Humane Society of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.(May 2008)
This article may contain improper references to self-published sources.
Please help improve this article by removing unreliable sources. A self-published source may only be cited as a primary source in an article about the author or source itself and not as an authority. (May 2008)
HSUS logo

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a Washington, D.C-based animal welfare advocacy group. It is the largest animal welfare organization in the world,[citation needed] with 9.5 million members and a 2006 budget of US$103 million.[1] The HSUS provides many forms of assistance to local animal shelters, operates a number of direct animal care programs, and claims to be a leader in promoting best practices for local animal shelters throughout the country.[2] The HSUS founders did not seek to duplicate the efforts of hundreds of local societies working to help animals. Instead, they decided to tackle cruelties of national scope, seeking to resolve animal welfare problems by applying strategies, resources, and solutions beyond the capability of local organizations[3]. The HSUS was founded in 1954 by journalist Fred Myers and three others. The group's major campaigns target four primary issues: factory farming, animal fighting and other forms of animal cruelty, the fur trade, and inhumane sport hunting practices.

The HSUS publishes "All Animals," Animal Sheltering, a bi-monthly magazine for animal sheltering professionals.[4] It also operates Rural Area Veterinary Services, a free veterinary program for animals in impoverished communities.[5]

Contents

[edit] Goals

The HSUS's aims are to:

  • Reduce the over-breeding of cats and dogs through legislation, education, support of sterilization programs, and promotion of responsible pet ownership.
  • Halt the suffering and death of animals for the fur trade through consumer outreach.
  • End the killing of marine mammals for commercial, sport, ceremonial, management, or other non-subsistence purposes.
  • Reform and eliminate cruelty and abuse in the raising, transporting, marketing, and slaughter of animals used for food.
  • Outlaw dog fighting, cock fighting, bull fighting, and other violent animal spectacles staged for gambling and entertainment.
  • Promote biomedical research methods with the potential to replace, reduce, or refine animal use so they experience less suffering or physical harm.
  • Protect endangered wildlife and marine mammals and their habitat.
  • End the cruelty, brutality, and suffering caused by commercial and recreational hunting and trapping and eliminate the most unsporting hunting practices.
  • Halt destructive international trade in wildlife, especially exotic birds, primates, elephant ivory, and tiger and bear parts.
  • Address environmental issues in terms of their impact on animals and humans.
  • Stop abuse of animals trained for or used in movies, television productions, circuses, and other entertainment.
  • Correct abuse and inhumane treatment of animals in zoos, menageries, puppy mills, pet shops, kennels, and riding establishments, rodeos, pulling contests, horse and dog shows, prairie dog shoots, rattlesnake roundups and shark tournaments.
  • Increase awareness of the relationship between cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence.
  • Encourage communities to include animals in disaster planning.
  • Campaign for or against federal, state, and local legislation that affects animals.
  • Litigate, when necessary, to modify or eliminate programs and practices that cause animal suffering.
  • Work with animal care and control agencies and community humane societies to establish effective and humane animal control and shelter programs.
  • Stage workshops, symposia, and seminars to train professionals and others in animal handling, care, investigations, humane education, urban-wildlife problems, and other animal-related work.
  • Create a nationwide program of legislative, investigative, and educational activities, advising local humane organizations and animal care and control agencies, and supporting local efforts on HSUS campaigns.
  • Conduct educational programs with elementary and secondary school classroom teachers to promote humane attitudes and values.

[edit] Rationale

 This section does not cite any references or sources. (May 2008)
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

While determined to be aggressive in the struggle against cruelty, the HSUS founders were committed to pursuing a practical, effective course that accepted incremental improvements. When it came to questions like the use of animals in research, or the use of animals for food, the HSUS would not be an organization wedded to all-or-nothing approaches. The balance of idealism and pragmatism Myers sought to institutionalize within the HSUS proved to be an enduring legacy.

The values that shaped the formation of The HSUS in 1954 came from the humane movement that originated in the 1860s. The idea of kindness to animals made significant inroads in American culture in the years following the Civil War. The development of sympathy for creatures in pain, the satisfaction of keeping them as pets, and the heightening awareness about the relationship between cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence strengthened the movement’s popular appeal.

The most immediate philosophical influence on 1950s era advocates, including those associated with The HSUS, was the reverence for life concept advanced by Albert Schweitzer. Schweitzer included a deep regard for nonhuman animals in his canon of beliefs, and animal advocates laboring to give their concerns a higher profile were buoyed by Schweitzer’s 1952 Nobel Peace Prize speech, in which he noted that “compassion, in which ethics takes root, does not assume its true proportions until it embraces not only man but every living being.”

Myers and his colleagues found another exemplar of their values in Joseph Wood Krutch (1893-1970), whose writings reflected a deep level of appreciation for wilderness and for nonhuman life. With The Great Chain of Life (1957), Krutch established himself as a philosopher of humaneness, and in 1970, The HSUS’s highest award was renamed in his honor.

