• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

When horses go to slaughter

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by Abercrombie View Post
    Really? What about the mega-millions spent by industries like Cattlemen's, Meat, Dairy, Poultry, Pork, and Farm Bureau's to lobby for things like horse slaughter, ag-gag laws, and the defense of some pretty egregious animal "farming" methods? They are *hardly* out-gunned by any of the "animal rights extremist groups"



    Right. And instead of baseball, bear baiting could have been our National Sport.
    Damn those "animal rights" people.
    Animal rights extremists now take credit for what society was working toward's before they ever exited, animal welfare?

    Do I need to explain again the difference between animal rights extremists and their drives to eliminate all animal uses, "no more domestic animals and not to soon for me" and animal welfare, the way humanity, as we improved our own lot, learned to take better and better care of our animals and change our protocols to do that?

    I do believe you are reading on animal rights web sites, the information you are repeating here comes right from those.
    Not that is anything wrong with being an animal rights extremists, to each their own, but to come push that agenda on a horse training web site?

    Comment


    • #42
      I don't mind helping some walking them thru rational thought processes.
      Let me explain again what each one of those associations you mention do.

      Be it for cattle, chickens, pigs, any other, those associations are paid for by members and are working on many, many industry topics and goals.
      Lobbying so their industry can operate is just one of those.

      Those industries are providing a real service, with millions of jobs and products they provide to all of us, agriculture even gives us the positive balance of trade we in the USA enjoy.
      You don't want someone in an obscure office in DC deciding what someone in ND needs to do by regulating what they are absolutely clueless to even understand?
      That is what lobbying for industries is, explaining to those politicians why some regulations make sense and others don't.

      Those are many, many different associations with many different goals and topics they address.

      Now, again, what did you not understand about animal rights extremist groups, some of the LARGEST non-profits in this world, that don't have any other goal than fill their coffers with donations to stay at the top and eventually eliminate all uses of animals by humans?
      That is all they have to use their mega millions for, not any other.

      Do you even think it makes sense to try to compare those very different groups and their activities and goals as cavalierly as you did?

      Comment


      • #43
        Bluey, now you're defending lobbyists? Life must be so simple for you...black vs white with no shades of gray.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by LauraKY View Post
          Bluey, now you're defending lobbyists? Life must be so simple for you...black vs white with no shades of gray.
          Is that all you understood from that very basic explanation?

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by Bluey View Post
            Now, again, what did you not understand about animal rights extremist groups, some of the LARGEST non-profits in this world, that don't have any other goal than fill their coffers with donations to stay at the top and eventually eliminate all uses of animals by humans?
            That is all they have to use their mega millions for, not any other.

            Do you even think it makes sense to try to compare those very different groups and their activities and goals as cavalierly as you did?
            Having millions of dollars in the coffers does not give these organizations the great powers you keep implying they have. If they did have such great powers, there would be no debate about horse slaughter because they would have already made sure it will never happen again in the U.S. As much as some organizations try to put an end to the carriage horse industry, last I checked, the carriages in most cities are still operating on a regular basis.

            PETA is one of the groups you are afraid will have the power to eliminate all uses of animals by humans. Will you please provide evidence they are on their way to making this happen? (Asking this question does NOT make me an animal rights extremist, btw).
            Proud owner of a Slaughter-Bound TB from a feedlot, and her surprise baby...!
            http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/Jen4USC/fave.jpg
            http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...SC/running.jpg

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by jenm View Post
              Having millions of dollars in the coffers does not give these organizations the great powers you keep implying they have. If they did have such great powers, there would be no debate about horse slaughter because they would have already made sure it will never happen again in the U.S. As much as some organizations try to put an end to the carriage horse industry, last I checked, the carriages in most cities are still operating on a regular basis.

              PETA is one of the groups you are afraid will have the power to eliminate all uses of animals by humans. Will you please provide evidence they are on their way to making this happen? (Asking this question does NOT make me an animal rights extremist, btw).
              you can ask this with a straight face?
              Originally posted by BigMama1
              Facts don't have versions. If they do, they are opinions
              GNU Terry Prachett

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                I don't mind helping some walking them thru rational thought processes.
                Let me explain again what each one of those associations you mention do.
                Oh yes, please do. And be sure to type real slow and use little words so those of us who are not nearly as smart can grasp what you're trying to tell us.

                Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                Be it for cattle, chickens, pigs, any other, those associations are paid for by members and are working on many, many industry topics and goals.
                Lobbying so their industry can operate is just one of those...
                ...That is what lobbying for industries is, explaining to those politicians why some regulations make sense and others don't.
                I'm so glad you explained that -- who knew lobbyists just wanted to "educate" politicians?


                Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                Now, again, what did you not understand about animal rights extremist groups, some of the LARGEST non-profits in this world, that don't have any other goal than fill their coffers with donations to stay at the top and eventually eliminate all uses of animals by humans?
                That is all they have to use their mega millions for, not any other.
                <sigh>

                Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                Do you even think it makes sense to try to compare those very different groups and their activities and goals as cavalierly as you did?
                Yes.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by jenm View Post
                  Having millions of dollars in the coffers does not give these organizations the great powers you keep implying they have. If they did have such great powers, there would be no debate about horse slaughter because they would have already made sure it will never happen again in the U.S. As much as some organizations try to put an end to the carriage horse industry, last I checked, the carriages in most cities are still operating on a regular basis.

                  PETA is one of the groups you are afraid will have the power to eliminate all uses of animals by humans. Will you please provide evidence they are on their way to making this happen? (Asking this question does NOT make me an animal rights extremist, btw).
                  http://activistcash.com/organization...united-states/

                  For those that don't want to click on links:


                  The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a radical animal rights group that inaccurately portrays itself as a mainstream animal care organization. The words “humane society” may appear on its letterhead, but HSUS is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials and television commercials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And quite unlike the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.

                  Click here to see proof of how HSUS gives 1 percent of its budget to pet shelters
                  Click here to see evidence of how HSUS deceives Americans
                  Click here to see evidence that HSUS wants to eliminate meat, cheese, and dairy foods
                  Click here to read about how HSUS’s CEO has said he doesn’t want to see another dog or cat born
                  Click here to discover how HSUS’s CEO said dogfighting kingpin Michael Vick would “do a good job as a pet owner”
                  Click here to see how HSUS funnels more money into its pension plan than it gives to pet shelters
                  Click here to learn about why the American Institute of Philanthropy gives HSUS a “D” rating
                  Click here to read why six Congressmen recently called for a federal investigation of HSUS
                  HSUS is big, rich, and powerful. While most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $162 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.

                  Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends more than $5 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.

                  HSUS president Wayne Pacelle described some of his goals in 2004 for The Washington Post: “We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts … [and we’re] phasing out animals used in research. Hunting? I think you will see a steady decline in numbers.” But Pacelle may have more ambitious anti-hunting goals. In 1991, while he was the National Director of the Fund for Animals, Pacelle told the Associated Press: “[I]f we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would. Just like we would shut down all dog fighting, all cock fighting or all bull fighting.”

                  More recently, in a June 2005 interview, Pacelle told Satya magazine that HSUS is working on “a guide to vegetarian eating, to really make the case for it.” A strict vegan himself, Pacelle added: “Reducing meat consumption can be a tremendous benefit to animals.”

                  Shortly after Pacelle joined HSUS in 1994, he told Animal People (an inside-the-movement watchdog newspaper) that his goal was to build “a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.” And now, as the organization’s leader, he’s in a position to back up his rhetoric with action. In 2005 Pacelle announced the formation of a new “Animal Protection Litigation Section” within HSUS, dedicated to “the process of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal protection lawsuits in state and federal court.”

                  HSUS’s current goals have little to do with animal shelters. The group has taken aim at the traditional morning meal of bacon and eggs with a tasteless “Breakfast of Cruelty” campaign. Its newspaper op-eds demand that consumers “help make this a more humane world [by] reducing our consumption of meat and egg products.” Since its inception, HSUS has tried to limit the choices of American consumers, opposing dog breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos, circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, and fur trapping.

                  A True Multinational Corporation

                  HSUS is a multinational conglomerate with regional staff operating in 33 states and a special Hollywood Office that promotes and monitors the media’s coverage of animal-rights issues. It includes a huge web of organizations, affiliates, and subsidiaries. Some are nonprofit, tax-exempt “charities,” while others are for-profit taxable corporations, which don’t have to divulge anything about their financial dealings.

                  This unusually complex structure means that HSUS can hide expenses where the public would never think to look. For instance, one HSUS-affiliated organization called the HSUS Wildlife Land Trust collected $21.1 million between 1998 and 2003. During the same period, it spent $15.7 million on fundraising expenses, most of which directly benefited HSUS. This arrangement allowed HSUS to bury millions in direct-mail and other fundraising costs in its affiliate’s budget, giving the public (and charity watchdog groups) the false impression that its own fundraising costs were relatively low.

