The anti-hunting capital of the world is located
at 2100 L St., NW in Washington, D.C. There, under the shadow of the
Capitol Dome, is the national headquarters of The Humane Society of
the United States (HSUS), a multinational conglomerate with 10
regional offices in the U.S.
Standing in front of this edifice filled with
people working tirelessly to turn sportsmen into criminals, I began
to wonder who funds all this madness. There can`t be that many
anti-pet ownership, anti-milk, anti-hunting, left-of-reality, ferret
farm-vandalizing, fur-coat-loathing, omnivore-bashing, tree-hugging
animal rights activists in the country. After all, Ralph Nader only
got 1 percent of the national vote in the 2004 election.
So I knocked on the door.
A woman in a business suit seated at a desk on the
other side of the glass door gave me a very quizzical look and
motioned for me to enter.
"Can I help you?"
"Yes, I`d really like to know who pays for all of
this."
"Who . . . why I . . . how do you
mean?"
"Your salary, all this propaganda!" I asked,
pointing to booklets with titles like "Civil War or Civility: How to
Live with Urban Coyotes," "Souls Like Ourselves: Inspired Thoughts
for Personal and Planetary Advancement," and, "Animals in Peril: How
`Sustainable Use` is Wiping out the World`s Wildlife."
"Oh, there are many giving, caring people who want
to stop animal suffering. Who are you?" Her tone was soft and
dreamy.
"An editor for American Hunter
magazine."
Her tone became graded and shocked. "You`re
kidding?"
After asking to see their leader, I was led down
an elevator, through a hall plastered with posters of cuddly
animals--nary a lion with blood on its jowls--to the very heart of
the largest anti-hunting group in the U.S.
"How can I help you?" said a 20-something man
wearing an HSUS T-shirt and a suspicious glare.
"I`m just wondering where your money comes from,"
I said as I looked around in surprise. There was hardly an office
space at all. The whole floor, located appropriately in the basement,
was just a large mail-processing center. It seems the heart of the
largest anti-hunting group in the U.S. is a propaganda machine. A
dozen youths stared at me from over bundles of newsletters, leaflets
and HSUS` magazine, Animal Sheltering.
After I had roved around for a few minutes asking
questions and picking up samples of their propaganda one of them
finally raised the courage to ask: "Who is it you work
for?"
"The NRA," I said proudly.
"And how did you get in here?"
"I knocked on the door," I shrugged.
"Then you know where it is," he said while
pointing his finger.
Oh, well.
Perhaps the Hollywood approach was too direct. I
next opted for a more informal investigation into HSUS` financials,
determined to crawl through the slime of the IRS if I had to.
However, just as I was pulling on my figurative hip waders, HSUS
president, Wayne Pacelle, answered my first question at, of all
things, a press conference.
"This is a historic move that is going to unite
the (anti-hunting) movement. I`m looking for us to become a
hard-hitting campaign organization," he boasted. Then he explained
that the merger of HSUS with the Fund for Animals (one of the most
radical anti-hunting groups in the world) would now give them a
combined annual budget of $96 million.
A $96 million budget! Hmm? HSUS is a 501c(3)
nonprofit group, which, as a tax-exempt charity, means its books are
open to the public. Well, mostly open. HSUS` complex, international
structure helps it hide expenses; accordingly, a quest to determine
HSUS` true global net worth turned out to have more turns and
pitfalls than an Enron investigation. This is because money routinely
goes back and forth between HSUS and its affiliates overseas. For
example, according to ActivistCash.com (a website run by the Center
for Consumer Freedom, a coalition of restaurant and tavern operators
tired of being assaulted by anti-meat activists), HSUS buried $6.4
million of its direct-mail costs in its 2000-2001 budget by putting
it into something called the HSUS Wildlife Land Trust, which allowed
HSUS to claim that it kept its fundraising costs low so charity
watchdog groups wouldn`t give it a failing score.
