What do you think of when you think of the Humane Society of the United States?

I'm curious. This question has as much to do with politics, believe it or not, as it does with animals. Does anyone have an opinion about the organization or about my previous sentence--and why?

 

I am not so sure of your tie to politics, but so long as it doesn't sacrifice human right for animal rights (i.e. PETA), I have no problem.

 

So, rlm, what kind of organization do you think this organization is? When someone says "Humane Society of the United States," what kind of organization do you think it is?

 

You lost me. Just what categories can I chose from?

 

I'm really trying hard not to direct the conversation at this point--I'd like to get a couple more people posting to the thread before I do. Is it safe to say that it really doesn't provoke any particular image in your mind? You mentioned PeTA . . . why?

 

Because they go way overboard and their tactics are, I will be kind and just say radical.

 

The HSUS is one of the most powerful animal rights lobby groups in the United States. Although they prey on you for money by leading you to believe they are the parent organization of your local animal shelter - they are not. In fact very little of their 200 million dollars in assets goes towards funding local animal shelters. If you are anti ASPCA, PETA or a sportsman, farmer and etc. the HSUS is not your friend.

 

Justafarmer! Wow--you are awesome! I was kind of hoping to see if other people would comment and give me a way to lead up to that point, but you are right on the ball. It's also phenomenal that a person with an agricultural background would comment that way first.

But yes, the HSUS is a very powerful lobbying organization, which has lost a little bit of steam (not enough) recently. It is not, as some people believe, 1) a law enforcement agency, 2) a government agency that oversees animal regulation, or 3) the national organization that oversees, funds, or regulates animal shelters.

 

Well they are a group for animals. We got our cat from a humane society shelter, she is about 12 now and lives with my mom. She made me happy as a kid and I think it's great that they take in animals and adopt them out to families like mine
As with many charities enough funds probably don't go to their cause and there is probably some abuse but at least they help some animals.

 

Ah, you see, you've made the mistake that many people make Samy. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has nothing to do with your local humane society. The HSUS has over $160 million dollars in assets and only gives about a half a million in donations to local humane societies. Most of the money they receive in donations goes to more fundraising and lobbying for anti-pet and anti-animal agriculture legislation or for salaries and retirement funds. Congrats on your wonderful cat, by the way! I have two rescues at home myself, but mine are dogs.

 

Well there we are. I love it when I actually learn something here. I think that there are probably quite a few organizations that mirror the Humane Society in this respect.

 

Yes, I'm sure there are--that's why if you're giving to any charity that it's better to go with a local or a regional one over a national charity. The problem with the HSUS--and probably organizations like it--is that it puts up images of dirty animals that they represent as being abused (even though they could just be dirty) and use them to rake in money that goes to lobby for mandatory spay/neuter programs, animal ownership limits, anti-hunting laws, anti-agricultural laws, and other laws that have a deleterious effect on animal ownership and use. However, if their advertisements showed these activities, it would seriously cut into the donations that they receive, so they show "rescued" animals that may already have died.

Once again, I think highly of the vast majority of shelters, most of which have nothing to do with the HSUS. There is a growing movement, interestingly enough, for local shelters to remove the term "humane society" from their name due to the confusion.

 

I've always been more comfortable supporting charities, and politicians and political action groups too, on a local or at least a state level.

 

Your support of strays and shelters should be just like your bank...local.

 

While your statement is basically correct it is not necessarily true. The HSUS as well as PETA, ASPCA are notorious for using their large war chest of funds to lobby their membership to serve with the local animal shelter. Although they do not provide much direct funding to the general operations of local animal shelters they do spend alot of money to get their people in control of these operations. And from this base of power provide support to lobby local goverments on animal rights issues.

 

Justafarmer, I'd like to see evidence from any of Wayne Pacelle's myriad of blog and the HSUS website itself that states that people should support and serve with animal shelters. They encourage people to support the HSUS, which is why they have so much in collective assets, while local shelters have to put donation boxes in grocery stores to see what kind of food or goods they receive. They only donated about a half a million dollars to grants and direct care last year, but they "rescued" thousands of animals and left them with local shelters and did not pay a penny for their care, allowing them to be killed when their time ran out. Look up the Alabama 44 for a bit about that. If PeTA is so great for the animals, then why are they planning to dip into porn next year and why do they still support breed specific legislation? And the ASPCA--they have a single shelter in NYC--although they do seem to like to show up at disasters and lobby for federal laws. Oh, and they also like to oppose legislation that makes it easier for rescues to pull animals from shelters . . . The animal rights movement is no friend to people who hunt or farm, just as you said above, but it is equally not the friend of animals, nor is it the friend of pet owners. Many of the laws they lobby for are deceptive--appearing to be animal welfare-motivated, but actually creating situations that make it difficult to own an animal or to raise animals for food or, worse, that raise the cost of pet ownership or food out of the reach of the poor. And yet this is the organization people believe to be an umbrella organization for all shelters.

Alabama 44
http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/hsus-please-tell-us-what-happened-to-the-alabama-44/

PeTA porn
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20095557-501465.html

ASPCA opposes Oreo's Law
http://www.examiner.com/animal-shelters-in-san-francisco/understanding-oreo-s-law

 

Thank you for posting this HollysMom, I was aware of most of this too, but it's always good to see others trying to imform people of the truth of organizations like this. I'd also agree with all the statements about support for local shelters rather than national. In my mind, too many national organizations are all about the money. An exception would be the Red Cross... they do a lot of good everywhere, but that's not implying that they are not immune to fraud themselves, just less so.

On a related note, I'm pleased to see a movement towards using local food and other poducts and services over the national chains. IMO, creating stronger local economics is essential to an overall healthy national economy. De Orc may have more info on Prince Charles than I do, and may have more to say about it, but in this area I agree with the Prince's ideas... which I believe are similar.