Skip to content

Steve Best on Wayne Pacelle, HSUS and the FBI

As promised, today I bring you Steve Best on Wayne Pacelle and HSUS (which is also posted at Critical Animal Studies and at Thomas Paine’s Corner) . . .

Agent Wayne Pacelle, the Hypocrisy Society of the United States, and the Thrill Kill Cult

Steven Best

In August 2005, when HSUS (hereafter think “H$U$”) Executive Vice
President Mike Markarian publicly “applaud[ed]” the FBI for arresting
and imprisoning six amazing activists from Stop Huntingdon Animal
Cruelty (SHAC), my outrage over this self-serving betrayal of activists
and animals alike inspired me to write “The Iron Cage of Bureaucracy,”
a fierce critique of HSUS and its chief executive, Wayne Pacelle.[1] I condemned HSUS for its divisive attacks on animal rights militants,
its bureaucratic rigidity, its cowardly conformism, and its disturbingly
cozy relationships with the animal exploiters they claim to oppose.

a recent fluff piece in the Los Angeles Times that promotes Pacelle as
a consummate animal champion and visionary leader,[2]
I am pained to report that his “humane meat” and “cage-free” egg
campaigns have promoted more, not less, animal suffering and killing;
that HSUS is a collaborationist with, not antagonistic of, various
animal exploitation industries; and that HSUS has developed strong ties
with law enforcement agencies and the FBI not only to go after animal
abusers, but also animal activists, the hard-line militants prepared to
do what it takes to stop the torture and murder of innocents.
Specialists in political repression, the FBI has a long track record of
framing innocent citizens, destroying social justice movements, and
even murdering vocal opponents of the state such as Fred Hampton.[3] They say that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but this is downright surreal.

problems I pointed to in “The Iron Cage of Bureaucracy” have
considerably worsened in the last three years, and it is now glaringly
obvious that HSUS is part of the problem of, not the solution to,
animal exploitation. Pacelle is a “leader” alright, one who is steering
this great movement into a cul-de-sac where it is becoming increasingly
coopted and ineffectual.

Ever more aggressively, HSUS promotes
“humane meat” and “cage free” egg campaigns (marketing its “Certified
Humane Raised & Handled” label to meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy
producers), rather than advancing the cause of vegan education that
Pacelle claims to champion. Symptomatic of its bureaucratic
deformities, HSUS raked in tens of million dollars from the 2005
Katrina disaster, but spent only a few million to help the animal
victims of that hurricane.[4]
In fact, after Katrina, there was a second storm involving the furious
backlash of grassroots activists complaining that HSUS obstructed
animal rescue efforts, then commandeered the lion’s share of credit and
$30 million in donations. Subsequently, many activists and the
Louisiana attorney general called for a criminal investigation into
HSUS fundraising and demanded an explanation why this organization –
like every other bloated bureaucracy, including the “impeccable” Red
Cross – disregarded the clear intent of donors and spent a puny
percentage of a mountain of money on helping victims of a catastrophe.[5]

bureaucratic monoliths like HSUS, a transnational corporation, the
financial priorities lie in paying lavish CEO salaries (Pacelle’s
annual salary tops $300,000), maintaining costly branches and staff
throughout the world, perpetuating fundraising efforts (often absorbing
as much as 53% of HSUS’ budget), funding lobbyists, building bank
accounts, and inflating investment portfolios. What HSUS did in
Louisiana amidst Katrina rescue efforts is what Greenpeace does in
Canada or Japan during Captain Paul Watson’s effective tactics against
the slaughter of whales, dolphins, and seals. They bully their way onto the
scene, exploit the drama for photo opportunities, publish glossy
pictures in their newsletters and websites, exaggerate their heroism
and “victories,” urge their membership to generously fund future
forays, and then laugh all the way to the bank.

In fact, like
many corporate environmental organizations (the so-called “Gang of
Ten”), HSUS not only does not support grassroots groups (few people are
aware that they have no affiliation whatsoever with local “humane
societies” and “animal shelters”), they often impede and attack their
work. Whether the dirty tactics Greenpeace used against Watson and the
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society or the constant opprobrium HSUS has
heaped upon SHAC and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), corporate
bureaucracies seek to dominate their cause, promote their own
interests, and block anyone who threatens their hegemony, viewing them
as competitors rather than allies fighting the same cause.[6]
While grassroots groups and shelters struggle for money, HSUS builds
assets of $223 million and operates with an annual budget in excess of
one hundred million dollars.[7]

2007, Nathan Winograd published a stunning expose entitled,
Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution
in America
­. A trenchant critique of the killing paradigm informing
humane societies and shelters throughout the nation, Winograd also goes
directly after the big game – the ASPCA, PETA, and HSUS — and in each
case documents misuse of funds, cavalier killing of healthy and
adoptable animals, and appalling failures to support the no-kill
shelter movement gaining ground nationally.[8]
In contrast to The Los Angeles Times syrupy tribute piece, Winograd
reviles Pacelle as a traitor to the animals and claims that he is
“condemned by animal lovers from coast to coast.”[9]

Winograd documents, Pacelle is like a dry and detached doctor who tends
to patients mechanically, has “no hand-on fondness for animals” and he
himself confesses that “To this day I don’t feel bonded to any
non-human animal.”[10]
Given that enormous compassion and empathy drive most animal activists,
one has to ask: Why is Pacelle in the animal protection field? Why did
he choose this career? What possible motivations propel him from
day-to-day? If it’s not a love for animals, could it be instead a love
for money, glory, fame, and power? Could it be that his robotic lack of
empathy for animals explains why his organization perfunctorily kills
so many animals and spends more time on constructing paltry
rationalizations rather than building viable alternatives?

PETA, HSUS callously kills countless thousands of healthy and adoptable
cats and dogs rather than dedicating their prodigious resources to
advancing the emerging no-kill revolution. In 2007, for instance, PETA
raised over $30 million, adopted 17 animals, and killed 1,815 cats and
dogs. Unlike HSUS, however, PETA at least opposes breeding, whereas
HSUS provides advice on “How to Find a Good Dog Breeder”![11]
Like any group involved in mass killing, of humans or animals, HSUS
prefers euphemisms to truthful terminology and exists in a perpetual
state of denial and rationalization. Thus, just as HSUS unashamedly
speaks of the by-product of violent slaughterhouse murder as “humane
meat,” so they insist that they “humanely destroy” cats and dogs.

comprehend the extent to which culpable people in bad faith resort to
extreme evasions and ridiculous rationalizations, consider the
Orwellian doublespeak of HSUS functionary Penny Cistaro: “We’re not,
we’re not killing [cats and dogs]… in that “kill” is such a negative
connotation. It’s… we’re not KILLING them. We are taking their life, we
are ending their life, we are giving them a good death, we’re humanely
destr[oying them] — whatever. But we’re NOT KILLING.”[12]

melodrama or hyperbole, I suggest that these words could have been
taken from the playbook of the German Nazis. But I might qualify the
analogy because the propaganda of Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s
Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda from 1933 to
1945, was eminently more sophisticated than Cistaro’s shrill,
guilt-ridden rhetoric.