So they`re slippery, but I wasn`t the first to
wonder who pays for their stamps.
|
5
|
Top Animal-Rights
Groups
|
|
|
|
1
|
Humane
Society of the United States
(HSUS)
|
|
|
Total
Revenue - $60,993,634
|
|
|
Total
Assets - $96,603,057
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
American
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(ASPCA)
|
|
|
Total
Revenue - $41,263,102
|
|
|
Total
Assets - $62,514,797
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA)
|
|
|
Total
Revenue - $17,012,12
|
|
|
Total
Assets - $6,526,799
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Friends of
Animals Inc.
|
|
|
Total
Revenue - $4,343,483
|
|
|
Total
Revenue - $4,343,483
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
Animal
Protection Institute
|
|
|
Total
Revenue - $1,473,313
|
|
|
Total
Assets - $3,071,006
|
(Financial data for year 2002
collected from IRS Form 990 filings provided by GuideStar, a
National Database for Non-Profit Organizations.)
|
How HSUS Got
Started
Before you get into their fuzzy economics you have
to realize that there is an enormous difference between animal
"welfare" organizations, which work for the humane treatment of
animals, and modern animal "rights" organizations, which work to
completely end hunting and even the ownership of animals. The former
have been around for centuries; the latter emerged in the 1950s and
grew fanatic in the 1980s with the rise of radical animal-rights
groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
"Animal-rights groups are a modern concoction that parallel the
growing urban detachment from the natural world," said Doug
Jeanneret, director of communications for the U.S. Sportmen`s
Alliance. "It`s hard to imagine 19th-century farming communities
erecting billboards that claim milk causes cancer."
HSUS actually began as an animal-welfare
organization. Originally called the National Humane Society, it was
established in 1954 as a splinter group of the American Humane
Association (AHA). Its founders wanted a more extreme group. Wayne
LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, aptly explains in his
book Guns, Freedom and Terrorism that "PETA has quietly succeeded in
achieving a bloodless internal takeover of HSUS."
Today, of course, HSUS is anti-hunting, anti-meat
eating and is even against owning pets. A few of its current causes
include an effort to stop Maryland`s residents from controlling the
bear population and a campaign to end the "inhumane practice of
bowhunting." HSUS is also the chief force behind PZP, a chemical
found in pig ovaries that when injected can make most mammals
(including humans) infertile for long periods of time. HSUS has been
researching and testing PZP in an effort to convince state game
agencies there is an alternative to hunting, as if an army of
left-leaning urbanites is going to take up "deer darting" every
November and thereby displace the nation`s 14-16 million deer
hunters.
Stop laughing, delusions like this have helped
HSUS, and other such groups, prosper, as you`ll see in the following
top five ways HSUS and other animal-rights groups raise the cash used
to try to transform you into a tofu-eating, herbicide-hating,
science-dismissing, lactate-intolerant, non-hunting pet "guardian."
1. Misinformation
Campaigns
The answer to where HSUS` money comes from starts
with its name, which was picked to confuse people into thinking they
are one of the reputable "humane societies" that run animal shelters
around the country. But though HSUS raises enough money to finance
animal shelters in every state, it does not own or run a single one.
HSUS feeds off this confusion. Its website has an icon with the
statement: "Your shelter performs thankless tasks 365 days a year.
It`s time to show them some love." If you click on these two
sentences you`ll find an article that explains the importance of
animal shelters. To the left of the article is a sidebar asking for
donations. Too bad none of the money given to HSUS goes directly to
these shelters. Its magazine is even titled Animal Sheltering, when,
in fact, HSUS is on the forefront of the political movement to
legally redefine "pets" as "companion animals," and their "owners" as
merely "guardians." But Americans fall for these evasions of the
truth every day.
It`s not just the non-hunting public that has
fallen for HSUS` deception. HSUS has even managed to get the U.S.
government to help it raise funds (and its public profile). In 1995
the U.S. Postal Service mailed postcards to millions of homes for
National Dog Bite Prevention Week. The mailer, which suggested ways
dog owners could keep their pets from biting mail carriers, included
the HSUS logo and address.
"Even though local shelters are trying their best
to save lives, they are simply overwhelmed," said the postcard. That
sentence, at least, is true; too bad every dime that went to the
multi-million-dollar conglomerate HSUS as a result of this campaign
didn`t do a thing about it.
Compared Rate of
Return
According to charity
watchdog groups many animal-rights groups are poorly
rated charities; for example, Charity Navigator recently
gave HSUS zero stars (out of four) for its fund-raising
efficiency and an overall rating of two stars. It also
failed HSUS` International Fund for Animal Welfare and
gave one star to Humane Society International and the
Humane Society of the United States Wildlife Land Trust.
