t support such a company. “This is the only thing I know to do now with this last bottle of Yellow Tail wine that was in our house.”

In his cowboy hat and Carhartt jacket, Hadrick cocked the bottle, flicked his wrist and sent the contents pouring to the snow-covered earth like a stream of piss.

“I hope you will do the same. Thank you for supporting American agriculture and the family farmers and ranchers in this country.”

Five minutes later, with his 54-second “Yellow Tail Fail” clip posted to YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, Hadrick finished his chores and headed with his family to the Black Hills Stock Show & Rodeo. Back online that night, he was shocked by the viewing stats for his first Internet video.

First it was 500. Then several thousand. The tally kept climbing. Within two weeks, the Australia-based wine giant announced that it was rescinding the remainder of its $300,000 pledge to the Washington, D.C.-based Humane Society.

A week later, Tennessee-based Pilot Travel Centers announced that it would stop collecting Humane Society donations at its rest stops. Then Dallas-based Mary Kay cosmetics publicly clarified that a personal donation by an employee’s wife to the Humane Society had been misconstrued by the group as a corporate sponsorship.

Hadrick’s social-media sensation represented a tipping point in a battle that has seen food producers playing defense for nearly a decade — farmers vs. activists, agriculture vs. animal rights. … [more]

Note: HSUS does NOT run animal shelters. They are super-litigious animal rights nuts. And they pick and choose which animals to sue about. They have repeatedly sued the UFWS to stymie the delisting of wolves, even though wolves are NOT endangered and are blood-thirsty killers of elk, deer, sheep, cattle, horses, dogs and other animals. Case in point:

HSUS Fundraising Machine Hurts Local Animal Shelters

by The Center For Consumer Freeedom, April 30, 2010 [here]

We have reported how the “Humane Society” of the United States (HSUS) uses misleading advertising to make donors believe that contributions to the organization will go to local hands-on pet shelters. On the contrary, HSUS seems more interested in cows and pigs than dogs and cats. The group funnels much of its $100 million annual budget to push a radical anti-farmer agenda. In the meantime, the local pet shelters that actually take care of animals are strapped for cash – and HSUS is at least partly to blame.

Case in point is the Halifax Humane Society (HHS) in Daytona Beach, Florida. In a recent op-ed, the HHS community relations director Michelle Pari discussed the difficulty of trying to raise money in competition with groups like HSUS. Although Pari didn’t specifically cite HSUS, it’s clear that’s who she has in mind.

“One of the biggest problems HHS faces, as a local private non-profit organization, is public misperception about where donations made to large national groups actually go,” writes Pari. “It is difficult to compete with multimillion-dollar organizations that have the financial means to solicit money through television, newsprint, radio and Internet advertising worldwide.” She goes on to add that people are “shocked” to learn that not a penny of the donation they send to the “national organization” ever reaches the local animals in need.

In a speech before the Animal Agriculture Alliance this week, the editor of HumaneWatch.org pointed out that that less than one-half of 1 percent of the HSUS budget goes to pet shelters: “They have about a $100 million budget, $24 million goes into fundraising, $37 million goes to salaries, with more than 30 lawyers on staff.” In addition to funding activism, HSUS believes in taking care of its own. The HSUS pension contributions of $2.5 million are five times greater than the meager grants to pet shelters. … [more]

2 May 2010, 2:23pm
by Mira

I am firmly against HSUS and everything this anti-agriculture, anti-pet, anti-animal Lobbying Group represents; always have been and probably always will be. I no longer buy Yellow Tail (a former favourite). I have never donated anything to a charity that has ‘Humane Society’ attached to its name, just to be careful.
Although I FULLY agree with this article regarding HSUS and their lies and scams, I am compelled to refute two glaring misconceptions and those concern not HSUS but, rather, your comment regarding wolves: Certain North American wolves are considered an endangered species; wolves are not bloodthirsty killers; they are Nature’s cullers, they take down the weak, sick and infirm and usually leave the healthy alone. All livestock that we have ever lost over the past 50 years to wolves have been cows that had something wrong with them that prompted the wolves to single them out. As for horses/mules lost to predators, we lost one horse to a cougar and a mule to a grizzly. When it comes to sheep, dogs and, yes, children you want to single out a species that will come into your yard and kill your pets (and toddlers) for the fun of it: coyotes.

2 May 2010, 2:36pm
by Mike

Wolves packs have been know to engage in spree killing. They prey on healthy animals. They are not “Nature’s cullers”. Think about it. That kind of myth is an impossibility, biologically speaking.

3 May 2010, 12:43am
by Mira

Thank you for the extremely informative link detailing the research done on the relocated wolves in your area - I am serious when I say this.
I find it interesting, as the wolves that we have encountered (I am in Alberta, Canada) usually kill only the weak, sick and infirm, avoid human contact and human habitation; the most (domestic) damage has been caused by local coyotes - they are notorious for killing pet dogs and cats (the latest was a friend’s coonhound/bloodhound bitch); there have been more than a couple of cases where a coyote has been caught carrying off a toddler. Everyone here that I asked were surprised by the term ’spree killing; when applied to wolves. Is it possible that there is a difference between the two group due to location?
I am really curious about this.
I will keep your link as I find it very educational - and the day we stop learning is the day we die. Thank you for sharing.

3 May 2010, 10:41am
by Mike


Wolves everywhere engage in spree or “surplus” killing. They are pack animals and all pack predators kill in that manner.

