For the very first time, the South Korean government is considering phasing out bear farming.

As a WSPA supporter, you have the unique opportunity to help end this cruel practice. With our member society, Green Korea United (GKU), WSPA is participating in discussions with the South Korean government about permanently ending this cruelty. Please help us convince them to phase out bear farming and end the lifetime of suffering endured by these bears.

Right now more than 1,400 bears suffer on bear farms in South Korea. These bears are confined to cramped, barren cages until the age of 10, when they are then slaughtered for their bile, which is then used in Traditional Asian Medicine. This industry is still legal under South Korean law.

Bear farming is cruel. The captive conditions greatly restrict the bears’ movements and have a terrible impact on their wellbeing. WSPA has witnessed bears rocking and pacing in their small cages, and seen the severe wounds, sores and stress caused by confining them.

Bear farming is unnecessary. Academics, experts and Traditional Asian Medicine advocates in South Korea agree that there are many readily available herbal and synthetic alternatives to bear bile. Even bear farmers in South Korea acknowledge that their farms are losing money and they are prepared to consider a phase out.

The South Korean government is willing to find a way to end this suffering. Government officials have been in discussions with WSPA and GKU about ending bear farming. This September, a bill to phase out bear farming will be proposed to the Korean parliament for the government to deliberate.

Please sign this petition to Ambassador Han Duk-soo at the Embassy of South Korea in the United States TODAY and demonstrate the strength of international support for phasing out bear farming in South Korea.

Tell the government to manage wild horses responsibly

The BLM thinks the best way to manage wild horses is to take them out the wild. Kayla Grams/The HSUS

by Stephanie Boyles

The federal government promised it would change the way it manages wild horses, but we won’t see anything new in the plan it intends to present to Congress in the fall unless we provide much-needed guidance on how to reform its broken program.

Despite some progress and a lot of promises, if it doesn’t incorporate recommendations from The HSUS and our many supporters, the Bureau of Land Management will simply trot out the same strategies that have already caused horses to suffer and die needlessly and cost the taxpayer many millions of dollars unless. And if things keep going as planned, soon there will be nearly twice as many wild horses in captivity as in the wild. Here’s a little background: 

Taking horses off the range is expensive

Over the past 10 years, the costs of the BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Management program have skyrocketed; the agency keeps removing more horses from public lands, but fewer people are willing to adopt them. Illogically, the BLM hasn’t made controlling reproduction a part of its efforts to control the number of horses in the wild.

In 2008, the BLM spent more than $27 million caring for wild horses and burros in holding facilities. That’s almost 75 percent of the BLM’s total $36.2 million wild horse and burro management budget.

Before August 3, speak up for wild horses.

That year the BLM announced that it might euthanize or sell for slaughter more than 10,000 wild horses housed in federal holding facilities to save money.

Let them ROAM

The public and congress were appalled. In July 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the “Restore Our American Mustangs” (ROAM) Act, H.R. 1018, which would protect wild horses and burros from commercial sale and slaughter. ROAM would also implement management tools such as fertility control, which could save millions of tax dollars by diminishing the need for costly gathers and large-scale housing. Unfortunately, the Senate hasn’t yet acted on this legislation.

Promises, promises

In October 2009, the Department of the Interior released a five-year strategy, promising it would transform the BLM’s wild horse and burro program from often inefficient, costly, and inhumane to technologically advanced, fiscally sound, and more humane. At that time, the BLM announced that it wouldn’t euthanize or sell wild horses to resolve its financial woes. Our hopes were high.

But just weeks later we found out that the BLM intended to remove another 12,000 wild horses from the range. If all goes as planned, by the end of 2011, there will be nearly twice as many wild horses in holding facilities (45,000 ) as are on the range (around 26,000). The BLM estimates that holding costs alone will rise to over $47 million annually. This is not a cost-effective way to manage wildlife.

More round-ups

In December 2009, the BLM removed more than 1,500 wild horses from the Calico Complex in Nevada. Several horses didn’t survive. We’re still urging to the BLM to release as many (if not all) of these horses back onto the range as possible, since the agency has no plan to keep the population in the wild from rebounding.

Then in July, the hottest month of the year in that region, the BLM removed more horses, this time in Elko County, Nevada. At least a dozen mustangs have died from dehydration, water intoxication, and related complications. The HSUS has called for a moratorium on roundups.