The growing environmental movement of the early 1970s also influenced the ethical and practical evolution of The HSUS. The burgeoning crisis of pollution and habitat loss affecting wildlife made the public increasingly aware that humans needed to change their behavior toward other living things. By that time, too, the treatment of animals had become a topic of serious discussion within moral philosophy.

The debate spilled over into public consciousness with the publication of Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation (1975). Singer’s book sought to recast concern for animals as a justice-based cause like the movements for civil rights and women’s rights.

Much of what Singer wrote concerning the prevention or reduction of animals’ suffering was in harmony with the HSUS’s objectives. Singer’s philosophy did not rest upon the rights of animals. His principal concern, like that of the HSUS, was the mitigation and elimination of suffering, and he endorsed the view that ethical treatment sometimes permitted or even required killing animals to end their misery.

The 1980s witnessed an extraordinary flourishing of concern about animals and a proliferation of new organizations, many influenced by the emergence of a philosophy which held that animals had inherent rights. Those committed to the purest form of animal rights rejected any human use of animals. In this changing context, the HSUS faced new challenges. As newer animal organizations adopted more radical approaches to achieve their goals, the organization born in anti-establishment politics now found itself identified - and sometimes criticized - as the “establishment” group of record.

While The HSUS welcomed and benefited from growing social interest in animals, it did not embrace the language and philosophy of animal rights. HSUS representatives expressed their beliefs that animals were “entitled to humane treatment and to equal and fair consideration.”

[edit] History

The HSUS’s founders decided to create a new kind of animal organization, based in the nation’s capital, determined to confront national cruelties beyond the reach of local societies and state federations. Humane slaughter became an immediate priority and commanded a substantial portion of the organization’s resources. Myers and his colleagues also viewed this first campaign as a vehicle for promoting movement cohesion.

When the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act passed in 1958 only four years after The HSUS’s formation, Myers pointed out that the movement had united, for the first time, to achieve enactment of federal legislation that would affect the lives of tens of millions of animals. He was encouraged that “hundreds of local societies could lift their eyes from local problems to a great national cruelty.”[6]

The HSUS also made the use of animals in research, testing, and education an early focus. In the post-World War II era, an increasingly assertive biomedical research community sought to obtain animals from pounds and from shelters handling municipal animal control contracts. Local humane societies across the nation resisted. The HSUS sought to bolster the movement’s strong opposition to pound seizure, believing that no public pound or privately operated humane society should be compelled by law to provide animals for experimental use.

The HSUS took the position that animal experimentation should be regulated, and in the 1950s it placed investigators in laboratories to gather evidence of substandard conditions and animal suffering and neglect. The HSUS was not an anti-vivisection society, Myers explained in 1958. Rather, it stood for the principle that “every humane society … should be actively concerned about the treatment accorded to such a vast number of animals.” [7]

In 1961, HSUS investigator Frank McMahon launched a probe of dog dealers around the country to generate support for a federal law to prevent cruelty to animals destined for use in laboratories. The five-year investigation into the multilayered trade in dogs paid off in February 1966 when Life published a photo-essay of a raid conducted on a Maryland dog dealer’s premises by McMahon and the state police. [8]

The Life spread sparked outrage, and tens of thousands of Americans wrote to their congressional representatives, demanding action to protect animals and prevent pet theft. That summer the U.S. Congress approved the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, only the second major federal humane law passed since World War II. [9]

Other broad goals during this time included a reduction in the nation’s surplus dog and cat population, the reform of inhumane euthanasia practices, and the restriction of abuses by the pet shop and commercial pet breeding trades. In the 1970s The HSUS would branch out into the arenas of wildlife and marine mammal protection.

[edit] Recent history

In spring 2004, the HSUS board appointed Wayne Pacelle as CEO and President. A former executive director of The Fund for Animals, the Yale graduate spent a decade as The HSUS’s chief lobbyist and spokesperson, and held a strong commitment to expand the organization’s base of support as well as its influence on public policies affecting animals.[10]

Since Pacelle’s appointment, The HSUS has claimed among its successes the adoption of “cage-free” egg-purchasing policies by hundreds of universities and dozens of corporations [11]; the exposure of an international trophy hunting scam subsequently ended through legislative reform [12]; a number of successful congressional votes to outlaw horse slaughter; progress in securing legislation at the state and federal level to outlaw animal fighting and the interstate transport of fighting implements [13]; announcements by Wolfgang Puck and Burger King that they would increase their use of animal products derived under less abusive standards [14], and an agreement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to begin enforcement of federal laws concerning the transportation of farm animals. [15] The HSUS’s campaign to stop the killing of seal pups in Canada secured pledges to boycott Canadian seafood from more than 1,000 restaurants and grocery stores and 300,000 individuals. [16] However, Canada's seal hunt regulations do not permit the hunting of seal pups, and have not permitted hunting of whitebacks and bluebacks since 1987.[17]

A major test of the organization’s capacity and leadership came in September 2005, when thousands of animals were left behind as people evacuated during Hurricane Katrina. The HSUS joined other organizations in a massive search-and-rescue effort that saved approximately ten thousand animals, and spent more than $30 million dollars on direct relief, reconstruction, and recovery in the Gulf Coast region. The HSUS led the campaign that culminated in passage of the federal PETS Act in October 2006, requiring all local, state, and federal agencies to include animals in their disaster planning scenarios.[18]

During 2006, The HSUS helped to secure the passage of 70 new state laws to protect animals. Two successful November ballot initiatives conducted with the support of the society outlawed dove hunting in Michigan and, through Proposition 204, abusive factory farming practices in Arizona]][19].