Give.org, another
charity watchdog group, reports that HSUS does not meet
its standards for charitable donations because "no member
of the board is assigned the responsibility of serving as
the treasurer of the board of directors" and because its
program expenses in 2003 were "63 percent of total
expenses," meaning that 37 percent of its funds went to
executive pay (Paul G. Irwin, former president of HSUS,
was paid $315,898 in 2003) and to other
activities.
In contrast,
hunting-conservation organizations often score high marks
from charity-watchdog groups; for example, The U.S.
Sportsmen`s Alliance Foundation was recognized as the top
conservation organization in the country (four stars) by
Charity Navigator. Also, Give.org notes that 84 percent
of Ducks Unlimited money goes to its programs and Charity
Navigator notes that an exceptional 90 percent of funds
raised by The NRA Foundation goes to its programs (see
the disparities for yourself at www.give.org
and www.charitynavigator.org).--F.M.
|
2. Corporate
Sponsors
HSUS recently joined the highly lucrative,
third-party certification business. Some environmental and
animal-rights groups have developed "eco-labels." These are granted
(for a price) to farms and corporations to certify that its food
and/or clothing is environmentally friendly. HSUS is a founding
member of the Humane Farm Animal Care coalition. For the right amount
of money its "Certified Humane Raised and Handled" label is available
to meat, poultry and dairy producers.
HSUS` website says, "The United States Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service Livestock and Seed
Program verifies the inspection process of the Certified Humane
Raised and Handled program." But, according to Kathryn Mattingly, who
does press relations for the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service,
that`s a lie. "We have audited the auditors of the Certified Humane
Raised and Handled program but they have not retained our services to
inspect their program," said Mattingly, who then explained that many
companies do legitimately pay the USDA to oversee food-labeling
programs (see the list at: http://processverified.usda.gov/).
HSUS declined to answer how much it charges farms
and corporations for the use of the label. To qualify, its criteria
state that after filling out an application an "inspector then
advises the USDA as to where and when the on-site inspection will
take place. The USDA then determines if it will attend the inspection
or not." Knowing that the USDA is not even involved with the program,
this is more than just evasion of the truth; it`s a lie.
Aside from these "eco-labels," naivete leads some
corporations to help HSUS. For example, in 1991, Sears, Roebuck and
Company donated 8 percent of the wholesale price of selected stuffed
animals in its Wishbook catalogue to HSUS. The U.S. Sportsmen`s
Alliance called for hunters to express their outrage with the
promotion. Not long after, Al Mathes, assistant to the president of
the catalogue division, issued an apology and stated, "Every customer
ordering stuffed animals from the catalogue will be informed that the
promotion is over."
In 1992, Ace Hardware Corporation, a major
retailer of hunting and fishing gear, refused to sever its
relationship with HSUS. A call went out to sportsmen across the
nation to send Ace comments on its partnership with the anti-hunting
group. Soon, John J. Cameron, corporate communications director for
Ace, announced that the promotion had been cancelled.
In 2001, General Mills, maker of breakfast
cereals, promoted HSUS by distributing free calendars in marked
packages of Golden Grahams cereal. General Mills heeded the
sportsmens` cries and the promotion was ended.
In 2004, Michelin, a leading automobile tire
manufacturer, ended its sponsorship of the Red Star Emergency
Services Division of the American Humane Association (AHA) after
sportsmen protested helping the anti-hunting group.
But some corporations know exactly what they`re
supporting. According to HSUS` 2003 Annual Report, Saab Cars USA,
American Red Cross, Citibank USA, MasterCard, Pedigree Food for Dogs,
Petsafe Training Systems, Safeway Inc., Time Inc. and many others are
helping to "generate revenue" for HSUS despite protests from
sportsmen. Go to http://www.wlfa.org/templates/businessantis.cfm
for a list and other info on who`s supporting
anti-hunters.
|
Though HSUS raises
enough money
to finance animal
shelters in every state,
it does not own or run
a single shelter.
|
3. Going Wall
Street
In its quest to gobble up a larger share of
worldwide animal-rights income, HSUS established the Humane Equity
Fund in 2000. Housed at Salomon Smith Barney, the Fund was designed
to capture money from smaller animal-rights groups (and financially
naive local humane societies) by offering to "manage" their assets in
an "animal-friendly way." HSUS seeded the fund with an $8-million
check, according to ActivistCash.com.