As true of PETA and other animal welfare
organizations, the underlying assumption behind HSUS’s pro-kill instead
of no-kill policy is that shelters are nasty, overcrowded, filthy
hoarding hell-holes where animals suffer greatly, and so the only
“compassionate” option is to “humanely destroy” countless of forlorn
cats and dogs.

The underlying flaw here is an either/or fallacy:
either we cause animals needless suffering in shelters, or we “humanely
destroy” them. Occluded here is the existence of a genuine third option
– building clean, well-managed no-kill shelters where well-treated
animals are adoptable and adopted. Winograd’s book, Redemption, argues
that no-kill shelters are a pragmatic possibility and a moral necessity.

this and countless other issues, Pacelle – the consummate politician —
talks a good game, but his actions belie his words which seek to
mollify his donation base. According to Winograd, “Pacelle says that No
Kill must be our goal, than [sic] he refuses to sign the U.S. No Kill
Declaration. Wayne Pacelle says that feral cats should live, than [sic]
he promotes a vision of sheltering in the Asilomar Accords [an August
2004 meeting of animal welfare industry leaders to reduce companion
animal euthanasia numbers] which voted down a proposal to mandate TNR
[trap, neuter, and return], claims feral cats are `unhealthy’ and
`untreatable’ and are properly put in the same category as hopelessly
ill or irremediably suffering animals and often share the same

don’t we all remember the HSUS heroics during the Michael Vick
dogfighting scandal in the summer of 2007? How the suave and
unflappable animal champion, Wayne Pacelle, starred on cable news shows
night after night, tirelessly condemning Vick’s barbarity? Pacelle
tugged on the heartstrings of the nation, and the public, never
doubting his sincerity, sent HSUS generous donations along with praise
and gratitude. But the story did not end there. For what did Pacelle
thereafter argue to the courts? That “it does not make sense to keep
these animals alive.”[14]
Like the feral cats he condemns as “untreatable,” Pacelle wanted to
dispatch Vick’s victims without a fingersnap. Fortunately, other
groups – real animal advocates — intervened on behalf of these “kennel
trash” pit bulls demonized as dangerous and unfit for human company,
and adopted them to loving homes, thereby saving dozens of dogs from
the killing clutches of Vick and Pacelle.[15]

paradoxical Pacelle, the “advocate” with antipathy for animals, easily
surpasses Cistaro in his blunt and icy-cold language, as he admits that
HSUS has “no problem with the extinction of domestic animals.”[16]
One might say that they share the same taste for doublespeak, but in
fact the word “extinction” is not a euphemism, it is a frank, brutal,
malevolent discourse of a final solution policy, and as cruel and
heartless as one could possibly speak – one who happens to run the most
powerful and profitable animal “advocacy” organization in the world.
Like PETA, HSUS rakes in millions of dollars in the name of “animal
protection,” as it does nothing for millions of animals who die
annually in nightmarish “shelters” except to lend a killing hand.

me to be brutally frank in speaking directly to Pacelle, Cistaro, and
their army of accomplices: When you needlessly take life; when you
refuse to seriously pursue alternatives to killing; when you condemn
cats and dogs to die with contemptuous complacency; when you lie to the
media, the public, your donors, and to the animals; and when you
bullshit your way through the whole goddamn bloody process of killing
homeless cats and dogs, this is not “humane destruction,” it’s just
murder, pure and simple. And Pacelle, you have the gall to call SHAC
and the ALF violent? Please, have the decency to at least shut your
mouth when others take necessary measures to save animals, and you take
unnecessary steps to kill them.

My analogies between HSUS and
Nazis are not appropriate at all levels, I don’t think Pacelle is a
racist (although you could argue that on his hypocrisy on the Vick
case) or an anti-Semite. And whereas Hitler wanted to exterminate
entire classes of people, Pacelle does not call for the destruction of
cat and dog species; no, in fact, he does his part to support dog
breeding and it is only homeless cats and dogs he wants, for the most
part, to destroy. But anyone who rationalizes mass murder through the
same semantic masks and ploys of Nazis has picked up a malevolent
influence they ought to extirpate. I also think the analogy of “humane
destruction” and the “final solution” is more than appropriate, because
HSUS actually pursues killing as the first solution to dispose of a
“problem population” and the final solution to be rid of “unwanted”
dogs and cats.[17]

hidebound hypocrisy of HSUS now takes me full circle, back to the
beginning of my essay. For when three years ago HSUS seemed content to
merely “applaud” the state for breaking into activists’ homes – armed
and angry men breaking down their doors, stealing and destroying their
possessions, separating them from their human and nonhuman families,
and locking them away in federal prisons for years — now it seems that
HSUS has taken its treachery and complicity one step further, by
actually offering a $2,500 reward, in cooperation with the FBI and
state and local law enforcement officials, to capture the person(s) who
set off firebombs at the homes of two vivisectionists in Santa Cruz,
California in August 2008.

As one bomb exploded when the
researchers and their families were here and someone could have been
injured of killed, these actions were clearly not the work of the ALF,
which adheres to a strict nonviolent policy that targets the property
of animal exploiters but never the exploiters themselves. But in their
zeal toward self-congratulatory moral purity and zest for demonizing
militant activists and tactics, HSUS did not entertain the very real
possibility that the firebombs were actually – recall the case of Fran
Stephanie Trutt, who, in 1988, was set up, encouraged, and entrapped by
the United States Surgical Company to plant a bomb underneath a car in
their parking lot – the handy work of the state. Their clear motivation
would be to damage the credibility of the movement and to justify
unleashing still more repressive laws against the animal advocacy
movement and yet another FBI witch hunt. If this is so, and there is
good reason to believe it is true, then HSUS is nothing but an
accomplice and extension of a repressive police state.[18]

must not, as some have counseled, “tolerate” or “appreciate” the
diversity of the movement in all its diversity and “balance,” operating
like many spokes on a wheel or components of an ecosystem. Rather, the
reformist, welfarist, and (industry and state) collaborationist actions
of HSUS must be ruthlessly criticized, for it is HSUS – not the ALF and
SHAC – which is steering this movement away from substantive and
meaningful goals. And while HSUS sucks up activists, other
organizations, and barrels of cash, it actively collaborates with —
sorry Lee Hall, not to offend your pious Buddhist-pacifist sympathies,
but I have no problem with the word – our enemies: to be precise, our
sworn implacable enemies in the animal exploitation industry with whom
we are engaged in a serious battle because they have waged war against