                  Until 1995 HSUS also controlled the Humane Society of Canada (HSC), which Paul Irwin (HSUS president from 1996 to 2004) had founded four years earlier. But Irwin, who claimed to live in Canada when he set up HSC, turned out to be ineligible to run a Canadian charity (He actually lived in Maryland). Irwin’s Canadian passport was ultimately revoked and he was replaced as HSC’s executive director.


                  The new leader later hauled HSUS into court to answer charges that Irwin had transferred over $1 million to HSUS from the Canadian group. HSUS claimed it was to pay for HSC’s fundraising, but didn’t provide the group with the required documentation to back up the expenses. In January 1997 a Canadian judge ordered HSUS to return the money, writing: “I cannot imagine a more glaring conflict of interest or a more egregious breach of fiduciary duty. It demonstrates an overweening arrogance of a type seldom seen.”

                  From Animal Welfare to Animal Rights

                  There is an enormous difference between animal “welfare” organizations, which work for the humane treatment of animals, and animal “rights” organizations, which aim to completely end the use and ownership of animals. The former have been around for centuries; the latter emerged in the 1980s, with the rise of the radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

                  The Humane Society of the United States began as an animal welfare organization. Originally called the National Humane Society, it was established in 1954 as a spin-off of the American Humane Association (AHA). Its founders wanted a slightly more radical group — the AHA did not oppose sport hunting or the use of shelter animals for biomedical research.

                  In 1980, HSUS officially began to change its focus from animal welfare to animal rights. After a vote was taken at the group’s San Francisco national conference, it was formally resolved that HSUS would “pursue on all fronts … the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals … within the full range of American life and culture.”

                  In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, the published proceedings of this conference, HSUS stated unequivocally that “there is no rational basis for maintaining a moral distinction between the treatment of humans and other animals.” It’s no surprise, then, that a 2003 HSUS fundraising mailer boasted that the group has been working toward “putting an end to killing animals for nearly half a century.”

                  In 1986 John McArdle, then-HSUS’s Director of Laboratory Animal Welfare, told Washingtonian magazine that HSUS was “definitely shifting in the direction of animal rights faster than anyone would realize from our literature.”

                  The group completed its animal-rights transformation during the 1990s, changing its personnel in the process. HSUS assimilated dozens of staffers from PETA and other animal-rights groups, even employing John “J.P.” Goodwin, a former Animal Liberation Front member and spokesman with a lengthy arrest record and a history of promoting arson to accomplish animal liberation.

                  The change brought more money and media attention. John Hoyt, HSUS president from 1970 to 1996, explained the shift in 1991, telling National Journal, “PETA successfully stole the spotlight … Groups like ours that have plugged along with a larger staff, a larger constituency … have been ignored.” Hoyt agreed that PETA’s net effect within the animal-rights movement was to spur more moderate groups to take tougher stances in order to attract donations from the public. “Maybe,” Hoyt mused, “the time has come to say, ‘Since we haven’t been successful in getting half a loaf, let’s go for the whole thing.’”

                  HSUS leaders have even expressed their desire to put an end to the lifesaving biomedical research that requires the use of animals. As early as 1988 the group’s mailings demanded that the U.S. government “eliminate altogether the use of animals as research subjects.” In 1986 Washingtonian asked John McArdle about his opinion that brain-dead humans should be substituted for animals in medical research. “It may take people a while to get used to the idea,” McArdle said, “but once they do the savings in animal lives will be substantial.”

                  McArdle realized then what HSUS understands today — that an uncompromising, vegetarian-only, anti-medical-progress philosophy has limited appeal. At the 1984 HSUS convention, he gave his group’s members specific instructions on how to frame the issue most effectively. “Avoid the words ‘animal rights’ and ‘antivivisection’,” McArdle said. “They are too strange for the public. Never appear to be opposed to animal research. Claim that your only concern is the source of animals.”

                  In a 1993 letter published by the American Society for Microbiology, Dr. Patrick Cleveland of the University of California San Diego spelled out HSUS’s place in the animal-rights pantheon. "What separates the HSUS from other animal rights groups,” Cleveland wrote, “is not their philosophy of animal rights and goal of abolishing the use of animals in research, but the tactics and timetable for that abolition.” Cleveland likened it to the difference between a mugger and a con man. “They each will rob you — they use different tactics, have different timetables, but the result is the same. The con man may even criticize the mugger for using confrontational tactics and giving all thieves a bad name, but your money is still taken.”