Salomon Smith Barney committed to paying HSUS an
annual consulting fee equal to .07 percent of the fund`s average
daily balance. In order to earn its cut, HSUS would identify
corporations worthy of the fund`s "humane" investment policies--and
blacklist other investment vehicles as "inhumane." However, by August
2002, the fund was "terminated" because, according to HSUS, "many
funds suffered in the recent economic conditions." How much of local
animal-welfare groups` money was squandered by HSUS` failed
investment vehicle is unknown.
The Sierra Club has also dabbled in the market.
Forward Management LLC, based in San Francisco, helped create the
Sierra Club Funds, securities chosen for potential investment based
on environmental and social criteria set by the Sierra Club. (Lest
you think the Sierra Club is not anti-hunting and anti-gun, here are
a few facts to the contrary: see sidebar "Oh, How They`ve
Changed!")
HSUS also uses "Charitable Gift Annuities," a
contract between an individual and the HSUS whereby someone transfers
cash, real estate or marketable securities (e.g., stocks, bonds,
mutual fund shares, etc.) of at least $5,000 to HSUS and, in
exchange, HSUS pays them a fixed amount monthly, quarterly or
annually. There is also a donor-advised fund that operates like a
private foundation. Basically, someone sets money aside for charity.
It stays there (minus administration fees by HSUS) until the person
decides what group to give it to. Again, those who do give to HSUS
have no way of knowing what cause their money has gone to.
4. Trust Fund
Babies
Big, bureaucratic, left-leaning foundations are
the chief givers to anti-hunting groups. It`s the same every time:
Some leader of industry creates a fortune, he passes on and his
children (or children`s children) grow up guilty rich. Lost as they
are in their idealistic, silver-spoon-fed fantasy worlds, they decide
they have to do something to stop horrible corporations interested
only in profit margins (like the ones that generated the cash for
their trust funds) from ruining the planet. And thus a charitable
foundation is born.
All the children take up seats on the board and
each year they gather to dole out cash from the interest on the money
in their foundation`s pool. And they feel so good when they give
millions to Greenpeace to run campaigns against selling genetically
improved crops to prevent people in third-world countries from eating
what the rest of us do (and so Greenpeace can profit from sales of
its "organic" crops), and to HSUS to stop "trophy" hunters from
controlling the bear population in Maryland, and to PETA so it can
put up billboards that declare, "Beef: It`s What`s Rotting in Your
Colon," while PETA passes money to eco-terrorists like the Animal
Liberation Front so they, in turn, can burn down vacation
homes.
During the last presidential campaign you might
have heard that Teresa Heinz Kerry is one of these guilty, liberal
rich idealists. She is listed as the "chair" of Heinz Endowments, a
foundation instituted by Howard Heinz`s widow in 1941. Howard`s
father was Henry J. Heinz, the table-condiments innovator who founded
the Heinz food processing company. As of 2001 Heinz Endowments had a
total net worth of $1,257,555,612, and had given $6,049,500 to Tides
Foundation and Tides Center (a foundation ActivistCash.com calls a
"money laundering scheme" that gives millions to animal-rights
groups), $2,570,767 to Environmental Defense (a group whose key issue
is global warming), and $88,000 to the Sierra Club.
Possibly the biggest and most powerful foundation
is The Pew Charitable Trusts, which was endowed with various
inheritances of the four children of Joseph N. Pew, founder of the
Sun Oil Company.
As of 2002, its total assets were $7,631,088,018
and in that year alone it awarded $238,534,822 in grants. Here are a
few examples: The Tides Foundation and Tides Center got $114,086,400
between 1990-2002; Earthjustice (The Sierra Club`s Legal Defense
Fund, which has fought to stop the hunting of grizzlies and wolves)
got $19,046,000 between 1995-2003; the Natural Resources Defense
Council (a group that grew famous when it accused apple growers of
using cancer-causing agents--allegations that proved false, yet cost
apple growers an estimated $250 million) was given $11,568,000
between 1991-2000; and the Sierra Club was given $4,035,000 between
1992-2001.