We must end, as Herbert Marcuse noted, our habituated
practice of “repressive tolerance,” whereby tolerance is no longer a
virtue (as in liberal diversity and multiculturalism) but rather is a
vice. Captive to this mentality, we tolerate what Bush does to the
Constitution, as we stomach what HSUS does to pervert the cause of
animal rights and the ideal of ethical veganism, as it collaborates
with our enemies in the corporate-state complex.[19]

is a tragedy, a nightmare really, that the largest and wealthiest
animal “protection” organization in the world squanders its vast
influence and treasure to only pay lip-service to the crucial need to
build no-kill shelters while it advocates unjustifiable killing of cats
and dogs. As Winograd writes, “HSUS continues to fail miserably in
terms of moving this country away from traditional, reactionary, `adopt
some and kill the rest’ sheltering practices, despite Mr. Pacelle’s
facile claims to the contrary.”[20]
Moreover, rather than providing advice on “How to Find a Good Dog
Breeder,” HSUS should lead a coordinated attack on animal breeding, for
without the decline (and ultimate end) of the practice of breeding,
along with aggressive spay-and-neuter and TNR programs, no-kill
shelters may only lead – as some critics maintain — to animal

Pacelle has as much credibility in his claim to
“save animal lives” as Bush does in his rationale for invading Iraq. It
is a farce that HSUS “applaud[s]” FBI repression of our movement and
condemns those who take effective actions to liberate – not “humanely
destroy” — animals, even if there is a disagreement on tactics. HSUS
also says they oppose “violence” yet have no problem working to promote
“Certified Humane” animal flesh, milk, and eggs.[21]
Again, Pacelle & Co. have no grounds for criticizing the ALF, who
destroy property without injuring lives, whereas HSUS is directly
responsible for the gratuitous killing of countless animals.
has not only failed to advance the national momentum for no-kill
shelters, he has impeded the efforts, and he bears significant
responsibility for the five million cats and dogs that will be killed
in “shelters” this year. As Winograd observes, Pacelle “has no idea how
to lead the humane movement. It is clear he cannot see the future for
himself. At the same time, we need to send a very strong message to Mr.
Pacelle that we can see through his thinly veiled comments, his
insincerity on the issue, his failure to truly challenge the status
quo, to fight for the rights of shelter animals to their very lives,
and to truly reform what has been a long sordid history of draconian
HSUS policies as it relates to dogs and cats in shelters.”[22]

those who believe in the professionally crafted persona of Wayne
Pacelle and the carefully managed public image of HSUS, I encourage
them to read Winograd’s exposes of “The Real Wayne Pacelle,” to examine
his critiques of PETA and the ASPCA as well,[23]
and to ponder the inherent self-serving, money-making, propaganda
producing nature of any bureaucratic organization, whether the Red
Cross, Greenpeace, or HSUS.[24]

is an animal killer, a traitor to animals and activists alike, a wolf
in sheep’s clothing, a tool for the state and corporate front groups
like the Center for Consumer Freedom, and an accomplice (witting or
unwitting) of repressive law enforcement agencies and the paralegal
thugs known as the FBI. While I have serious problems with PETA, I
appreciate Ingrid Newkirk for her undying support of the ALF and for
funding the legal counsel of numerous animal rights activists. For
those like Gary Francione who throw HSUS and PETA into the same boiling
pot of damnation, the difference here could be not clearer: PETA
supports animal rights political prisoners, while HSUS seeks to create
more of them, and Pacelle would probably be delighted –as would
peaceniks like Francione and Hall — if the FBI rounded up every
SHACtivist and ALF member and locked them away in Guantanamo Bay
forever. Whereas PETA criticizes the corporate-states use of
“terrorism” discourse for the biased and repressive framework that it
is, HSUS uncritically and pompously employs it toward the same ends of
the Bush administration and state – to demonize those individuals and
groups it doesn’t like. But both HSUS and PETA, as well as countless
other animal organizations, need to get out of the 17th century
paradigm and enter the 21st century world moving toward the realization
of no-kill shelters.

There are things about Winograd also that
invite skepticism, such as granting an interview with the Center for
Consumer Freedom, sworn enemies of the vegan and animal rights
His claim that “pet overpopulation” is a “myth” seems exaggerated and
based on dubious assumptions that shelters can take in an unlimited
amount of animals and every home in the country will adopt a cat or
dog. While specifics in his proposals may be problematic, his vision is
laudable and far ahead of the “leaders” of the animal advocacy
movement. Winograd has emerged as a positive catalyst for a national
no-kill shelter movement, whereas Pacelle remains an obstacle in the
path of this and many other progressive changes for animals. I am
not uncritical of Winograd, nor is my critique of Pacelle and HSUS
unqualified. Among other accomplishments, HSUS ballot-initiatives to
ban cockfighting in the holdout states such as New Mexico (won in March
2007) and Louisiana (won in August 2008) were successful (such that
cockfighting is now banned throughout the entire nation) and a May 2008
undercover expose of the Hallmark/Westland slaughterhouse in Chino,
California brought national attention to the dire plight of animals in
slaughterhouses and led to the largest meat recall in US history.

argument is not that HSUS is an unqualifiedly regressive force, but
rather that it mostly squanders its prodigious resources, that its
“certified” “humane meat” and “cage-free” eggs campaigns promote more
not less suffering and killing of animals (as “guilty carnivores” jump
off their vegetarian wagons in droves and run en masse to their local
steak joints and diners), and that on the whole it does more harm than
good. Just as HSUS works with meat and egg industries at the expense of
animals, so they cooperate with law enforcement agencies and the FBI to
the detriment of fellow activists.

I was inspired to write this
article because I saw no outrage or criticism of HSUS’s ambitions to
help catch underground activists such as the courageous warriors in the
ALF who have saved countless animals, shut down numerous exploiters,
and obtained invaluable evidence of systemic cruelty in laboratories
and other demonic dungeons. And while few animal advocates support
bombing vivisectionists, we all ought to be smart enough to identify a
potential state frame-up rather than an actual underground action. But
HSUS exploited the bombings for their own purposes, as part of their
endless efforts to convince the animal exploitation industries, cops,
FBI, and public alike that they are good, pure, and unalloyed moral
forces, unlike those with bricks and bullhorns who corrupt the movement’s
gilded goals and norms. In fact the problem lies with Pacelle and HSUS
— deeply mired in the muck of bureaucratic corruption, corrupt and
compromised to the point of complete crisis.

I’m alarmed,
moreover, that few people (1) are sufficiently aware of the history,
modus operandi, and true goals of the FBI, which is to suppress dissent
at home, as the CIA performs the same dirty work abroad; and (2) are
concerned about the consequences of the largest “animal advocacy” group
in the world developing close ties with the repressive state apparatus,
such that it could become an extension of the FBI or a friendly home to
police informants. Let us not forget that the FBI elevated the ALF
(along with the ELF) to the “number one domestic terrorist threat” in
the country and that they fully intend to stop not only the ALF, but
also the animal advocacy movement as a whole.