Tell them enough is enough

The BLM is accepting public comments on its latest plan until August 3. Tell the agency make good on the change it has promised in the past and steer the program in a new, sustainable, and more humane direction.

Stephanie Boyles is Wildlife Scientist, Wildlife and Habitat Protection, for The Humane Society of the United States

CA AB 1437—Humanely Produced Eggs/Food Safety Assemblymember Jared Huffman

Sponsor:

ASPCA Position:  Support

Action Needed:  Email and call Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to request that he sign this important humane legislation into law.

In 2008, California citizens overwhelmingly voted in favor of Proposition 2, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, which outlawed “battery cages” and mandated that California’s egg-laying hens be housed with enough room to stand up, turn around and spread their wings.

Encouraging further animal-welfare and food-safety reform in the spirit of Prop 2, Assembly Bill 1437 would require that all whole eggs sold in California come from farms that meet this same standard. Like Prop 2, this new law would go into effect in 2015. The bill has already passed both houses of the California Legislature by large margins with bipartisan support.

Governor Schwarzenegger must sign AB 1437 into law by mid-July. 

The World Health Organization and Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Salmonella Risk Assessment agree that the use of battery cages to produce eggs results in an increase in human health risk. Egg-laying hens subjected to stress are more likely to have higher levels of pathogens in their intestines. These conditions increase the likelihood that consumers will be exposed to higher levels of food-borne pathogens, including salmonella.

What You Can Do

Please use the email form provided to contact Governor Schwarzenegger and request that he sign this important consumer protection and animal welfare bill into state law. Don’t forget to personalize your message in the box provided so it stands out!

You can help even further by calling the Governor’s Office today at (916) 445-2841 and expressing your support for AB 1437. Be sure to tell the person with whom you speak that you are a California resident and that the Governor’s approval of AB 1437 is important to you and your family.

Thank you for your help, California.

UPDATE – July 6, 2010

Great news! I received confirmation tonight that Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger has signed A.B. 1437 into law.

The new law requires that shelled (whole) eggs sold in California
comply with the modest but important food safety and animal welfare
standards of Proposition 2. Passed in a 2008 landslide, Prop 2 phases
out production of eggs from hens crammed into cages.

I am so grateful to our California animal advocates. Thank you
for your many calls and emails to your state legislators and the governor,
and for spreading the word to your friends, family, and social
networks. Please read my latest blog on this exciting news:
http://action.humanesociety.org/site/R?i=cMsxZ6Ks0uPFpI21oNY4kw..

And thank you again for all you do for animals.

Pierce Brosnan’s new ad may be the last hope for whales.
Please watch, then help us get it aired on television. Your donation will be doubled today!
(Warning: Graphic images)

June 14, 2010

Last week, Pierce Brosnan wrote to you with an urgent request to save the world’s whales, who are on the brink of losing key protections under international law. Today, I’m writing with an equally urgent request.

Despite thousands of letters and phone calls to key U.S. officials, the fate of the world’s whales still hangs in the balance. That’s why The Humane Society of the United States has joined with Pierce Brosnan and our coalition partners in a last-ditch effort to save the oceans’ most majestic creatures: a new ad that urges President Obama to honor his campaign pledge to protect whales.

Will you watch this new ad right now, and then make a special donation to air it on television in key markets? A group of caring donors will match your gift, dollar for dollar, up to $75,000. That means we’ll have at least $150,000 to ensure this ad sees major air time in key markets such as Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles.

Our time to act is short: One week from today, the nations that are members of the International Whaling Commission, a body mandated to conserve whales, will meet to vote on whether to give in to Japan, Iceland, and Norway. These three nations believe selling whale meat is more important than the survival of these marine species. The United States must exert worldwide leadership to keep the ban on whaling intact. But we have to convince the Obama administration to do the right thing.

So please watch Pierce Brosnan’s personal plea to President Obama — then donate today to ensure this critical message reaches him and his staff. Your donation will go directly into our “Save Whales, Not Whaling” fund. Remember, the first $75,000 in donations will be doubled by a group of generous donors and be used to get the ad on the air. Every additional penny will be used exclusively for our campaign to save the world’s whales.