                  Targeting Meat and Dairy ....

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Alagirl View Post
                    you can ask this with a straight face?
                    Yes.

                    What's your point?
                    Proud owner of a Slaughter-Bound TB from a feedlot, and her surprise baby...!
                    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/Jen4USC/fave.jpg
                    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...SC/running.jpg

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                      Is that all you understood from that very basic explanation?
                      And there you go again with another snide remark. I guess you can't see it when you're doing it.

                      That was not a basic explanation. That was Bluey's world as she sees it, not as it exists. Cattle, chickens, pigs, etc organizations are there to make sure their members can operate with as few regulations and oversight as possible whether it keeps the food supply safe or not.

                      Comment


                      • #51
                        Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                        http://activistcash.com/organization...united-states/

                        For those that don't want to click on links:


                        The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a radical animal rights group that inaccurately portrays itself as a mainstream animal care organization. The words “humane society” may appear on its letterhead, but HSUS is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials and television commercials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And quite unlike the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.

                        Click here to see proof of how HSUS gives 1 percent of its budget to pet shelters
                        Click here to see evidence of how HSUS deceives Americans
                        Click here to see evidence that HSUS wants to eliminate meat, cheese, and dairy foods
                        Click here to read about how HSUS’s CEO has said he doesn’t want to see another dog or cat born
                        Click here to discover how HSUS’s CEO said dogfighting kingpin Michael Vick would “do a good job as a pet owner”
                        Click here to see how HSUS funnels more money into its pension plan than it gives to pet shelters
                        Click here to learn about why the American Institute of Philanthropy gives HSUS a “D” rating
                        Click here to read why six Congressmen recently called for a federal investigation of HSUS
                        HSUS is big, rich, and powerful. While most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $162 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.

                        Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends more than $5 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.

                        HSUS president Wayne Pacelle described some of his goals in 2004 for The Washington Post: “We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts … [and we’re] phasing out animals used in research. Hunting? I think you will see a steady decline in numbers.” But Pacelle may have more ambitious anti-hunting goals. In 1991, while he was the National Director of the Fund for Animals, Pacelle told the Associated Press: “[I]f we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would. Just like we would shut down all dog fighting, all cock fighting or all bull fighting.”

                        More recently, in a June 2005 interview, Pacelle told Satya magazine that HSUS is working on “a guide to vegetarian eating, to really make the case for it.” A strict vegan himself, Pacelle added: “Reducing meat consumption can be a tremendous benefit to animals.”

                        Shortly after Pacelle joined HSUS in 1994, he told Animal People (an inside-the-movement watchdog newspaper) that his goal was to build “a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.” And now, as the organization’s leader, he’s in a position to back up his rhetoric with action. In 2005 Pacelle announced the formation of a new “Animal Protection Litigation Section” within HSUS, dedicated to “the process of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal protection lawsuits in state and federal court.”

                        HSUS’s current goals have little to do with animal shelters. The group has taken aim at the traditional morning meal of bacon and eggs with a tasteless “Breakfast of Cruelty” campaign. Its newspaper op-eds demand that consumers “help make this a more humane world [by] reducing our consumption of meat and egg products.” Since its inception, HSUS has tried to limit the choices of American consumers, opposing dog breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos, circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, and fur trapping.

                        A True Multinational Corporation

                        HSUS is a multinational conglomerate with regional staff operating in 33 states and a special Hollywood Office that promotes and monitors the media’s coverage of animal-rights issues. It includes a huge web of organizations, affiliates, and subsidiaries. Some are nonprofit, tax-exempt “charities,” while others are for-profit taxable corporations, which don’t have to divulge anything about their financial dealings.

                        This unusually complex structure means that HSUS can hide expenses where the public would never think to look. For instance, one HSUS-affiliated organization called the HSUS Wildlife Land Trust collected $21.1 million between 1998 and 2003. During the same period, it spent $15.7 million on fundraising expenses, most of which directly benefited HSUS. This arrangement allowed HSUS to bury millions in direct-mail and other fundraising costs in its affiliate’s budget, giving the public (and charity watchdog groups) the false impression that its own fundraising costs were relatively low.

