The Humane Society of the United States

http://www.humanesociety.org/


Why should we support it? And why not?

 

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is an animal rights organization, not an animal welfare organization. The ultimate goal of the animal rights agenda is animal liberation. The HSUS is not a government agency, as many people believe, nor is it a law enforcement agency, nor does it run any shelters of its own. It lobbies for money that it later uses to promote legislation that restricts animal ownership and use. Why should you support it? Good question, since the organization is anti-pet/anti-owner/anti-breeder/anti-agriculture. Why not support it? It's not an honest or transparent organization and it deceives people into believing it is something it is not.

 

Hmmm... Sounds that it was anti "us" who love our pets.
Should support more on animal welfare group that could give shelters to strays and save abused animals. Rather than a group not too open about their objectives that can have hidden agenda.

 

I know the Humane Society where I live does great, and they help out so many animals. They have hard workers who really do love the animals, and do what they can for each and everyone that comes in to the organization. I really can not say anything bad, I have never heard of anything bad either.

 

I"m not such a big fan of the humane society. I tend to lean more towards the SPCA and local rescues and shelters.

 

What now? Is the HSUS good or bad for pets? Or is it just a vehicle to further their own hidden agenda? Has anyone done any indepth research into their modus operandi?

 

From everything I've heard, the HSUS has generally good intentions, but they are not pro-owner. They also take most of the donated money and pay their staff and very little goes towards the animals.

 

If such is the case, the person who donates should also see to it that his or her donation goes to where it should be. I know there are people who prefer to be anonymous when they are donating thus they aren’t really sure if their donation reach the ones which needed that support. When it comes to organizations with “good intentions”, we can’t help but be trusting. It’s really good if one wanted to help but helping people who are simply wolves in sheep’s clothing is another story. One must also check on the charity or organization that they support to be sure that the donated money is being use for the good and not for the bad.

 

The best way I have found to donate to the humane society (if you want to) then take them things. Take them leashes, toys, food, treats. Things that have to help the dogs, not line the pockets of the directors.

 

They could have these things sold. Or I’m becoming a pessimist.

 

Yes it's true they could probably sell them but I don't think they do. They do have to feed and care for the animals so they would just have to buy it anyway.

 

The HSUS is very anti-pet/anti-breeder in its agenda. Don't forget, the animal rights people want us to stop using the terms "owner" and "pet." They want us to be "pet parents" and "pet guardians" and the want animals to be "companions." They also want to change the status of the horse from "livestock" to "companion" animal. While all of these things sound innocuous enough, the legal meaning of these terms are quite different and permit different legislation to be passed that take away owner rights.

In addition, the HSUS and the ASPCA are not so much "animal welfare" organizations as they are fund-raising and lobbying behemoths. They spend far more on lobbying for legislation, fund-raising, and pensions than they do on providing care for animals. One of the "vital" things that the HSUS is lobbying for right this very minute is change to the way ballot initiatives can be overturned in the state of Missouri. Obviously, this lobbying effort is costing them millions of dollars and does nothing to benefit animals at all--it is merely a reaction to the way that the HSUS-backed Missouri ballot initiative Proposition B was modified after it passed. Touted as the "Puppy Mill Bill," it defined any animal living within a certain distance of the house to be a companion animal, demanded 24/7 unfettered access to the out of doors for all animals, and restricted *any* breeder from having more than 50 females of breeding age, which I believe was defined as dogs 4 months of age or over--among many other expensive and onerous restrictions. The bill was badly written, as is most "anti-puppy mill" bills and was designed to catch hobby/show breeders and hunters in their net, as well. The HSUS tries to get many bills that the public views as necessary (GET RID OF ALL PUPPY MILLS!!), without realizing that the HSUS takes tiny steps in changing public perception of what "responsible" means in terms of breeding, what "humane/cruelty" means in terms of animal care, and what a "puppy mill" is--given that the definition of puppy mill has never been defined in any meaningful way outside of local legislation and that it has evolved over the years.