There are many other examples--Geraldine R. Dodge
Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation--but they all follow the same
pattern, loads of money from old industry being dumped into far-left
causes, many of which are designed to erode your rights as a
sportsman and a shooter.
|
|
Oh, How They`ve
Changed
|
|
|
A lot of moderate-minded people
(along with their money) have been towed into the
environmental/animal rights movement by organizations
that have changed direction. For example, the Sierra Club
was founded in 1892 by John Muir to "make the mountains
glad." Today, the Sierra Club is the oldest and one of
the most powerful environmental groups in the nation. But
its concerns are no longer limited to the happiness of
the mountains.
Here are a few examples:
The Sierra Club is
anti-science: Some of the things on the Sierra Club`s
hit list include genetically improved crops, herbicides,
forest thinning to prevent fires and scientific evidence
when determining if a species has recovered enough to be
delisted from the Endangered Species Act.
EarthJustice, the Sierra Club`s
legal arm, is after you: They don`t take sportsmen
into account when choosing their battles. Here are a few
examples: they sued to stop the hunting of black bears in
the Cascade Mountains, in Washington state; they were
able to stop an elk study that was calling for reducing
cougar populations in Oregon; and the Sierra Club`s
attorneys are trying to prevent hunters from managing
grizzly bear and wolf populations that have exceeded
population goals set by the Endangered Species
Act.
Some chapters of the Sierra Club
have endorsed PETA: The national organization tries
to appear nonpartisan and moderate, while turning a blind
eye when its chapters go radical anti-hunting; for
example, ActivistCash.org reports that "Sierra Club
activists in Florida endorse PETA`s mantra that eating
meat is a form of animal abuse that contributes to world
hunger. (And) Sierra Club chapters in New York and
Michigan promote the `Vegetarian Starter Kit` distributed
by the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible
Medicine (a PETA front group), as a way to fight
`corporate greed.`"
Most of the congressmen it doles
out its cash to are anti-gun: Do the math and you`ll
find that if all of the left-leaning candidates the
Sierra Club endorsed were elected you would have to kiss
your firearms goodbye.
Some of its leadership positions
are held by activists with radical ties: For example,
Paul Watson, who was elected to the Sierra Club`s board
of directors in 2003, founded the ultra-radical Sea
Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in 1977 after he had
been ousted from Greenpeace (which he also co-founded)
for espousing violence in the name of the environment.
Watson and his Sea Shepherd pirates sail the high seas,
terrorizing the fishing industry by sinking
ships.--F.M.
|
5. Celebrities
HSUS has a Hollywood Office where they specialize
in slipping their hands into the stars` far-left pockets. Many of
Hollywood`s most famous don`t seem to mind: Pamela Anderson posed
topless for a PETA poster. Pierce Brosnan (the most recent James
Bond) is an advisory board member for the Sea Shepherd Conservation
Society, a marine environmental group perhaps best known for ramming
whaling ships. James Cromwell (star of the film Babe) was arrested in
2001 for his participation in a PETA-sponsored Wendy`s protest. Bill
Maher (host of the show Politically Incorrect on HBO), is a very
active supporter of PETA, and has said, "To those people who say, `My
father is alive because of animal experimentation,` I say, `Yeah,
well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.` Sorry,
but I am just not behind that kind of trade-off." Robert Redford, Bob
Barker, Mary Tyler Moore and many others also help to raise funds for
anti-hunting groups. They are certainly entitled to their opinions,
but so are you when you turn on your television or go to the box
office. (Find more info on who`s helping animal-rights groups at
www.ActivistCash.org
and www.nraila.org).
It`s appropriate that we end this list of delusion
with Hollywood. The world has seen a lot of progress during the last
century--phones smaller than packs of cigarettes, artificial
climates, scent-eating clothing--but forgetting we are part of the
natural order of things is not a part of this progress; on the
contrary, it`s the very delusion that loads the anti-hunters` bank
accounts and that could do away with hunting altogether. If that
happens the human race will lose its last causal connection to the
wild world and such a monumental break with reality can`t lead to
good things. |