Author Archives: HWI_Admin

Shelter Advocates, or Corporate Puppets?

  By

It appears there’s a new non-profit in town…

In a flurry of expensive ads in several major newspapers, the Humane Society for Shelter Pets has announced its arrival. However, seasoned animal advocates are justifiably wary of this seemingly warm and fuzzy charity.

It turns out that the Humane Society for Shelter Pets (“HSSP”) has no connection with any animal shelters. It doesn’t run a shelter, nor does it fund any shelters. Instead, its Mission Statement claims it is “dedicated to creating a sustainable base of local support for the nation’s network of local pet shelters through grassroots advocacy and outreach”.

While this may seem like a praise-worthy mission, a little poking around on the site shows that:

  • The HSSP website is full of anti-HSUS rhetoric.
  • It cites the Center for Consumer Freedom almost exclusively.
  • It relies on three polls to support its claims: two were commissioned by HumaneWatch, and the third was actually written and conducted by HumaneWatch. (HumaneWatch refuses to reveal the wording and results of the polls.)
  • It focuses almost entirely on the HSUS, ignoring other national groups.
  • It provides no services to shelters whatsoever. Its sole purpose is to attack the HSUS.

If you’re familiar with the deceptive marketing and “educational” non-profit websites that are the hallmark of the Center for Consumer Freedom (parent and puppetmaster of HumaneWatch), you’re probably thinking you’ve seen this all before. You’d be right.

HSSP’s initial press release lists its address as “1090 Vermont Ave NW, Washington, DC 20008 United States”.

That address happens to be the street location for Richard Berman’s PR firm, Berman & Company. It’s also the street location for the Center for Consumer Freedom, the Center for Union Facts, the Employment Policies Institute Foundation, and the American Beverage Institute, among others – all Berman-run front groups.

To be fair, HSSP denies that Berman has anything to do with the daily operations of the organization. However, they do admit to “hiring” Berman & Company as their PR firm. Which leads us to another question…

Why would a supposed animal advocacy organization hire a PR firm with documented record of working vigorously on ANTI-animal causes?

It doesn’t make sense. And that’s not the only question that needs answering.

For example, where does a brand new “grassroots” non-profit get the money to launch a major advertising campaign, in its very first week of existence?

HSSP isn’t saying. Their supporters or partners aren’t listed on their web site. Nor is there a way to look at any of their documentation. Presumably one would have to file a FOIA request – just like with all of Berman’s shell operations.

Furthermore, we already know that Berman & Company does not work pro bono. They are strictly “pay-for-play”. Nor do their services come cheap.

So where does a brand new “grassroots” non-profit get the money to hire one of the most expensive PR firms in Washington, D.C., in its very first week of existence?

HSSP isn’t disclosing that, either.

On HSSP’s Facebook page, several people inquired about the confusing name of the group. Since they clearly do not support the Humane Society of the United States, and since they are not associated with any local humane societies, it seems strange that they would choose to name their organization after an entity they clearly despise.

Additionally, several posters noted the similarity of the rhetoric used on the web site and in the ads to that used by HumaneWatch, and inquired whether the organization was part of, or associated with, HumaneWatch.

None of these seem like unreasonable questions. Yet all of these posters were immediately banned and blocked from the FaceBook page. Again, this is a classic HumaneWatch response to questions, and the similarities are inescapable.

The refusal of HSSP to answer the most basic questions about their agenda and associations has already drawn the attention and suspicion of influential voices of the animal welfare community.

Diana “Didi” Culp: HSUS ex-employee, puppy mill legislation opponent, and co-director of HSSP.

HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle didn’t mince words:
But now Rick Berman has outdone himself. Now, this Beltway con artist -– who has probably spent as much time as anyone in recent years fighting against animal welfare -– has formed a new supposed animal welfare charity. He’s calling it the “Humane Society for Shelter Pets.”

Neither did Karel Minor of the Humane Society of Berks County:

[The CCF] knows that by making big scary claims and using big numbers they can make people think, even animal people, that HSUS is the problem and keep HSUS on their heels. That is the real reason behind it. When they create sweet little pro-shelter animal websites, using testimonials by HSUS ex-employees (beware testimonials by ex-employees- what did you think of your last boss?), they aren’t doing it to help the animals, they are doing it to muddy the waters.

