Tag Archives: hsus

HSUS Donations Scandal

ABC recently ran an expose on HSUS donations – how HSUS have misled the public over their relations with the local humane societies (which run local shelters):

Click here for the video

Check HSUS’s annual budget yourselves (part 2). Of a little over $100 million they receive in donations, only around $6 million (6%) goes towards local humane shelters. The rest is used to make the case for animal rights on the hill.There is also some suspicion surrounding where money for certain projects has gone. Be under no illusion, HSUS is an animal rights not an animal welfare organization.

Cheers

Tom

Arson, Santa Cruz, and crimes against medicine

It began with an animal rights pamphlet in a Santa Cruz coffee shop that listed the names and addresses of 13 researchers who used animals. It ended with two firebombs – one destroying a researcher’s car, the other, at 5:40am, aimed at a second researcher, Dr. David Feldheim’s house, forcing him and his family (including his two children) to escape from a second story fire ladder.

UCSC researcher's car is firebombed

Read more on this event in the LA Times, Santa Cruz Sentinel and Associated Press.

What becomes apparent from the press reports is that animal rights extremism may be receiving universal condemnation from the press, but that the actual benefits of animal research do not come into the mix. The overriding message needs to change from “AR extremism should be condemned” to “AR extremism should be condemned AND animal research saves lives”.
I was fortunate enough to talk to Debra Saunders from the San Francisco Chronicle who allowed me to try and present both sides of this important message in her article:

“We must not allow a violent minority to dictate the future of medicine,” Holder noted, when cures and knowledge can save so many lives. Too often American universities have tried to downplay animal rights terrorism. Researchers clam up, lest they be next. The harassment campaigns “tend to isolate individuals,” Holder noted. But the terrorists cannot prevail when scientists stand together for their work.

And stand together they have. On Monday over 200 scientists and members of the public held a rally in solidarity to Dr. David Feldheim. Could this event be the turning point in the campaign that sees scientists stand up and speak openly about the importance of research? Perhaps this event will wake people, as the Oxford boat house bombings woke up the Oxford University campus.

The University of California (UC) system, to which Santa Cruz is a member, has been under concerted attack from animal rights activists and extremists for the past few years. Some researchers have quit their jobs, others have been attacked in their homes, or recieved incendiary devices. Medical research is under threat, and every time a researcher quits, it is us, the consumer of medical benefits, who suffer.

UC Santa Cruz carries out basic research, this is the research which brings about the knowledge and understanding of diseases which underpins the applied research which tries to create treatments. Santa Cruz’s big research areas include Cancer, Alzheimer’s and Lou Gehrig’s Disease, and if researchers continue to be harrassed by animal rights activists, then it is the possible medical treatments to these diseases which is affected. Dr. David Feldheim, who’s house was subject to the recent arson, was working to understand the mouse brain – research that could eventually be used to understand the workings of the human brain, bringing benefit to the future of treatments for neurological pathologies.

In short, we all have a part to play in standing up for use of animals in medical research, and condemn the violence surrounding it.

Jerry Vlasak has also taken the opportunity to preach hate in the name of animals, as he vied for attention:
“If their father is willing to continue risking his livelihood in order to continue chopping up animals in a laboratory then his children are old enough to recognize the consequences”
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10088528?nclick_check=1
Anyone impressed by Vlasak’s claim to being a credible trauma surgeon should check out our own expose on the Press Officer for the Animal Liberation Front (an organization deemed “terrorist” by the US and UK governments).

On another note, it was also amusing to hear that HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) have contributed a pitiful $2,500 towards the $30,000 offered by the Santa Cruz authorities to information leading to the arrest of the culprits. I say pitiful but considering it’s more than they give to many humane shelters they support (read: “give token gifts to”), all of which amount to less than 8% of their yearly expenditure) perhaps we should let them off.

Cheers

Tom

p.s. check the Calendar for talks by Speaking of Research in California this week.

Peta and HSUS fight for the legacy of the ‘Queen of Mean’

Peta (People for the Ethical Treatmet of Animals) and HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) are both trying to lay claim to the estate of the late Leona Helmsley, once dubbed the Queen of Mean. Helmsley’s fortune is estimated at $5-8 billion (around 3 times the combined incomes of everyone living in Zimbabwe).  Helmsley ammassed her fortune through shrwed real estate investing and a chain of hotels (apparently taking the Monopoly rulebook as a life guide).  She earned her reputation as a tyrannical employer, once quotes as saying “Only the little people pay taxes.” Upon her death she left $12 million to her dog, Trouble, more than to any of her four grandchildren (two were left out the will completely). She put the lion’s share of her fortune in a trust fund for the care and welfare of dogs – this could provide around $400 million per year for various efforts to improve animal welfare.

So should the money go to Peta? An organisation which killed more than 90% of the adoptable animals that entered its shelters in Virginia? Or perhaps to HSUS, which spent less than 8% (approx $6.5million) of its $91 million donations (2006 Budget on website), to support animal shelters, choosing rather to spend the money fighting for animal rights on the hill.

Hopefully Leona Helmsley’s fortune will instead be divided up between much smaller animal shelters which directly contribute to animal welfare. HSUS have long played the trick of gaining donations by associating their effots with their local animal shelters – in truth HSUS absorb many of the resources that would do much to improve animal welfare in individual animal shelters, and use it to fight for animal rights on the hill.

Regards

Tom

AR groups winning hollow PR victories

Animal Rights groups like PETA and HSUS have been trumpeting the latest PR victories by animal rights campaigners – but what’s behind these “success stories”?

The first “victory” for AR groups, recently touted by PeTA, was a ban on animal testing put in place by the small country of San Marino. However, let us put this in perspective. San Marino is a country smaller (in size) than Manhattan (New York City), and with a population of just 30,000 (comparable to a medium sized American University). So what impact has the ban had on the world’s oldest republic? None! Not one iota of difference has been made. Not a single animal will be saved in this hollow stunt. San Marino’s biotech industry is non-existent, and its borders contain just one University – The Advanced School of Historical Studies (Scuola Superiore di Studi Storici), unsurprisingly not a university reknowned for undertaking biomedical research.

Spurred on by this victory can we expect animal rights groups to attempt a similar ban in Monaco? Or perhaps the Vatican City? Why stop there – perhaps we’ll start hearing about people banning animal research in their own homes.

The second triumph was HSUS convincing 13 educational institutions to ban “severe and unrelieved pain and/or distress” in research, despite the fact that such experiments account for only 7% of the total. It was interesting that most of the institutions, such as Amherst, are liberal-arts colleges and do not carry out any pain-causing research (for example many used animals for just behavioral studies), and, unsurprisingly, none of these institutions are well known for their animal experiments.

It has been a common tactic by animal rights groups in need of a “victory”, to ban animal research where it doesn’t exist. In 1986 the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) passed a law in parliament banning Great Ape Research. The result? A waste of public money – scientists in Britain had already stopped using great apes by choice long before the ban, preferring to use lower primates which provided similar quality results without the very high upkeep costs required for great apes.

All for now!

Tom