But I’ll warn you, the ad is hard to watch. It shows the very real threats facing whales today. But that’s precisely why Pierce Brosnan, The HSUS, Humane Society International, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the National Resources Defense Council are banding together to make sure this ad gets on TV – so the key decision makers cannot ignore it. Will you help us save the world’s whales now?

Sincerely,

Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States

Share on Facebook   Share on Twitter

A recent PETA investigation prompted the U.S. Department of Agriculture to cite laboratories at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) for violations of federal animal welfare laws and revealed that MUSC continues to cut holes in the throats and chests of live pigs in a cruel and deadly trauma training exercise, even though the university has replaced animal use with a state-of-the-art TraumaMan simulator to teach the very same skills in it’s Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course.
 
Comparative studies by leading trauma surgeons have repeatedly found that the use of TraumaMan—in addition to saving animals’ lives—is superior to the use of animal labs for preparing trainees to treat injuries in human patients. TraumaMan and other simulators are endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and are used instead of animals in 95 percent of ATLS courses across the U.S.

Please contact David Cole, chair of MUSC’s department of surgery, and ask him to immediately replace the use of pigs for these cruel training exercises with modern human-patient simulators that are already in use at MUSC.

June 1, 2010

Today, actor, producer and writer Ricky Gervais has partnered with the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) to call for an end to the cruel practice of bullfighting, and urge tourists to stop supporting such brutality on their travels.

Bullfighting is widely marketed to U.S. tourists as a cultural “experience,” especially in Europe and Latin America. And, despite the fact that a majority of Americans are aware that bullfighting causes unnecessary pain to animals, more than 6.2 million have been to a bullfight at some time in their lives.

“Sometimes the worst kind of cruelty is done in the name of entertainment. It sickens me to know that people still pay money to see an animal tortured to death. Cultural heritage is no excuse for inflicting such pain on a frightened and confused animal,” Gervais says in a PSA for WSPA launched today.

Watch the video below and add your name to our petition:

Gervais is also urging people worldwide to put pressure on the Catalonian Government in Spain, which is now preparing to vote on a proposal to ban bullfighting, by signing WSPA’s petition. “We want them to know that there are people all around the world who care which way they vote, and are hoping to see them put an end to this cruel ‘sport’,” adds Gervais.

One quarter of a million bulls are killed each year during bullfights and bull festivals. A 2009 WSPA poll of 2,740 Americans who travel internationally showed that 55% are aware that bullfighting causes unnecessary pain to animals and 42% believe  it is a blood sport that has no place in a civilized society.

“Tourists are still attracted to these events because they believe that the bullfighting experience is part of the local culture and they want to see what it is all about,” says Cecily West, WSPA U.S. Executive Director. “However, there are certainly better ways to enjoy and appreciate a country and its unique offerings – whether visiting a national park or participating in an eco tour.”

Bullfighting takes place primarily in Europe (Spain, France, Portugal and festivals in Bosnia); Latin America (Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, plus fiestas in countries including Brazil, Panama and Nicaragua); North America (‘bloodless’ bullfights); Africa (Kenya – bull against bull); and Asia (India – bull against bull; and China – man against bull). The bullfighting season runs from April to September in Europe and October to February in Latin America.

As the world’s largest alliance of animal welfare organizations, with at least one member in virtually every country of the world, WSPA is able to work where there is the greatest need to stop animal suffering and cruelty. The WSPA animal welfare community has a diverse range of high profile supporters including Simon Cowell, Leona Lewis, Miranda Richardson, Brooke Shields, Tiffani Thiessen, Kristin Davis and Christina Applegate.

Q&A with Ricky Gervais

Why did you get involved with WSPA?

“My first love was nature and wildlife, and, in particular, animals. I think animals are all unconditionally perfect, and beautiful. Animals really matter to me, and WSPA is trying to stop needless acts of animal cruelty all over the world. One of their campaigns is against bullfighting. It sickens me to know that in this day and age, people are still paying money to see an animal suffering in such a horrific way.”

“The bull is stabbed for around 15 minutes by spears, spikes and daggers. It dies slowly and painfully, because when the matador sticks the final sword in, it often pierces the lungs instead of the heart, and the bulls are left drowning in their own blood. It’s amazing that there are fans of this so-called ‘sport’ across the world, from Spain to Latin America. I just can’t accept that cultural heritage is an excuse for inflicting such pain on a frightened and confused animal.”