When an individual
cooperates with the cops or the FBI, he or she is denounced as a
“fink,” “informant,” “rat,” or “mole,” and is ostracized or perhaps
worse. But what do we call it when an organization develops ties with
corrupt cops and the FBI and offers cash rewards for the capture of an
underground warrior? One term is “collaborationist,” and it is
important to recognize that HSUS is not only in bed with many animal
exploiters, they are also in league with the repressive state
apparatus. In their slick, reformist, compromising campaigns, Pacelle
has betrayed animals and animal activists alike, as HSUS prefers to
develop closer ties with exploiters and cops than grassroots advocates
and anti-speciesists.[26]

encourage people to send HSUS a polemic not a check, and to donate
their hard-earned money not to robotic raconteurs but rather to ardent
activists who fight on the front lines of the emerging war over nature
with substantial results. I’m talking, for instance, about small groups
such as the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society; amazing activists like
Anthony Marr or Gary Yourofsky, who foment revolutionary change on a
shoestring budget; and stellar local animal rescue groups.[27]
People should research, explore, and support the best no-kill shelters
they can find rather than fuel hypocritical killing machines and
bureaucratic behemoths. Every dollar given to HSUS is a dollar that
could have saved, not ended, the life of a cat or dog; that could have
promoted veganism, not “humane meat”; and that could have supported,
not undermined, our civil liberties which the state and FBI seek to

As stated above, Wayne Pacelle was quick to step up
and help feed a media frenzy calling for the demonization of Michael
Vick and the rise of an overt and pervasive form of animal cruelty for
which Vick became the poster child. Lost in this rightful attack on dog
fighters and the like, however, is that Pacelle is no saint outing
sinners. A preeminent member of DC-insider lobby culture, he was quick
to learn self-serving, profit-making, power-play politics, as he
perfected the art of sound bites and media charm. But let us not be
fooled. This cunning cum-laude graduate of the Machiavellian school of
politics will throw potential allies — and certainly movement
competitors and opponents like Rod Coronado and Kevin Jonas — under
the bus if it can earn him a penny of financial or moral capital.

is a one-dimensional bureaucrat, a CEO and President of a huge global
conglomeration that serves animals in name but pursues money and power
in reality. He preaches nonviolence as he pulls the switch on thousands
of cats and dogs; he praises democracy and rights as he bankrolls
witch hunts that ally him with the most repressive state apparatus in
US history.

I’ve seen great activists hired and co-opted by Pacelle,
and witnessed their sad transformation from vibrant, iconoclastic,
edgy, risk-takers into defanged, muzzled, and collared bureaucrats,
party-line ideologues, corporate-yes men and women, and zombified
conformists. They morph from critical thinkers into True Believers who
think we can win animal liberation (in whatever bastardized form they
conceive it) through welfare policies, reforms, collaboration with
industries, and turning against the radical elements of their own
movement — the important role of which they have absolutely no

However, billions of enslaved animals don’t give
a damn about Zogby polls, FOX News commentaries, or tactics that might
alienate the masses. They don’t want bigger cages, better euthanasia,
or “humane” labels attached to their dismembered bodies. The animals
want freedom. If they could speak our language, they would
unquestionably applaud the ALF and condemn the corporate entities that
seek to continue the oppression though misguided thinking and
opportunistic policies.


[1] Steven Best, “The Iron Cage of Movement Bureaucracy” at:
[2] “Wayne Pacelle works for the winged, finned and furry” Los Angeles Times, July 19, 2008, online at:,0,4840426.story.
[3] It is important that activists have knowledge of the history, goals,
modus operandi, and real nature of the FBI, rather than the “good-guy”
cartoon portraits one finds on TV series and the media generally. For
excellent books exposing the FBI as the US version of the KBG, see Ward
Churchill and Jim Vander Wall, The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from
the FBI’s Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States. Boston,
South End Press, 2001; Brian Glick, War at Home: Covert action against
U.S. activists and what we can do about it. Boston, South End Press,
1999; and Nelson Blackstock, Cointelpro: The FBI’s Secret War on
Political Freedom. New York: Pathfinder Press, 1988.
[4] See Nathan Winograd, “The Real Wayne Pacelle Legacy,” at:
[5] “Red Cross, Humane Society Under Investigation,” March 26, 2006, The Washington Post, at:
See this article for Pacelle’s defense of HSUS actions for
Katrina-victim animals and his claim to responsible use of donation
[6] On the contemptible approach Gang of Ten organization have taken toward
environmental grassroots groups, see Mark Dowie, Losing Ground:
American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1995. There are incredibly
important lessons here for serious animal activists if they wish to
avoid the same problems that led to the cooptation and defeat of the US
environmental movement, such as already threaten the animal advocacy
movement in this country and others.
[7] See the “Charitable Solicitations Program Charity Profile Report” of HSUS, at:
[8] According to his biography, Winograd “is the Director of the national
No Kill Advocacy Center. He is a graduate of Stanford Law School, a
former criminal prosecutor and attorney, was director of operations for
the San Francisco SPCA and executive director of the Tompkins County
SPCA, two of the most successful shelters in the nation”
[9] Winograd, at:
[10] Pacelle cited at:
[11] For their enlightening recommendation, see:
[12] Cited at:
[13] Winograd, at:
[14] See “Government Makes a Case, and Holds Dogs as Evidence,” August 1, 2007, The New York Times at:; “HSUS & Wayne Pacelle -Vick’s Dogs Must Die,” August 22, 2007, Dog Politics, at:; and “The Fate of Michael Vick’s Dogs,” August 23, 2007, at: As these websites document, HSUS and PETA share the same killing sentiments.
[15] See for instance the superb work of Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls (BAD RAP), at: The contrast between the compassionate outlook of BAD RAP and the cold attitudes of HSUS and PETA is dramatic.
[16] Pacelle cited in Animal People, May 1993.
[17] For a detailed argument that the post-Mandela South African government never addressed – they only worsened – the problem of ”species apartheid” and use Nazi-like, eugenic, and eco-fascist arguments that elephants “need” to be culled allegedly to protect biodiversity , see
Steven Best, “The Killing Fields of South Africa: Eco-Wars, Species Apartheid, and Total Liberation,” at
[18] On the August bombing of a vivisector’s house in Santa Cruz see:,0,519903.story.
On HSUS’s treacherous betrayal of activists and animals by offering a
$2,500 reward and thereby cooperating with law enforcement agencies
that protect animal exploiters and persecute liberationists, see
On some credible evidence that the recent Santa Cruz bombing may indeed
have been a plant by animal exploiters and/or the feds to delegitimate
the movement and authorize a new series of witch hunts on activists;
see Rick Bogle’s blog, at:
[19] See Herbert Marcuse, “On Repressive Tolerance, at:
This brilliant essay published in 1965, in the ferment of the new
social movements and counter-culture, is more relevant today than ever
today, both for general social conditions and for continuing social and
ecological crisis, and the dilution, perversion, and cooptation of
animal rights/liberation goals.
[21] See
[23] See, and
[24] Again, on the logic, needs, and operations of bureaucratic organizations, see my essay, “The Iron Cage of Bureaucracy,” at:
[25] Winograd’s interview with CCF, “The Book HSUS and PETA Don’t Want You to Read,” is online at:
The most detailed critical response to Winograd I could find was PETA’s
polemic, “Nathan Winograd’s Redemption: `No-Kill’ or No Clue?” online
[26] To be sure, HSUS offers (and often gives out) $5,000 rewards for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone involved in activities such as cockfighting or dogfighting, which is a positive use
of their largess (see “HSUS Rewards,” at;
it is just unfortunate they try also offer rewards for potential frame-ups. Unlike peaceniks like Erik Marcus who praised HSUS’s actions and rigidly adhere to clichés such as “violence only breeds violence,” some in the animal exploitation industry saw through HSUS’s transparent motives and the disparity between their grave moral tone and laughably diminutive reward fee. On these opposing views, see Paul Davis, “The Misunderstood Vegan,” August 13, 2008,, at:
[27] To contact and support these amazing activists, and get the biggest bang for your buck, see: Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, at:; Anthony Marr’s Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE) at:; and Gary Yourofsky’s Animals Deserve Protection Today and Tomorrow (ADAPTT), at:

22 Comments Post a comment
  1. Roger #

    Given what you say in your subsequent piece, Mary, I did actually go to bed thinking about this “thought provoker” of a rant. We are getting lots of media coverage in Ireland of the US Dem convention – the Irish take as much notice if not more of the elections in the United Steaks of America as they do of those in the “UK”. So appropriately enough, I thought I might “flip-flop” over the Best piece.

    There is a lot to agree with, of course, and Bob Torres covers similar grounds in his Making a Killing when it comes to animal advocates being industry consultants.

    I suppose the term ‘peacenik’ is to be taken negatively, although by some of the definitions I saw when I rechecked a few minutes ago, I’d say Francione would agree that he is one. A related point is that I guess we all think that a peaceful world would be good. Now the hard bit: how to get one. Best goes for the notion of going to war for peace which many people assume just leads to more war. ‘Be the change…’ is the answer to that. However, with the boot on the other foot, I was directed to a TV programme just last night on a national channel in Ireland. It was about men (mainly) who go dog fighting and engage in bare knuckle fighting. Given the attitudes expressed – and excuse the elitism, the educational attainment levels on show – I’m not sure how far the notion of “vegan education” is gonna play with such violent people.

    Since Steve Best talks a lot about animal rights, I was interesting in this section of his rant: ‘Ironically, as Winograd documents, Pacelle — like a dry and detached doctor who tends to patients mechanically — has “no hand-on fondness for animals” and Pacelle himself confesses that “To this day I don't feel bonded to any non-human animal.”[10] Given that enormous compassion and empathy drive most animal activists, one has to ask: Why is Pacelle in the animal protection field? Why did he choose this career? What possible motivations propel him from day-to-day? If it’s not a love for animals, could it be instead a love for money, glory, fame, and power? Could it be that his robotic lack of empathy for animals explains why his organization perfunctorily kills so many animals and spends more time on constructing paltry rationalizations rather than building viable alternatives?’

    What about, if not love, some commitment to principles of justice? Haven’t we all recognised that ‘loving’ and ‘respecting the rights of’… are not the same? I’m not suggesting that Pacelle feels either thing but it is interesting that Best ignores those possibilities to explain someone not driven by emotion. Most people seem to think a mix is the best – emotion and rationality – that’s what Regan and Francione argue.

    I liked the Marcuse bit – his work was used to attack Lee Hall. I’ll be teaching a little Marcuse in a few weeks. I’d also recommend his An Essay on Liberation from 1969, and it is challenging in the sense that Best means here.

    Do we think that the HSUS are ‘perverting the cause of animal rights’. You see, and sometimes I feel I have some issue with abolitionism here, I don’t think animal welfarists can do that unless that are mistaken for animal rights. I think it is the animal rights countermovement(s) that call HSUS ‘animal rights’ rather than the HSUS itself. P-TA is much worse because they seem to actively and deliberately set out to redefine ‘animal rights’ to the extent that it has no connection to animal rights theory.

    Back to Francione. It was a cheap shot given that the rant is littered with “Like PETA, the HSUS…” Suddenly Best is talking about Francione throwing the HSUS and P-TA “into the same boiling pot”. True, Francione does do this – just like Steve Best does.

    Best says that the HSUS is a ‘regressive’ force – that just means it is an animal welfare group as far as I can see.


    August 26, 2008
  2. Lyda #

    Mary, I did read this but needed a lot of time to think it over.

    I think what stands out to me first of all is the parts about killing animals needlessly in a movement that argues for compassion.

    Maybe this is what is rubbing me the wrong way about so many "big groups." If they say to everyone out there "shame on you, you should not kill animals" but they turn around and kill animals and say "we have to do this, don't worry, we're experts." Then of course all the vivisectors and cattle ranchers say "we're experts too and we HAVE to do this. It's necessary."

    Same thing for HSUS to conduct an investigation that maybe some say it was not legal to put cameras where they did or they got access by lying. So they say "we had to do this, even if it wasn't completely legal." But if another activist does something illegal they will condemn it and say nobody should break the law in the animal movement. I am not talking about anything violent though, to me that is another issue, but the activists locked up for running a website and HSUS thinks that is just fine.

    So they will also say if we criticize we are being devisive or infighting, but if they criticize other activists that is ok. They are the experts, they get to condemn others and criticize if they want to.

    I am bothered by the comparisons to Nazis. I do understand how many animals are dying, and that is very serious. However I'm not sure many people understand references to Nazis and maybe they stop reading then. Maybe Best should have left that out.

    Roger is wondering why HSUS keeps getting lumped in with "Animal Rights" and I think Best does address this when he speaks of HSUS pursuing and hiring activists who have been very outspoken, creative, even radical. They were well known in animal rights and the names still carry some weight. Before you heard all the time about them publishing something really thought provoking or organizing a really creative action. Then suddenly you only hear about them signing polished double-speak letters on HSUS letterhead. They make news for their salaries, not for organizing a protest. And they still get awards and speaking opportunities and all this time they do more to promote giving money to HSUS than to help animals. They had energy and talents and are those are harnessed to work for the betterment of the corporation, not to help animals. But the names are still seen as meaning "animal rights." That's where the water gets really muddy.

    August 26, 2008
  3. Dan #

    Regarding activists who are in prison, I fully support their release because they are victims of unjust laws which serve to protect violence and tyranny against animals. That said, I don’t think serious property damage, etc. is effective at this time in history for changing society’s moral paradigm regarding animals and I therefore do not support acts or threats of property damage, etc. (I would support it if I thought it was effective at shifting society’s moral compass; I don’t have a problem with such acts in principle given the severity of animal exploitation in our society). It would be wonderful if Kevin Jonas was “doing vegan education” right now instead of “doing time.”

    The only other thing I have to say is that the single-issue organization Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, at over $2 million in revenues in 2006, may be “small” in relation to mammoths like HSUS and PETA, but it is huge compared to abolitionist groups like Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary.