Pack Mentality author Tom Grady asked HSSP spokesman Jeff Douglas about the allegations. He dodged the question:

HSSP and the Center for Consumer Freedom are separate 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations.

Berman and Company is the communications firm that was brought on by HSSP during its inception to manage its campaign due to their extensive work in this issue area. HSSP has an independent board and is managed by me — a long-time veterinary advocate — and former director of education for the Humane Society of the United States Diana Culp.

Obviously HSUS will try to paint HSSP as a group run by Rick Berman to avoid answering the real questions about their misleading fundraising practices. And while Rick Berman’s PR firm has helped bring HSSP to fruition, this group is a product of the efforts of a group of individuals with deep ties to the animal welfare community dedicated to improving the well-being of shelter animals across the country. Who we hired as our PR firm should be immaterial to the project.

Douglas’ last sentence is particularly interesting. No competent executive would ever think that the reputation and history of the PR firm you choose to represent your organization is “immaterial”.

You are known by the company you keep. When you claim to be on the side of animals, but hire the foremost defender of animal cruelty on the planet, your credibility vanishes like nonprofit donations into Richard Berman’s bank account.

On the other hand, stating that HSSP and CCF are separate organizations is immaterial. The dubious nonprofits run out of Berman and Company’s office are all separate organizations on paper, yet they employ the same staff, operate out of the same office, and funnel money into the pockets of the one seedy individual.

They may be separate organizations, but there’s little doubt about who’s really pulling the strings.

Tomorrow, we’ll examine who’s backing this deceptive group, and explore a comment by HSSP’s co-founder that reveals more than he intended.

Laws, Lobbyists, and HumaneWatch Lies

  By
As part of their smear campaign against animal welfare, HumaneWatch publishes a series of inept attempts at infographics called “The Visual HSUS”. Their latest propaganda complains that the HSUS spends more on “lobbying” than it does on funding pet shelters. But HumaneWatch shoots itself in the foot by quoting the purpose of the HSUS from their Articles of Incorporation 56 years ago: “To protect all living things… from cruelty and neglect, with special emphasis on cruelties of national scope.” National scope. That’s an important phrase. The HSUS was never intended to fund local pet shelters; that’s simply not its purpose. The HSUS (along with other national groups like the ASPCA) confront issues that local groups don’t have the influence or resources to tackle. And these national efforts have been the greatest deterrent to animal cruelty the world has ever seen. In addition to disaster relief work, large-scale animal rescues, sanctuaries and wildlife rehabilitation centers, public awareness campaigns, shelter advocacy, and dozens of other HSUS programs and campaigns for animal welfare, they also educate legislators on the need for animal protection. That’s not the same as lobbying, but HumaneWatch — an alias of the Center for Consumer Freedom, itself run by a corporate lobbyist — would rather you didn’t know that. Let’s take a look at what HumaneWatch considers lobbying, and what came of it:
  • Thanks to the HSUS, the Humane Slaughter Act was passed in 1958. Fifty years later, HSUS undercover investigations of a slaughterhouse in Chino, CA and subsequent testimony before Congress led to a comprehensive ban on processing of sickly “downer” cattle.
  • In 1976, the Humane Transport Act prohibited the shipping of puppies in freezing or suffocating baggage compartments, shipped in lettuce crates and other unsafe containers. Thank HSUS investigations and their work with Congress for putting an end to that.
  • The Animal Welfare Act received additional enforcement funding in 2002 thanks to the efforts and testimony of the HSUS.
  • HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle teamed up with actress/activist Tippi Hedren and other animal welfare advocates to save thousands of big cats from death and suffering in the exotic animal trade. The Captive Wildlife Safety Act of 2003 banned the interstate trafficking of lions, tigers, jaguars, and other big cats. It was passed unanimously by Congress.
  • The PETS Act of 2006 requires states receiving FEMA aid to accommodate pets and service animals in their plans for disaster evacuations. It was passed thanks to HSUS’ work with legislators, and their testimony about the events of Hurricane Katrina.
  • When the Supreme Court struck down the law making the sale of crush videos illegal, HSUS led the charge to pass a new bill. HSUS investigations revealed a surge in crush video sales following the invalidation of the law, and a new bill was promptly signed into law in 2010.
These laws constitute a tiny sample of the more than 1,000 anti-cruelty laws passed through the efforts of the HSUS. Legislation is the only effective deterrent to the cruelty of animal abusing industries. When you consider that more than 70% of HSUS-backed ballot campaigns to protect animals from cruelty are successful, it’s no surprise that HSUS was voted the #1 animal protection nonprofit by Guidestar’s Philanthropedia study. Now, ask yourself why industry-funded groups like HumaneWatch would try to oppose and discredit that. Could it be… money? Companies that profit from animal cruelty know that the HSUS’ legislative efforts are the biggest threat to inhumane business practices. The PR firms they hire — front groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom — know it too. And it scares them. It scares them because animal welfare advocates are winning the battle for the humane treatment of animals, one person, one company, one issue, one state, one law at a time. If you would like to support the HSUS’ efforts to protect animals from cruelty, please consider making a donation to the Humane Society of the United States or its legislative branch, the Humane Society Legislative Fund. Volunteer to help animals. And warn your friends about deceptive anti-animal groups like HumaneWatch.