But if it’s popular, can anyone really stop it?

“There’s already quite a bit of progress being made. At the moment, the Catalonian Government in Spain is on the verge of voting for a ban on bullfighting. It could be a real step forward, so I wanted to get involved with this campaign to let Catalonian MPs know that there are thousands of people all around the world who care which way they vote.”

“Anyway, it’s not even that popular anymore – a survey a couple of years ago showed that 72 per cent of Spaniards have no interest in it. In Barcelona, they’ve had to cut the number of bullfights they have because audiences are getting smaller. They don’t even show it on TVE, the main public TV station in Spain! Even in Latin America it’s in decline – there’s a city in Ecuador that has publicly declared itself anti-bullfighting.”

Would you ever go to a bullfight?

“Absolutely not. It’s basically paying to keep cruelty alive. Some people might go to one on holiday because they see it as a cultural experience, but they should think hard about it, and take their conscience with them on holiday.”

Help us reach 100,000 names – add your name to the petition today >>

Next month, PCRM physicians will lead a peaceful demonstration at Tulane University School of Medicine in New Orleans to bring attention to the facility’s cruel and ineffective use of live pigs in a trauma training course. Please sign this petition that our physicians will present to senior vice president and dean Benjamin Sachs, M.B.

At Tulane, Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) courses typically involve cutting open live, anesthetized pigs and practicing procedures such as inserting a tube and needle into the animals’ chest cavities and cutting into their throats. After the training session, the animals are killed. Tulane continues this inhumane practice even though the American College of Surgeons has approved simulators for this training. The next course begins at Tulane on June 5.

HSUS animal centers, experts prepared to help animals of oil spill disaster

The Humane Society of the United States

Hundreds of species of wildlife are at risk from the massive oil spill in the Gulf Coast.

Dr. Roberto Aguilar, staff veterinarian at our Cape Wildlife Center in Barnstable, Mass., spoke with us briefly about the massive and ongoing oil spill threatening havoc on the delicate ecosystem of the Gulf Coast region.

In addition to our emergency responders and triage equipment ready for immediate deployment, we asked Dr. Aguilar what kind of role The HSUS’s animal care centers would play in rescue and rehab efforts.

Dr. Aguilar is an associate researcher at the New Zealand Wildlife Health Centre, one of the largest oil spill networks in the world.

Q: Can you give us an overview of the situation for wildlife?

A: The Gulf region is diverse and full of unique wildlife who almost certainly will be compromised—from sea turtles and sperm whales to countless species of shorebirds and migratory avian species. Though marine mammals are the purview of specialized stranding networks, an immense variety of mammals, birds and reptiles will be affected.

The oil spill affecting the area is thick, tarry toxic crude capable of inflicting not only short-term damage to adult animals but also severe long-term effects on critical breeding populations. Dips in wildlife populations can be expected (as have been seen after all major oil spills). The fact that most of southern Louisiana and parts of other coastlines are critical wetlands makes the dimension of the tragedy even greater. 

The area represents significant spawning grounds for fish, nesting areas for birds, as well as coastal wildlife; and, tragically, the breeding season is at its height. The diversity of species and the unique requirements of each in dealing with the chemicals poisoning their systems require specialized training—without it, the responders pose a threat to the animals’ survival chances, and both the animals and the hazardous materials pose risks to the humans. 

Q: How is The HSUS able to help? 

A: We have staff and volunteers trained and qualified to respond in the event our assistance is requested. Additionally, we have staff located in all of the Gulf Coast states. They’ve reached out to emergency management, wildlife centers, and shelters to offer support and resources when and if needed. Our trained responders and a fleet of fully equipped transport vehicles are prepared to mobilize.

As one of the largest and most diverse providers of direct animal care in the country, our wildlife rehab experts at The HSUS animal centers stand ready to support local, regional and national responses to the spill threatening the region and its wildlife. Our shared experience will meet the needs should an opportunity to treat any of the affected Gulf Coast animals come up, including issues that may not be directly related to the spill. We also are capable of housing wildlife for a stabilization period if those resources are needed.