In late 2006, The HSUS broke the story of its investigation into the sale of coats trimmed with real fur but labeled “faux” or fake. Laboratory testing found that the fur came from purpose-bred raccoon dogs in China that were sometimes beaten to death and skinned alive. The investigation reportedly prompted several retailers including Macy’s and J.C. Penney to pull the garments from the sale floor. Legislation was introduced in the U.S. Congress to require that all fur jackets be properly labeled, and to ban raccoon dog fur.[20]

The successful Arizona ballot measure to prohibit gestation crate confinement of farm animals drew a speedy response as Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pork producer, announced in January 2007 that it would phase out use of the crates. The same month, Maple Leaf Foods, Canada’s largest pork producer, did the same. So did the Strauss Veal company, whose CEO commented that veal crates were “inhumane and archaic.”[21]

In July 2007, The HSUS led calls for the NFL to suspend Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick in the wake of allegations that he had been involved with dogfighting activity.[22]

In February 2008, after an undercover investigation conducted by The HSUS at the Westland Meat Packing Company revealed substantial animal abuse, the USDA forced the recall 143 million pounds of beef, some of which had been routed into the nation's school lunch program.[23]

The corporate expansion forged by Pacelle included two mergers -- with The Fund for Animals (2005) and the Doris Day Animal League (2006), and the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights. This made possible the establishment of a separate campaigns department, a litigation section, the enhancement of signature programs likes Pets for Life[24] and Wild Neighbors[25], and an expanded range of hands-on care programs for animals. During the first 2½ years of Pacelle’s tenure, overall revenues and expenditures grew by more than 50 percent.[26]

With the absorption of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights in early 2008, The HSUS re-organized its direct veterinary care work and its veterinary advocacy under a new entity, the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association.[27]

[edit] Governance and expenses

A nonprofit, charitable organization, The HSUS is funded almost entirely by membership dues, contributions, foundation grants, and bequests. It receives a small amount of federal money in support of particular programs.

The HSUS is governed by a 27-member, independent Board of Directors. Each Director serves as a volunteer and receives no compensation for service. The HSUS’s financial efficiency ratios exceed the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance (BBBWGA) standards which require that program expenses as a percentage of total expenses be 65% or greater. In 2006, The HSUS’s program expenses were 79%. The HSUS meets all BBBWGA financial and administrative standards [28].

[edit] Criticism and response

The HSUS is a frequent target of criticism. Small-scale breeders dissatisfied with The HSUS’s efforts to regulate puppy mills, for example, insist that The HSUS wants to abolish pet ownership. [29] Individuals associated with the factory farming industry have leveled the charge that The HSUS is a “stalking horse” for veganism.[30] Among the organizations most critical of The HSUS are the National Animal Interest Alliance and the Center for Consumer Freedom.

One form of criticism follows a strategy linking HSUS staff members with individuals or organizations who commit illegal activities. In the post-September 11, 2001 environment, some critics have attempted to associate The HSUS with the Animal Liberation Front and other advocates of destructive and violent action.[31] The HSUS board ratified a set of anti-violence principles as early as 1991, and a formal statement on its web site states: “We believe that any tactic or strategy involving violence toward people, or threats of violence, undermines the core ethic we espouse.”[32] CEO Pacelle and other officials have repeatedly condemned such action in public forums, and have sought to avoid association with individuals whose speech and embrace of violence contravene these standards.[33]

[edit] Headquarters and regional offices

The Humane Society's national headquarters are in Washington, D.C. The organization also maintains eight regional offices and field representatives in 22 states.[34].

[edit] Further reading

  • Donahue, Jesse, and Erik Trump, The Politics of Zoos: Exotic Animals and their Protectors (2006).
  • Hoyt, John A., Animals in Peril. 1994.
  • Irwin, Paul, Losing Paradise: The Growing Threat to Our Animals, Our Environment, and Ourselves (2000).
  • Unti, Bernard. Protecting All Animals: A Fifty-Year History of The Humane Society of the United States (2004).
  • Unti, Bernard, and Andrew Rowan. "A Social History of Animal Protection in the Post-World War Two Period." In State of the Animals 2001, edited by *Deborah J. Salem and Andrew N. Rowan. Washington, D.C.: Humane Society of the United States, 2001.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

[edit] External links

Languages