Another Weak Thread in Berman’s Web of Lies

  By

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has been a perpetual thorn in Richard Berman’s side. For years, they have exposed his questionable nonprofits and ripped the mask off his industry-funded front groups.

Berman’s groups depend on deception and anonymity to perpetuate their misinformation, so every time CREW points out the artificial nature of Berman’s astroturf, the gnashing of teeth can be heard clearly throughout Berman & Company’s office.

CREW’s effectiveness in elevating Berman’s blood pressure can be seen in CCF’s newest smear campaign, CrewExposed.com. The deceptive website adds to a list of more than 100 dishonest front groups and campaigns run by the D.C. lobbyist and PR millionaire.

Berman’s anti-ethics website boasts that it’s funded by “donations from foundations” (likely Berman himself). The main thrust of the website’s misinformation is that CREW targets a disproportionate number of right-wing politicians and groups. That’s not surprising given Berman’s long-standing connections to extreme right-wing political groups and causes, especially those undermining worker benefits and wages. The “proof” presented on the site consist of the usual Berman dirty tactics: innuendo and misleading, cherry-picked statistics.

Good luck with that, Rick. CREW has more integrity, respect, and credibility than the liars for hire at your PR firm ever will.

For example, CREW has never tried to pass off an opera singer with a criminal record as a research expert.

They have never impersonated medical professionals on blogs in order to lie about their credibility.

They have never diverted millions of dollars in donations to unrelated right-wing causes, and they don’t funnel millions of dollars into the founders’ bank accounts through questionable nonprofit schemes.

They have never defamed rescuers, they have never advocated discrimination against AIDS patients, they have never been forced to retract false accusations of terrorism, never had their official YouTube channel shut down for abuse, never been blasted by a news organization for lying to reporters, never had to settle a libel suit to avoid a massive judgment…

Can you and your corporate front groups say the same, Rick?

No, you cannot.