Our highly trained and experienced staff at the Wildlife Care Center in South Florida, The Fund for Animals Wildlife Center in California, and Cape Wildlife Center in Massachusetts has dealt extensively with wildlife in trouble due to human activity. This has included everything from a tiny one-ounce wren caught in a glue trap (a situation which presents similar problems to treating oiled animals) to eiders covered in diesel fuel, to coyotes and bobcats hit by cars.

Our Florida center is one of the largest wildlife rehabilitation facilities in the country, seeing more than 12,000 animals a year. There, we treat many of the same species at risk from the oil spill—brown pelicans, egrets, royal terns and others. The center is gearing up for an immediate response to treating animals on site if necessary.

Flexibility, experience, preparedness, training, and patience all come in to play in participating in a well planned, sustained, long term effective cleaning and restoration effort. Our goal will be, as always, to effectively help, treat and recover as many wild animals as possible.

Depictions of Acts of Animal Cruelty and Dogfighting Are Now Legal

UPDATE: A bill has been introduced in the U.S. House, HR 5092, to prohibit the sale or distribution of animal crush videos in interstate or foreign commerce. This bill, introduced on April 21 by Representative Gallegly immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court decision was issued, provides a narrow definition of “Animal crush videos” that is tailored to withstand any challenge to its constitutionality based on free speech.

Contact your U.S. Representative and ask him/her to support this bill. The bill already has 59 cosponsors.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its long awaited ruling on U.S. v. Stevens, a case charging the seller of dogfighting videos under a 1999 law prohibiting the sale of “crush” videos and other depictions of illegal acts of animal cruelty. On April 20th the Court made its determination, overturning the federal law as unconstitutional.

The federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 48, was enacted in 1999, prohibiting the commercial creation, sale or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty and making it a crime to engage in any of these acts. The law is specific to the portrayal of acts of cruelty, not the underlying act of harming animals. The law was aimed at stopping the sale of “crush” videos, where helpless animals are killed usually by a woman with bare feet or in high spiked heels. There was international trafficking in these sexual fetish videos, which include a soundtrack but no way to identify the participant’s identity.

Robert Stevens was charged under this Act for selling videos depicting gruesome scenes of animals being killed, including videos from the U.S. and Japan. The district court held that the depictions under this law were like obscenity or child pornography and therefore were not protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. The district court also found that the law was not substantially overbroad because it allowed exceptions for constitutionally protected categories of free speech, such as depictions for the purpose of religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic or artistic purposes. Stevens was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment.

The conviction was appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. The appeals court vacated the conviction and held that the law was unconstitutional. The court found:

• The law regulates speech that is protected by the First Amendment.
• The statute lacked a compelling government interest.
• The law was not narrowly tailored to prevent animal cruelty.
• The law was not the least restrictive means of preventing animal cruelty.
• There is no reason to recognize a new category of unprotected speech for depictions of animal cruelty.
• There is no validity to a comparison of animal cruelty depictions and child pornography.

This decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The government, in support of this case, argued that the banned depictions of animal cruelty, as a class, are unprotected by the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It started with the basic premise that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” However it looked at historical restrictions on the content of speech in a few limited areas, including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct. The government’s position, that depictions of animal cruelty should be added to this list of restrictions, was rejected by the Court. The Court found:

• The government’s application of a balancing test, weighing the value of the speech against its societal cost, is “startling and dangerous.”
• The government’s cost-benefit analysis is a “highly manipulative balancing test.” 
• “Depictions of animal cruelty” are not among the categories of speech that have been historically unprotected. 
• The law creates “a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.
• The text of the statute’s ban on a “depiction of animal cruelty” nowhere “requires that the depicted conduct be cruel.”
• The law applies to “any…depiction” in which “a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed.” 
• “Wounded” or “killed” do not suggest that cruelty must be involved.
• The text of the law does “require that the conduct be ‘illegal.’” 
• The text of the law “draws no distinction based on the reason the intentional killing of an animal is made illegal, and includes, for example, the humane slaughter of a stolen cow.”
• “The demand for hunting depictions exceeds the estimated demand for crush videos or animal fighting depictions by several orders of magnitude.”
• If hunting restrictions made a particular kind of hunting illegal in that state, it would be unlawful to sell a video depiction of the killing of an animal anywhere in the country, even if other states permit that manner of hunting, ie. using a crossbow.
• The differences between states in what is illegal in slaughtering livestock would make it unlawful to sell a video of a slaughter practice that has been banned elsewhere, ie. California’s recent ban on docking the tails of cattle.
• The exceptions clause of this law, which would permit depictions of animal cruelty that have “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value,” would require an unrealistically broad reading of the exceptions, especially with regard to videos of wildlife that have primarily entertainment value.
• When passed, this law was intended to be applied only to depictions of “wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.” 
• This prosecution of a dog fighting depiction shows that prosecutorial discretion in applying this law cannot be trusted.