    Further, while Sea Shepherd goes out on wild-ass single-issue campaigns at sea costing over a million dollars per year which do nothing to promote vegan living or abolition, Peaceful Prairie is using its comparatively tiny resources to do the most effective work we can be doing now: vegan education.

    Until groups and individuals get away from single-issue bullshit and start doing much more vegan education, WE WILL GO ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE.

    August 27, 2008
  4. bunny #

    Did General Best miss out on playing army when he was a kid? Or did his teenage years fly by so fast that he is only now getting around to dealing with rebellious angst and self identity?

    After reading numerous articles from his website, and watching the videos from his Myspace profile (!ha ha!), I have one question to ask…

    In the current political climate, does General Best *really* think that those Americans who are sufficiently intelligent and open-minded enough to understand and be open to becoming vegan are really interested in hearing about WAR?! I think anyone with enough sense of what is going on in the world has had ENOUGH of war. They want OUT of war…any kind of war. People are crying for peace. Which, in my mind, is the whole underlying principle of veganism. Peace…

    But, you know, screw Gandhi…he was apparently an idiot with nothing of value to say. Never made a dent, that guy. Better to wear ominous dark masks and duck and cover in the night like super vegan spidey ninjas. (There's a comic book in there somewhere!)

    As an aside, even significant current socio-political movements that are offering alternative ways to capitalism (and the social injustices inherent in this system) seem to be intelligent, realistic, and mature enough to know that brute force is not going to change the system…

    August 29, 2008
  5. Best's criticism was very thorough and interesting. I'm sure it's valid. However, the suggestion that someone must love animals in order to work as their advocate doesn't sit well with me. I think it's quite possible for someone to have "no fondness for animals" and still be an honest and effective advocate for them. Unlikely, perhaps. But definitely possible. And indeed, this detachment is sort of a goal of abolition. As my sister says, "There's nothing wrong with not having a pet. There's something very wrong with abandoning or killing a pet."

    My dog has made me a better person and a better animal advocate. I am incredibly fond of him. But it's not my fondness of him that's helped me change; it's his dependency on me. Knowing that he relies on me for so much – food, water, attention, mental stimulation, safety, hygiene, comfort, etc. – made me realize how much animals, particularly those bred for human use, need humans as guardians and as advocates. Knowing that he wants to please so much that he'll act in ways that don't represent his own interest made/makes me get honest with myself and try to separate what I want from what's best for him. That's made me a better person and a better animal advocate. The knowledge, more than the love, of Floyd deepened my commitment to veganism and animal advocacy. Though I love him more than I can describe, it's not the love that makes and keeps me in the AR movement.

    August 30, 2008
  6. davedrum #

    After also looking at General Best's myspace page full of hate filled propaganda, I thought I'd add my own views on what I read and saw on there. I feel a bit saddened by the thought of the "impressionable youth" that have already found and will find their way to his words and the "solutions" he offers. His misguided words may one day ruin the life/lives of one or many that could have been put onto a better path. His advocating violence will most likely lead some to follow the WRONG leader. You could see by the comments there that there are already some that are taking his bait and following the macho bullshit he advocates. I hate to even think of someone that is learning about AR for the first time coming across his faulty and dangerous philosophies. These are impressionable youth and young adults that stand to lose their own freedoms and foul up their lives to fight that "War" he so wants to wage.

    Did anyone see the video on his myspace page where he shows a group of kids/college students going into World Com with bullhorns and taking action against innocent victims? He praises SHAC for going after companies that really have nothing to do with animal testing. What was their crime? They provided internet and communication services to Huntingdon Life Sciences. Of COURSE I do not approve in any way…even slightly the business that HLS was providing. Yet going after World Com?! Why not target the sneaker manufacturer of one of their employees because they jog to work? How about going after the auto manufacturer that one of the upper management drives? Hey…while they're at it…how about the postal service or Fed Ex for delivering their mail? These are truly INNOCENT victims. He advocates the use of terror to try to get people to submit to his own beliefs. How is that different than the Taliban attacking the innocent victims on 9/11? What did those people have to do with the US Governments involvement in crap around the world?

    Violence is never the answer. History is kind to those that try or strive to bring about "change" through peaceful methods. Look at Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. Mother Theresa. History is never favorable when it looks back at the lives of those that advocated violence, called for and started wars, committed preemptive strikes" upon others. What General Bush (errrr…I mean Best) is calling for is no different in my eyes that what all other failed leaders have done… spoke of creating "PEACE" through violence.

    I love how he says that SHAC is NOT violent towards other "beings"…that they only cause property damage (on his MS page).

    Here are some "FACTS" on the violence they have committed to other living "beings" by SHAC:

    "Brian Cass was getting out of his car at his home in England on a clear night in February 2001, when he was surrounded by three masked men wielding heavy, wooden objects. Some news reports describe them as baseball bats, others as pickaxe handles. Whatever their weapons, they started to beat the 53-year-old Cass on the head and body without any warning. In a few short moments, his hair and jacket were soaked through with blood.
    A neighbor tried to intervene and help him, but was immobilized by a spray of CS gas, in the face, by one of Cass’s attackers. Months later, when the lead attacker was arrested and sentenced to three years in prison, Cass’ marketing director Andrew Gay was attacked on his doorstep with a chemical spray to his eyes, leaving him temporarily blinded and writhing in pain in front of his wife and young daughter."

    "British thirty-somethings Paul and Heather Saunders were entertaining friends one autumn night in 2000 when they heard two loud crashes from the direction of their front patio. They ran toward the noise to find that two large chunks of dried cement had been thrown through their plate-glass patio doors. The two vandals they saw running away paused for a moment, to pour paint stripper all over their guests’ car.

    Nearly five months later, a strange package was delivered to the house, addressed to Heather. The bomb squad in their town found enough explosives inside to kill anyone who might have dared to open it."

    These are instances that were done by SHAC… that in one case DID hurt an individual, in another case…clearly some could have been killed or severely injured.

    To think that this "excuse of a man" is onto something "good" for the animals is scary indeed. Many of us were lead here by a rage within our own hearts as we learned more and more about the abuses of all things living. I do understand the pain and the rage we all sometimes feel for this world we live upon and those that don't "get it" yet. I know that finding "peace" within myself by becoming vegan was a step in the right direction. Yet I as well…still know that the constant blaming of the failed practices of Welfarist groups is not winning anyone over either. Those that yell the loudest (the abolitionists) yet put no solutions on the table are not winning any hearts or minds. They are so close…yet so far away… WHY? Because they'll never spread their "GOOD" message by the constant drum beat of blame, blame, blame. Nobody needs to hear theories over and over and over about what all the "others" are doing wrong. What they need to hear…is HOW TO DO IT RIGHT!


    August 30, 2008
  7. bunny #

    After reading Davedrum's post, I've had a change of heart!

    I want to become a soldier of General Best's army! Where do I sign up?! Is there a recruiting office downtown? Will I have to attend boot camp before I can see action on the front lines? ("Drop down and give me FIFTY! You lousy welfarist son of a bitch! I'll have you hauling a hundred gestation cages before I'm done with you, Nayonaise!")