                        Until 1995 HSUS also controlled the Humane Society of Canada (HSC), which Paul Irwin (HSUS president from 1996 to 2004) had founded four years earlier. But Irwin, who claimed to live in Canada when he set up HSC, turned out to be ineligible to run a Canadian charity (He actually lived in Maryland). Irwin’s Canadian passport was ultimately revoked and he was replaced as HSC’s executive director.


                        The new leader later hauled HSUS into court to answer charges that Irwin had transferred over $1 million to HSUS from the Canadian group. HSUS claimed it was to pay for HSC’s fundraising, but didn’t provide the group with the required documentation to back up the expenses. In January 1997 a Canadian judge ordered HSUS to return the money, writing: “I cannot imagine a more glaring conflict of interest or a more egregious breach of fiduciary duty. It demonstrates an overweening arrogance of a type seldom seen.”

                        From Animal Welfare to Animal Rights

                        There is an enormous difference between animal “welfare” organizations, which work for the humane treatment of animals, and animal “rights” organizations, which aim to completely end the use and ownership of animals. The former have been around for centuries; the latter emerged in the 1980s, with the rise of the radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

                        The Humane Society of the United States began as an animal welfare organization. Originally called the National Humane Society, it was established in 1954 as a spin-off of the American Humane Association (AHA). Its founders wanted a slightly more radical group — the AHA did not oppose sport hunting or the use of shelter animals for biomedical research.

                        In 1980, HSUS officially began to change its focus from animal welfare to animal rights. After a vote was taken at the group’s San Francisco national conference, it was formally resolved that HSUS would “pursue on all fronts … the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals … within the full range of American life and culture.”

                        In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, the published proceedings of this conference, HSUS stated unequivocally that “there is no rational basis for maintaining a moral distinction between the treatment of humans and other animals.” It’s no surprise, then, that a 2003 HSUS fundraising mailer boasted that the group has been working toward “putting an end to killing animals for nearly half a century.”

                        In 1986 John McArdle, then-HSUS’s Director of Laboratory Animal Welfare, told Washingtonian magazine that HSUS was “definitely shifting in the direction of animal rights faster than anyone would realize from our literature.”

                        The group completed its animal-rights transformation during the 1990s, changing its personnel in the process. HSUS assimilated dozens of staffers from PETA and other animal-rights groups, even employing John “J.P.” Goodwin, a former Animal Liberation Front member and spokesman with a lengthy arrest record and a history of promoting arson to accomplish animal liberation.

                        The change brought more money and media attention. John Hoyt, HSUS president from 1970 to 1996, explained the shift in 1991, telling National Journal, “PETA successfully stole the spotlight … Groups like ours that have plugged along with a larger staff, a larger constituency … have been ignored.” Hoyt agreed that PETA’s net effect within the animal-rights movement was to spur more moderate groups to take tougher stances in order to attract donations from the public. “Maybe,” Hoyt mused, “the time has come to say, ‘Since we haven’t been successful in getting half a loaf, let’s go for the whole thing.’”

                        HSUS leaders have even expressed their desire to put an end to the lifesaving biomedical research that requires the use of animals. As early as 1988 the group’s mailings demanded that the U.S. government “eliminate altogether the use of animals as research subjects.” In 1986 Washingtonian asked John McArdle about his opinion that brain-dead humans should be substituted for animals in medical research. “It may take people a while to get used to the idea,” McArdle said, “but once they do the savings in animal lives will be substantial.”

                        McArdle realized then what HSUS understands today — that an uncompromising, vegetarian-only, anti-medical-progress philosophy has limited appeal. At the 1984 HSUS convention, he gave his group’s members specific instructions on how to frame the issue most effectively. “Avoid the words ‘animal rights’ and ‘antivivisection’,” McArdle said. “They are too strange for the public. Never appear to be opposed to animal research. Claim that your only concern is the source of animals.”

                        In a 1993 letter published by the American Society for Microbiology, Dr. Patrick Cleveland of the University of California San Diego spelled out HSUS’s place in the animal-rights pantheon. "What separates the HSUS from other animal rights groups,” Cleveland wrote, “is not their philosophy of animal rights and goal of abolishing the use of animals in research, but the tactics and timetable for that abolition.” Cleveland likened it to the difference between a mugger and a con man. “They each will rob you — they use different tactics, have different timetables, but the result is the same. The con man may even criticize the mugger for using confrontational tactics and giving all thieves a bad name, but your money is still taken.”