Finally, the Court determined that this law is “substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment.” The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision.

Dissent:

In his dissenting opinion from the majority, Justice Alito argues that:

• The Court should not have applied the doctrine that overbroad statutes should be struck down because it should have looked at this option only as a last resort.
• The Court should have determined whether “the videos that [Stevens] sold are constitutionally protected.”  
• The Court’s determination that hunting videos could be included in the construction of the statute was flawed because hunting is lawful in all 50 states and the statute should be construed to avoid constitutional problems.
• The law specifically targets depictions of “animal cruelty” which is clearly defined by every state to exclude the practice of hunting, which is neither under law—or historically—regarded as an act of cruelty.
• The Court has a duty to interpret the law so as to avoid constitutional concerns and it has failed to do so.
• The prosecution of the creators of crush videos was virtually impossible before the passage of this bill, but the distribution of such videos all but died after the passage of the law.
• “Crush videos present a highly unusual free speech issue because they are so closely linked with violent criminal conduct. The videos record the commission of violent criminal acts, and it appears that these crimes are committed for the sole purpose of creating the videos.” 
• The only way to prevent these crimes was to target the sale of the videos. 
• The Court should have extended the Ferber reasoning regarding child pornography to reach the same conclusion for a law prohibiting crush videos:
  • The conduct is illegal in every state;
  • The criminal acts shown on crush videos cannot be prevented without targeting the creation, sale, or possession of videos intended for commercial purposes;
  • The harm caused by the underlying crimes vastly outweighs any minimal value that the depictions otherwise would possess.
• “Preventing the abuse of children is certainly more important than preventing the torture of the animals used in crush videos.”
• “But while protecting children is unquestionable more important than protecting animals, the Government also has a compelling interest in preventing the torture depicted in crush videos.”
• The commercial trade in dogfights can also not be addressed without restricting the sale of such videos for commercial purposes.
• There is a compelling governmental interest in effectively enforcing the nation’s laws and preventing criminals from profiting from their illegal activities.

Justice Alito would reject Steven’s claim that the law was unconstitutional.

Final Comment

The effect of this decision, which freed Stevens and rendered the entire law invalid, may be to open new avenues of commercial enterprises to individuals with video cameras and a criminal lack of conscience. It will certainly limit the efforts of any state law to regulate videos depicting any type of animal cruelty.

I’ve written before about the phony Center for Consumer Freedom
(CCF).

In its early years, CCF made money as a front group for Big Tobacco,
the alcohol industry, and other corporations working against public
health. In recent years, CCF has expanded its business model to
represent factory farmers, seal clubbers, cockfighters, and puppy
millers.

The Humane Society of the United States is now CCF’s number one
target. A couple weeks ago, CCF assailed our humanitarian relief
mission in Haiti, despite the remarkable work of our people on the
ground. Now, these animal cruelty apologists say they will step up
their attacks on us this week.

Will you make a special gift today and show CCF that those who care
about animals won’t back down?