Solitary predators like cougars will kill prey and then transport it, bury or cache it, and eat it over time. But pack predators cannot trust one another to share prey equally. So they kill, fight over the prey, gorge, and move on. Wolves will also kill and eat each other if they get hungry enough.

For more on wolves please visit the W.I.S.E. commentary site Wildlife and People and our Colloquium: Wildlife Sciences (see righthand sidebar). For a discussion and graphic photos of surplus killing by wolves see [here].

3 May 2010, 6:10pm
by Mira

Mike, Will do. Thanks :-)

9 Jun 2010, 4:06pm
by Marcel

I wish those that profit from animals, puppy mill operators and farmers, stop bringing up the shelter thing. They DO NOT CARE about shelters, they care about their bottom line. The Humane Society of the United States is so effective it has made some real enemies.

9 Jun 2010, 5:19pm
by Mike

Those who profit from animals? Is it your opinion, Marcel, that farmers should not make profits? Should they lose money? Should the government own all the farms and run them at taxpayers expense? Should all taxpayers lose money? Then who would pay the taxes?

When did “profit” become a dirty word?

Please, Marcel, inquiring minds wish to know, how do YOU acquire your income? Are you on welfare? Do wish that everyone was on welfare, too?

I find it revealing that HSUS supporters are communists. Not surprising, but revealing.

9 Jun 2010, 8:45pm
by Madison

Profit is not a dirty word as long as it is not at the expense of decency. If we have to cram so many cows, sheep, pigs, chickens into crates and cages in a hot warehouse so we can make a buck more then it’s not a good thing. There are plenty of farms that make plenty of money but keep the humane treatment of animals as a priority as well. Sadly, evidence is mounting that those farms are more and more becoming the minority.

Communists? Since when did caring about the welfare of animals become a bad thing?

9 Jun 2010, 9:54pm
by Mike


Since when was the wholesale condemnation of profit anything but communist? Your non-denial denial is pathetic.

I live in farm country. I and all my neighbors have livestock. Not one of us crams animals into anything. Your baseless broad-brush accusation, coupled with hatred for profits, is typical of urbanites who have kooky ideas about the way both farms and economies work.

Besides which, HSUS is not a protector of farm animals — they are a super-litigious pro-predator lobby that wants wolves tearing at livestock herds. They don’t value domestic animals; they want them cruelly slaughtered by introduced predators.

Their M.O. is use pets as shills for donations that do not go to pets and do nothing whatsoever for pets. In fact, the outcome of their policies is the bloodthirsty killing of pets (and other animals) by “charismatic” carnivores. The “vegan” excuse is no excuse at all for coddling wolves.

I have cared for animals my whole life. I know what that entails. HSUS is not engaged in animal welfare in any way, shape, or form.

10 Jun 2010, 7:16am
by Poco Lynn

There is a frightening amount of outrageous misinformation and fanatical conspiracy theories.

Like Mira, I too would like to see the hard evidence about your claims about wolves.

I understand that many people that make their money from animals (ie., livestock, dog breeders, seal hunters, etc., get concerned when an animal welfare organization directs efforts to weeding out the bad apples (livestock abusers, puppy mill breeders, etc). But please people, we all know there is inhumane treatment going on. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of videos on youtube with hard evidence. HSUS happens to be a very effective organization at the national level (they don’t run local shelters, although they provide a lot of in-kind aid and support, but it’s not their mission people get over it. They’re trying to affect long-term change and REDUCE the number of animals in shelters, not just throw money at the problem.)

If you treat your animals humanely, you have nothing to fear from HSUS. If you’re an abuser, then understandably, you’re going to continue complaining.

Reply: No, it is HSUS that promulgates “a frightening amount of outrageous misinformation and fanatical conspiracy theories.” That multi-million dollar concern has a huge propaganda and legal army to wage war on the citizenry. By contrast, we are a penniless institute attempting to counter their lies.

Re hard evidence on wolves, please see Wildlife and People [here]. Study the posts. Follow the links. Do your homework.

HSUS “reduces” the number of animals in shelters by killing those animals in cruel and barbaric fashion. That’s why animal shelters give HSUS a wide berth and steer clear. Local animal shelters save lives and place pets with loving families. Local shelters also provide spaying and neutering services to control the number of unwanted pets. In contrast, HSUS murders those animals.

Every animal lover, livestock owner, and rural resident has good reason to fear HSUS and their army of lawyers, who mount vicious lawsuits to stop the control of exotic, introduced predators. HSUS is not only anti-hunting, they are anti-wildlife management of any kind and seek to destroy wildlife populations with killer wolves.

BTW, seal and sea lion populations have exploded. There are more of those predators today than there have been at any time in the last 10,000 years. “Protecting” seals and sea lions is an exercise in the extirpation of their prey, which include a variety of endangered fish species including salmon. Instead of spreading outrageous misinformation and fanatical conspiracy theories about wildlife management, you should get the facts.

10 Jun 2010, 7:19am
by Poco Lynn

A great article addressing some of the concerns expressed here. From: http://www.citizentribune.com/news/view_sections.asp?idcategory=47&idarticle=15419

Reply: I’ll post the link but not the whole article.



web site

leave a comment

  • For the benefit of the interested general public, W.I.S.E. herein presents news clippings from other media outlets. Please be advised: a posting here does not necessarily constitute or imply W.I.S.E. agreement with or endorsement of any of the content or sources.
  • Colloquia

  • Commentary and News

  • Contact

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent News Clippings

  • Recent Comments

  • Meta