Stopping Facebook Harassment

  By
Several members of the Stop HumaneWatch group on Facebook have contacted us about notices they received, warning that their screen shots or other content have been removed for “copyright infringement”. Anti-activist terrorism is a common tactic of HumaneWatch members. When they can’t counter the facts, they resort to lies, harassment, and intimidation to protect their alleged right to abuse animals. But that doesn’t mean you have to sit there and take it. The screenshot above, taken from HumaneWatch, is one example of content that was falsely reported as copyright infringement. The comment on the screenshot pointed out that HumaneWatch has yet to confront any of the animal abusers and admitted animal killers frequenting its pages. That didn’t sit too well with the originator of the comment, who didn’t like her hypocrisy being exposed. She filed a false DMCA copyright infringement complaint through Facebook’s automated system in an attempt to suppress our free speech. That was a crime (perjury) as well as a violation of Facebook’s Terms of Service. According to the copy of the complaint forwarded by Facebook, she complained on the grounds that “A copywrited [sic] photograph that belongs to me is being used by an individual and a group without my permission… The photo in my avatar is copywrited [sic] and belongs to me. I did not give this group permission to use a screen shot of my photo.” Here are the facts. HumaneWatchers cannot claim copyright infringement on a comment or a profile picture that they have posted to Facebook, because they expressly gave you permission to repost it. That’s in the Facebook Terms of Service, Section 2.4:
When you publish content or information using the everyone setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
Got that? If they’ve posted it publicly on Facebook, they have granted you permission to reprint it, to share it anywhere on or off of Facebook, and to associate it with their name and profile picture. So, what do you do if someone has filed a fraudulent copyright complaint against you? Your first clue that something is wrong will probably come from the stern warning on Facebook telling you that your content has been removed, and warning you that if you continue to violate Facebook Terms of Service, you could be exiled from Facebook. They’ll require you to mark the checkbox acknowledging that you’ve read the warning. Being unfairly accused of wrongdoing is infuriating, and a little intimidating. That’s the intent of the harassment. But keep in mind that (a) you’re innocent, (b) it’s an automated system with no ability to make intelligent judgments, and (c) it ultimately means nothing, since you’re about to clear your name and turn the tables on your harasser. The warning will contain a link to Facebook’s DMCA Counter-Notice Form. Click that link. You’ll be asked to provide your contact information, and this may be provided to the person who filed the complaint. The address required is just a point of contact, so feel free to use a PO Box, maildrop, or other intermediary address if you’re not comfortable releasing that information. In the box asking why Facebook was wrong to remove the content, you can copy and paste the following:
The content is not an original work of authorship as defined by 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101 et seq., and is not subject to the DMCA. Furthermore, use of the content was expressly permitted by Facebook Terms of Service Sec. 2.4, which reads: “When you publish content or information using the everyone setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).”
In a day or two, Facebook will contact you by email to confirm that you are filing a counterclaim. You may need to repeat that information in your reply, and you may need to remind Facebook of their own Terms of Service. Be patient, be polite. Once Facebook’s staff has gathered the information they need to determine that the claim was false, they will notify the harasser of your counterclaim, and will restore the content within 14 days. You can also repost the content before that time, since it has been cleared by Facebook and they have agreed to stop blocking it. Any false claims from the harasser may result in the closure of their account, so be sure to ask Facebook’s staff to pursue disciplinary action against the complainant. If this has happened before, include that information in your report. Filing false abuse reports is not just a violation of Facebook’s Terms of Service, it’s a crime. Stand up for your rights, and make those HumaneHaters eat their words!

HumaneWatch lies, so shelter pets die

  By

Six million to eight million animals enter our nation's animal shelters each year.

Gloating by the industry-funded hate group HumaneWatch ran thick this week after the Platte Valley Humane Society in Nebraska turned down a $5,000 grant from the Humane Society of the United States. Although the grant totaled almost half of what the shelter garners through its largest fund-raising event each year, shelter management felt they could not take the money. “We thought that maybe we should just bow out and not accept these funds and maybe we wouldn’t be crossing any feelings of people who are advocates and those in the industry,” board president Steve McClure said. In other words, board members were so intimidated by the misinformation spread by HumaneWatch and the industrial agribusiness interests it represents that they turned down the money rather than risk alienating factory farmers in the area. This is all part of the HumaneWatch strategy: to turn one animal protection charity against another. While these groups are distracted by infighting, the puppy mills and factory farms that the HSUS confronts are free to continue profiting from animal cruelty. HumaneWatch’s attacks haven’t stopped the HSUS, ASPCA, or other national groups from confronting cruelty to animals, but they have hurt local shelters — and animals. $5,000 could spell the difference between life and death for hundreds of shelter pets. A new adoption campaign. A new paint job to welcome adopters. Medical treatment. Personnel. Enrichment. Housing. All these items so key to no-kill goals were lost, solely because of HumaneWatch lies. Add it to the toll of suffering caused by the puppy mills, factory farms, furriers, seal clubbers, horse slaughterers, and other animal cruelty they are paid to defend. HumaneWatch lies, so shelter pets die.