The shills at CCF have one thing right: The HSUS is indeed the
largest, toughest, and most effective animal protection organization,
and we have the power, like no other group does, to effect major
changes for animals. Just listen to how our opponents talk about us:

“HSUS is clearly the nine-million-pound gorilla. They are
powerful, sophisticated and rich and they are good at what they do.
They are good at building the agenda, good at framing issues, they
know how to talk about issues, which is why they are effective.” – Wes Jamison, Meatingplace.com

“Fifteen years ago we were confronted by about 150 animal rights
organizations, subject to infighting and competition. Today, the
movement is defined by the Humane Society of the U.S.” – Steve
Kopperud, Cattle Network

“With the passage of California’s Proposition 2, more
people have come to realize the evolving threat of the power,
influence, and growing wealth of the Humane Society of the United
States (HSUS). Ballot initiatives and legislation similar to Prop. 2
will soon be introduced in more states. HSUS’s massive budget,
unwarranted positive public reputation, and deep-pocketed Hollywood
friends will only become a greater threat to industry in a
post-Proposition 2 business environment. It is crucial that a key
broad cross-section of agriculture leaders start managing this
nationwide threat now, before it is too late or too expensive to match
HSUS dollar for dollar.” – Rick Berman, CCF

If you don’t recognize the name of Rick Berman, let me provide a
proper introduction. He’s the type of individual — I know
you’ve heard of them before — who will literally do anything
for money. Back in the days when the tobacco lobby was still denying
that smoking caused lung cancer, men like Rick Berman attacked doctors
and other anti-smoking advocates who had the courage to speak the
truth. For his ultimately unsuccessful efforts, Rick Berman grabbed a
first fistful of cash (about $600,000 for starting the precursor to
CCF), and learned he could build a business by attacking
“do-gooders” and acting as hit man.

Right now, Berman is making the circuit of businesses and
organizations that profit from the status quo in the treatment of
animals, promising them they can dry up public support for our work
and pledging to step up assaults against The HSUS beginning this
week.

He will not slow us down. But here is something he will do. Beginning
now and for the first time in his public life, Rick Berman is going to
start helping animals. We’re going to see to it — you and I.

In response to CCF’s new mudslinging campaign, I’m asking
you to join with me, in raising $200,000 — $100,000 to help feed and
care for animals at the network of five animal care centers The HSUS
owns and operates, and $100,000 to add to our campaign to take on
factory farming.

Please make a special gift today to support our
animal care work and our campaigns against factory farms:

Here’s why I’ve chosen these two programs. We provide
permanent homes to 1,572 animals and treat another 14,000-plus injured
animals each year — the largest such sanctuary system in the United
States (and that’s just one small part of our direct-care
portfolio). Yet, Berman and company say we don’t do enough
hands-on care, and I want to underscore how painfully wrong he is by
allowing him to help us pay for the feeding and vet care of these
creatures for just a few days.

And second, we want to raise additional funds to fight factory farming
because it’s that type of work (whether passing
California’s successful Proposition 2 or shutting down
slaughterhouses violating the law with our undercover investigations)
that CCF and its corporate backers really want us to stop.

They’d love it if we spent all of our money on direct animal
care, and never addressed the causes of large-scale, institutionalized
cruelty and how animals get into a crisis situation to begin with.

As a reminder, we’ve employed this “counterpunch”
strategy once before. When the extremist U.S. Sportsmen’s
Alliance (USSA) worked to nix a $5,000 corporate gift to The HSUS for
our emergency grants to help pets affected by the foreclosure crisis,
we asked you to show the USSA that its activism against The HSUS would
backfire. We tried to raise more than USSA’s campaign cost us –
and we’d apply half of the money for our pet foreclosure fund
and our other efforts to protect pets, and the other half for the
programs that drive the USSA crazy, such as our anti-bear baiting or
anti-canned or captive hunts campaigns. It worked. We raised $170,000,
and sent the group a message that whenever they attack, we’ll
engage in a form of political jujitsu and flip the fundraising
equation on them.

Today, in our new counterpunch campaign, I’ll start with a
personal donation of $1,000. I hope you’ll make a contribution
today and show Rick Berman and the shadowy corporate interests that
line his pockets that any time they attack The HSUS, our supporters
will rise to the occasion to make sure our critical work to protect
animals not only continues, but is enhanced:

When we hit our goal, I’ll notify you and explain how
we’ll spend the money. Also, as we allow from time to time, the
donor who raises the most in this campaign gets naming rights to one
of our animals at the Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch. The winner
can pick, of course. But it’s my fond hope to be greeted by a
wild ass (actually, a donkey, but allow me this embellishment this
time) named “Rick Berman” next time I visit the ranch. It
will be a reminder in the winter of 2010 of the good he finally did
for someone other than himself.

Sincerely,

Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States