                        Targeting Meat and Dairy ....
                        From Richard Berman- one of teh largest paid lobbysists for Big Ag, tabacco, and alchohol industry...not exactly unbiased.

                        HSUS also helped get horse tripping, cockfighting, and dogfighting banned. Which one of those are you ok with? And even though they are banned, people still own roosters, horses, and dogs...

                        Comment


                        • #52
                          Originally posted by jetsmom View Post
                          From Richard Berman- one of teh largest paid lobbysists for Big Ag, tabacco, and alchohol industry...not exactly unbiased.

                          HSUS also helped get horse tripping, cockfighting, and dogfighting banned. Which one of those are you ok with? And even though they are banned, people still own roosters, horses, and dogs...
                          What does being biased or not have to do with explaining the truth about the HSUS?

                          After all that has been presented, all you have to say is that you think the source, in your opinion, is biased.

                          Too bad you can't deny that all that is true, is it.

                          Comment


                          • #53
                            Originally posted by jetsmom View Post
                            From Richard Berman- one of teh largest paid lobbysists for Big Ag, tabacco, and alchohol industry...not exactly unbiased.

                            HSUS also helped get horse tripping, cockfighting, and dogfighting banned. Which one of those are you ok with? And even though they are banned, people still own roosters, horses, and dogs...
                            But dogs and roosters are a natural resource, to be used by us however we see fit. See you just don't understand, you're being conned by the evil, evil HSUS into thinking that dog fighting, horse tripping and cock fighting is bad.

                            Comment


                            • #54
                              Originally posted by LauraKY View Post
                              But dogs and roosters are a natural resource, to be used by us however we see fit. See you just don't understand, you're being conned by the evil, evil HSUS into thinking that dog fighting, horse tripping and cock fighting is bad.

                              Never mind, that is the absurd way some have to explain why we should let animal rights extremist continue to assault all we do with our animals, because they helped close some we did that was directly abusive, like dog fighting, that society was already trying to ban, before animal rights even existed.

                              Those groups are not going to miss a chance to get a halo, even if it was false.
                              See what the HSUS did lately, hire a dog fighting criminal, as a publicity stunt, because it fit their goals at the time.
                              That would be like hiring Hitler to run a jewish school.
                              Boy, was that a great run of free publicity in the news:

                              http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=6510

                              As you can tell, before you mentioned, yes, that source is also biased.

                              Comment


                              • #55
                                And there we have it, only 3 pages before Bluey invoked Godwin's law. I rest my case.

                                Comment


                                • #56
                                  Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                                  Not that is anything wrong with being an animal rights extremists, to each their own, but to come push that agenda on a horse training web site?
                                  Funny coming from the person who likes to link to sites like the Cattle Network to push their agenda on a horse training web site.

                                  Comment


                                  • #57
                                    Originally posted by Abercrombie View Post
                                    Funny coming from the person who likes to link to sites like the Cattle Network to push their agenda on a horse training web site.
                                    I don't have an agenda (don't even know what the Cattle Network is) unlike others here seem to have.

                                    I am defending our rights to use our animals, which is I think very appropriate in a horse web site.

                                    Comment


                                    • #58
                                      Originally posted by LauraKY View Post
                                      And there we have it, only 3 pages before Bluey invoked Godwin's law. I rest my case.
                                      While Hitler may be a figure of speech to you, who knows, he is a very real example to me, affected my family greatly and we are not even jewish.

                                      I won't counter your continuous personal attacks with some of my own, but I will say, maybe consider easing up a bit on that front, "will ya"?

                                      Comment

                                      • Original Poster

                                        #59
                                        This thread is totally "off course". I asked a simple question. It was answered on page one. Never mind......I should have known. Is there any question that can be asked on this BB that doesn't start a war?

                                        Really some bored people out there........why don't you all just "hug" and give it a break? Another train will be along in a day or so.

                                        Comment


                                        • #60
                                          Originally posted by Hpilot View Post
                                          This thread is totally "off course". I asked a simple question. It was answered on page one. Never mind......I should have known. Is there any question that can be asked on this BB that doesn't start a war?

                                          Really some bored people out there........why don't you all just "hug" and give it a break? Another train will be along in a day or so.
                                          Don't blame me, I answered right off and on topic.

                                          What did you think such a question would bring for responses, if you read the others where this same was debated 'round and around.

                                          It was a good question, I think it has been a good discussion, for what such are.
                                          I hope many have learned some they didn't know and that is the point of your question, right?

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X