    Will they provide me with the necessary weapons and munitions to carry out my missions? (You know, the standard armament for war…crow bars, bic lighters, lock picks, spray paint, bats, rocks, bricks, flashlights…oh, and let's not forget dried cement.)

    I have a ski mask…does that give me a head start? It's pink and lined with fake fur. Is that acceptable?

    If this militia insists on calling itself ALF though, I really feel the ALFists should wear REAL Alf masks in honor of their leader…

    I'm ready and willing to become a super vegan spidey ninja! I want to be a hero and "free" mink that will be replaced inevitably with more mink — that way, the cycle of war will never end! What fun! Just like the war for oil!

    Anyway, it's really General Best's compassion and empathy for children that really won me over. As is demonstrated in his following quote (taken from an article posted on his web site ):

    "The critique of SHAC’s home demonstration tactic as illegitimate because it is potentially harmful to children misses the mark. It is not SHAC’s intention to cause any psychological trauma to children, but if SHAC is engaged in a just war, this trauma can be viewed as unfortunate but unavoidable. SHAC critics favor human interests over animal interests in a speciesist way. The harm children might suffer from a home demo is inconsequential compared to what animals suffer in HLS labs and can be assuaged through conversation. SHAC critics privilege the relative comfort of bourgeois children over the absolute misery of animals, psychological discomfort over physical agony, and potential harm over certain suffering and death. If one used a utilitarian calculus in this “your child or your dog?” situation, surely the scale would tip heavily toward the animals."

    children = acceptable and unavoidable collateral damage

    I ain't no speciestistististist. To hell with bourgeois children. They are almost as bad as those dang Iraqis who somehow always manage to annoyingly get in the way of U.S. "precision" bombs! It's almost like they *want* to become collateral damage. Sheesh. It's just plain frustratin'. Don't they know to get out of the way?!

    Can I man a humvee if I join?

    August 31, 2008
  8. davedrum #

    I think it's a great idea that you're deciding to join up to stand along side with these other brave men and women (many of whom are not even old enough to buy beer) and play "follow the leader" with them. A better leader one could not find.

    One thing I was thinking was that the General needs his own uniform. The one you picked was great because we all get to hide our faces like true warriors.

    When the General is making speeches and wants to show himself I think this would be a good one (it's a very vegan uniform):

    and for the very rare times when he decides to join us into battle he'll need something a bit different to show what a macho man he be:

    (this way he can hide his face just like all of true heroes in this "War OF Terror!"…. I mean to say: this "War ON Terror" (sorry I think I stole that from the Borat Movie)….

    As far as driving the Humvee goes, of course you can. Just remember when we run out of gas (which will be inevitable because we'll be very broke after outfitting everyone with their uniforms)… we'll have to get out and push the Humvee. We'll first we can get those damn little bourgeois children to push…when they are ready to drop dead… we'll have to make the best of it.

    This is such a great idea. I wonder where he'll be stationing us first. I know that since his cause is broke, I'll have to set aside a large stash of cash for bail money. I'm not sure how fast I can run in an ALF costume. 😉

    August 31, 2008
  9. I find this tasteless and embarrassing.

    Bunny, you've ridiculed abolitionists for "blasting" welfarists for "extremely harsh language and accusatory," (8/19/08) and said you didn't learn anything from my legitimate criticism of the words versus the actions of others (8/1/08).

    This is very telling.

    And Dave, seriously, must you too participate?

    Everyone: I post on Steve Best because I think he makes connections many people don't make and has tirelessly attempted to educate his students and his readers all over the world about the history of social justice movements. I've read a lot of his material and he doesn't advocate violence except as a last resort, and yes, he does think this is a war.

    How is this NOT a war? Okay, that's another post in itself.

    I'm shocked that my blog has taken this turn with all the ad hominem attacks and disrespect of someone who has spent most of his life working for animals, and suffered tremendously personally and professionally because of his work. You disagree with his support of direct action and with his acceptance of the possibility of and effects of violence, and that's fine. Disagree with him all day long. But just say that and say why, like a grown up.

    I'm trying to address a controversial topic and a controversial person (who is non-dogmatic, which is rare) and my intention is simply to get people out of their comfort zones, if only for a moment, and have a serious conversation.

    I feel mighty morally superior and perfectly consistent and non-hypocritical when I say that I would never accept anything but complete nonviolence as the answer. But I cannot ignore how this country was founded, how slaves were emancipated, and how women got the right to vote.

    Why not respect my intention of serious discourse by addressing the topic in a way similar to how it was posed? Forget about Steve Best. This is disrespectful to ME.

    August 31, 2008
  10. davedrum #

    I DO in fact believe that I addressed this post yesterday with all intentions of being open and honest. The points I brought up with regards to his myspace page and the "danger" I truly believe that he poses to others is something I feel passionate and strongly about. His way…the way he wants to conduct this "war" is dangerous to those that are the targets and those that end up stupidly and blindly involved. Yes there are animals being harmed in horrible ways every single day. The way he wants to go about and bring "change" to this is by encouraging MORE violence and terror. I know in ALL that I personally stand for and believe, that he is wrong. I'll never subscribe to his beliefs, I will always feel I am the better man for doing things the way I do. it's just sad that he's corrupting minds, not teaching them. You don't end violence, cruelty, and horror, by creating your own violence, cruelty, and horror. I'll always be a loud and vocal opponent of both he, and ALL like him that resort to the draconian tactics he advocates to bring "peace"… as I said yesterday… his way of creating "peace" and harmony parallels those of another faulty leader…Bubble Boy Bush and the "change" he has brought to the Iraqi people and the middle east in general…

    August 31, 2008
  11. Dan #

    Thank you for that comment, Mary.

    I don't agree with everything Steve Best says or promotes, but I have a lot of respect for him as an activist and a philosopher. He dares to say some very unpopular things which would be greatly admired in a non-speciesist culture and takes personal and professional risks most people are far too timid to take. My hat is off to Steve Best, despite some disagreements with his work in the direction that I think ARAs should take at this time in history.

    August 31, 2008
  12. Joe #

    Steve Best is a thinker in a movement of followers. He's developed his own style and philosophy by blending the thoughts, actions and theories of other original thinkers and then building a body of work that is based on the objective observance of real history, not the fantastic romanticized history of those who believe only in one tactic over another.

    Let's face it – you can't build a house with only a hammer. You need plans, hardware, and every tool in your toolbox if it's going to last. Those who believe that MLK would have been as effective as he was without Malcolm X or the Black Panthers, and those who believe that Gandhi accomplished all he did without violent revolutionary activity behind him (though not endorsed by him) are not students of objective reality. Even Gandhi said that violence was preferable to inaction or capitulation to the enemy.

    As for the "what will become of the youth" argument, that's one that always makes me laugh. The youth can make up their own minds far better than we give them credit for. Let them digest the information from all sides and decide for themselves.

    Unfortunately, you don't have to think to be involved in the animal advocacy movement in any way. If a coherent and cogent thought process was required for "membership," HSUS and PeTA would have a lot fewer followers. But just maybe the animals would be better off for it. There would be more thinkers and do-ers, and fewer people whose most profound thoughts are "yeah – whatever X organization says, I support."

    Sure, non-violence is preferable to violence in every case. You'll get no argument from me over that one. But if you're going to teach a class of American students, you can't give them text books written in Mandarin and expect them to understand a word you're trying to teach them. Slaughterhouse operators, fur farmers, vivisectors, etc. operate from a world of obscene violence as a routine way to do business. They are the most extreme terrorists to ever poison the earth with their putrid existence. To expect them to understand anything but their own language is naive.

    September 2, 2008
  13. Mary – Just delurking to thank you for posting this. I was horrified when I read about HSUS's "bounty" on Green is the Red. The larger enviro and animal advocacy groups have never sat well with me – seems like they spend the bulk of their donations raising more donations, and the HSUS's conduct in the wake of Katrina really drove that point home. Though I'll keep up on the HSUS's campaigns and make use of PETA's fliers and such, all my donations go to the smaller, grassroots groups.

    Though I agree with most of what Steve Best wrote, I'm with Elaine – you don't necessary have to be an "animal person" to believe that they have inherent rights or should be treated with compassion. As a childfree woman, I'm not especially crazy about babies, but that doesn't mean I won't speak up when I think children's rights are being usurped by our government, or a child is mistreated by her caregiver. That sort of logic – that only "animal lovers" care about animal rights – feeds into the stereotype of the sentimental, hysterical, overemotional (female) animal activist.

    September 4, 2008
  14. The HSUS True Nature #

    You are correct! You are well informed and not alone! Wayne Pacelle is well known to only care about his future political career and not about the animals we care so much about. The Humane Society of the United States and Wayne Pacelle has been relentlessly fooling donators for years with his false prophet persona. It is truly a crime that HSUS and Wayne Pacelle can lead such a sinful campaign to destroy, not save, these precious animals. Less than four percent of HSUS donations ever make it to the homeless animals. Shame on Wayne Pacelle and the HSUS! You are not fooling us anymore!

    April 10, 2009
  15. Revoke HSUS Tax Exempt Status #

    Wayne Pacelle is nothing more than a modern day Adolf Hitler. He imposes his believes on Americans with such aggression and by any means necessary tactics one should be afraid of this man and the Humane Society of the United States. Their vegan America and domestic pet extinction agenda goes unquestioned by the US government. Is this what America has become? Letting a madman dictate to America what is right and wrong? All under a federal tax exempt status?

    As animal loving Americans we can change this. Please visit,,id=139029,00.html and request the IRS revoke HSUS tax exempt status immediately. No terrorist group should be allowed to enjoy tax exempt status as they attempt to destroy America.

    May 12, 2009
  16. "Wayne Pacelle is nothing more than a modern day Adolf Hitler."

    Godwin's Law!'s_law

    May 12, 2009

    Please read this, it is important to get the truth out about the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) and Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Their agenda is not to help shelter dogs and cats, but to line their pockets with the donations from the general public (they are worth over $200 million). They are rich and powerful which allows them to further their agenda of eliminating our rights to own a personal pet. HSUS does not fund or operate any Humane Societies!

    HSUS ideology is to end all animal use. Researcher and author Daniel T. Oliver writes: "the animal rights movement will continue to harm both people and animals as long as American fail to understand its actual agenda". To understand their agenda more read what the CEO and others are saying…
    Wayne Pacelle, HSUS CEO, said "One Generation and Out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of Human Selective Breeding".
    Wayne Pacelle, said when speaking on animal rights, "It's really about human behavior and less about the animals. Animals for the most part just need to be left alone."
    Paul Shapiro, senior director of HSUS said, "nothing is more important than promoting veganism."
    Wayne Pacelle has also said "We want Americans to eat fewer animals", "If we believe in evolution, then we believe that humans come from other animals and the differences between us and them are differences of degree and not kind." and "The entire animal rights movement in the United States reacted with unfettered glee at the Ban in England…We view this act of parliament as one of the most important actions in the history of the animal rights movement. This will energize our efforts to stop hunting with hounds."
    Michael Markarian, Executive VP of HSUS says "…your everyday meat-eaters and cosmetics users: they are not vivisectors, they are not slaughterhouse operators, and they have basic feelings of compassion. But they are accustomed to eating, wearing and using animal products, and they need to be convinced to give them up. They can be won over-slowly but surely they are being won over-…".
    HSUS is relentless in its efforts to introduce "puppy mill" legislation to regulate dog breeders. The name alone generates sympathy from the uninitiated. The bill is presented as if abusive situations are the norm rather that the exception thereby rationalizing the need for government to step in and set standards for breeding, care, housing, allowable numbers and sales for the entire dog breeding community, eventually regulating breeders out of existence.

    Many activist groups such as PETA, HSUS and Farm Sanctuary have used falsehoods and scare tactics to push their hidden agendas of fundraising and systematically abolishing all us of animals including production agriculture, zoos, circuses and sporting events. These groups campaign for animal "rights," which is not synonymous with animal welfare, using half-truths or complete deception. — Testimony of former Congressman Charles W. Stenholm to the House Committee of Agriculture, Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, May 8, 2007.

    The dog and cat lovers, breeders and exhibitors in every state are under seige.

    Thank you for listening,

    Diane W

    References: LA Times, July 2008
    National Student Animal Rights Conference, 2004
    DVM Magazine, January 2008
    Washington Post August 2004
    London Times, December 2004

    April 26, 2010
  18. Hi Diane,
    Though I do agree about the large groups lining their coffers, there is much debate over what PETA and HSUS really want for animals given that HSUS isn't an animal rights organization (nor do they say they are) and PETA says it is but doesn't act like it much of the time.

    More important for your comment, though, is that I am an animal rights advocate. I do not think we have a right to use animals or breed them or exhibit them. If you spent some time on this blog, you'd realize that I have two adopted ex-racing greyhounds and I look forward to the day when greyhound racing is a thing of the past. And greyhound breeding, as well.

    My goal is for humans to stop breeding cows and chickens and every other animal we use for food, clothing or entertainment, including dogs and cats.

    April 26, 2010
  19. babble #

    "The dog and cat lovers, breeders and exhibitors in every state are under seige."

    You're placing these three groups together as though they're equivalent. They aren't.

    April 26, 2010
  20. And I would say that I find the term "production agriculture" vile. I don't want to support businesses that view sentient beings as "commodities". Not the dog in a pen or the pig in a cage… No siree.

    April 28, 2010
  21. babble #

    Animal ag often claims that it's got "animal welfare" in mind, but this claim is highly suspect; animal ag has *profit* in mind. Nothing more.

    April 29, 2010
  22. Interesting #

    Interesting interview with Steven Best. What do you think?

    May 11, 2010

Leave a Reply

You may use basic HTML in your comments. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS