Animal Rights Groups

Are they what you think they are?

There are many well intentioned reptile keepers who are paying members of
the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), and even some who are members
of PeTA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). The two groups actually have
several ties, which I will detail later.
In essence, these people, while possesing a genuine desire to help animals and
wildlife, are sleeping with the enemy. Note two quotes from Ingrid Newkirk, founder
and president of PeTA:
"For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding as the surplus of cats and dogs
declined, eventually companion animals would be phased outWe would no longer
allowpet shops (Harpers Magazine, Aug 1988)
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human
manipulation." (Washingtonian Magazine, Aug. 1986)
This page will hopefully enlighten you as to the nature of these groups, keep you from
being deceived by their propoganda and outright lies they put forth in order to
convince the public to send in the donations on which they depend, and possibly offer
some advice for those of you wanting to contribute money for the betterment of pets
everywhere. Since Ingrid Newkirk is so outspoken, she gives a wealth of insight into
their true agenda, all quotes mentioned can be attributed to her unless otherwise
stated.

PeTA
PeTA is the foremost group in the animal rights movement. Understand there is a
critical difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Animal welfare activists
work toward ensuring the humane treatment of animals used by humans for whatever
reason. Animal rights activists work toward eliminating all use of animals by people,
whether for food, clothing, critical medical research, or the enjoyment of pets, and
they often use violence and intimidation to acomplish these goals.
"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for
the animal cause."
(Alex Pacheco, chairman of PETA, New York Times interview)
The philosophy of PeTA and other animal rights groups can be summed up in this:

They do not love animals, they hate humans.

More quotes by Ingrid Newkirk:

"Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the
earth." (Readers Digest, June 1990)
"I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don't have any reverence
for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a blank space where I am.
This will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at least I wouldn't be harming anything.
All I can do-all you can do-while you are alive is try to reduce the amount of damage
you do by being alive." (Washington Post, Nov. 13, 1983)
While there are areas of research done on animals that should be condemned, there is
also valuable medical research that desperately needs to be done to save human lives.
There is current research being made in the treatment of AIDS, cancer, Parkinson's
disease, and many other deadly and debilitating plagues of mankind that involve the
use of animals. These animals are bred under lab contitions for this purpose. PeTA
however would see the end to this as well.
Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, "We'd be against it." (Vogue, Sept,
1989)
"If my father had a heart attack, it would give me no solace at all to know his
treatment was first tried on a dog." (Washington Post, May 30, 1989)
"Even painless research is fascism, supremacism." (Washington Magazine, Aug.
1986)
PeTA makes three main arguments against medical research involving animals:

Animal research has not benefited human health

Animal research is painful
There are effective alternatives to animal research

The truth is, animal research has been a critical factor in the development of
treatments and cures for Alzheimers, cancer, cholera, diabetes, leprosy, poliomyelitis,
rheumatoid arthritis, smallpox, yellow fever, and many other infectious diseases and
chronic conditions. (See Journal of the American Medical Association, June 23-30,
1989, p. 3602; Americans for Medical Progress, 1991 annual report, pp. 4-7;
and American Medical Association, Use of Animals in Biomedical Research: the

Challenge and Response, white paper, 1992, p. 12.)

The most comprehensive study of pain in animal research found that 92% do not
experience any pain at all due to the research. - Alternatives to Animal Use in
Research, Testing, and Education (Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology
Assessment, 1989).
And these alternatives to animal research, such as cell cultures, chemical tests, and
computer simulations, while already widely used, usually can only serve as useful
compliments to animal research.

Money
According to the tax forms filed by PeTA with the IRS, in fiscal 1995 they claimed a
$12 million budget, 1996 saw a $10.9 million budget. Of this, $3,955 in 1995 and
$6,100 in 1996 was spent on shelter programs.
Alternately, PeTA made $1,485,076 in donations. $1.3 million or 90%, of this they
donated to themselves by giving it to their satellite offices in Germany, the
Netherlands, and England. After their own offices, the largest donation made was
$45,200 given to Rodney Coronado, an animal rights terrorist, to help his legal fight
to avoid going to prison for the firebombing of medical research facilities.
How much of this money came from well intentioned herpers?
PeTA has filed volumes of complaints with various government agencies reporting
alleged abusive situations in all areas of animal use. I have yet to find a single
instance that after investigation revealed any substance to the claims.
These situations, along with the very public protests do however accomplish two
things. They manage to completely waste the time and tax payer dollars of these
agencies, and they also raise revenue for PeTA by putting them in the media spotlight
for a while.
PeTA is an extremely dangerous menace to society. Their extrmemist tactics, and
abolitionist views, if realized, stand to affect all mankind from their health and food,
to the enjoyment of keeping pets in their home. They condone extreme acts of
violence by groups such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation
Front (ELF), and often provide funds donated by their supporters to these terrorist
groups to further their agenda.

HSUS
"Human care (of animals) is simply sentimental, sympathetic patronage."
(Dr. Michael W. Fox, HSUS, in 1988 Newsweek interview)
The Humane Society of the United States is a much more subtle but equally as
dangerous animal rights group. I once saw a very fitting analogy, the difference

between PeTA and the HSUS is like the difference between a mugger and a con man they both steal your money but they have different tactics, and a different timetable.
PeTA is a mugger that tries to force its agenda quickly through propoganda and
violence, while the HSUS is a con man who is slowly infiltrating government and
society looking for a long term realization of the same goals.
The HSUS has been very effective in deceiving the population at large, and most
think they are a humane society and the direct opposite of groups like PeTA. The truth
is the HSUS is a big part of the same animal rights movement as PeTA, and holds the
same ideals, only the tactics differ.
The HSUS was officially converted from an animal welfare to an animal rights
advocate by a membership vote at their 1980 annual meeting.
It is interesting to note that the HSUS makes every attempt to distance itself from
groups like PeTA with whom they share philosophy. They deliberatly avoid use of the
term "animal rights" and instead call themselves "animal protectionists".
In 1984, John McArdle,previous HSUS vice president for lab animals, instructed the
group to "avoid the words 'animal rights' and 'antivivisection.' They are too strange for
the public. Never appear to be opposed to animal research. Claim that your only
concern is the source of the animals."
One thing I do want to make very clear first, in virtually all of the informational
pamphlets from the HSUS you will see statistics and numbers which will horrify you
as to the scope of the problem. Please DO NOT be deceived by this tactic. The HSUS
rarely if ever sites a direct reference to support their numbers, and have their own
method of using them which results in a grossly inflated picture of the statistics they
are using.
For instance, in a pamphlet called Pet Overpopulation Fact Sheet, they list the
number of dogs and cats euthanized each year as 7.5 million.
"With claims that 70,000 puppies and kittens are born each day because of the
uncontrolled breeding of pets and even more that are born to stray and abandoned
animals, HSUS says that it is impossible to find enough pet homes when only 10,000
humans are born in a day. The result is an estimated 7.5 million dogs and cats
euthanized each year."
This is an excellent example. The 7.5 million number is accurate, but they are using
the number to suggest this is how many are euthanized due to unwanted litters. The
fact is this number includes all deaths in shelters, those who are old, injured,
agressive, or owner requested, as well as those animals which are adoptable. They

also fail to note that the numbers of cats far exceed dogs, and are added to by cats who
are fed but unowned "neighborhood cats", as well as feral cat colonies.
Just one example of how they take a bit of truth and word it in such a way it severly
distorts the facts.
Most recently they are claiming 93,000 people contract salmonella from reptiles
annually, but again offer no source for this information. I have heard medical
professionals refer to certain strains of salmonella as being a "reptile strain", meaning
that it is common in herps. In rural areas these strains are often seen in people who
have no physical contact with reptiles. It is normally attributed to their home water
source, which is natural rather than municipal. Snakes, salamanders, etc, frequenting
the stream or resevoir where they get their water.
How many of any figure, including the HSUS' 93,000 are the result of these
situations?
Another note on the salmonella figures, they never cite the numbers of cases of
salmonella traced to meat and poultry, which are astronomically higher than pet
reptile infections.
I am straying from the topic here, so I'll come back a bit. Let's look at the financial
situation of the HSUS, which some of you may have helped support.
According to the 1995 tax forms filed with the IRS, the HSUS claimed a budget of
$38,102,167. The numbers are higher today, I have recently heard the HSUS budget
has grown to $50 million, but I have no acceptable proof at this time to support that.
Wow, $38 million! Thats enough to bankroll a major humane shelter in every state,
and fund massive spay/neuter programs nationwide. So how many animal shelters
benefit from this huge sum? NONE. Not even one. The HSUS operates no humane
shelters at all. All this work is done by local organizations which have no affiliation
with the HSUS. The HSUS does however very effectively use the plight of animals
and people's concern for them as a fund raising tool. The vast majority of people who
contribute to the HSUS truly believe this is what the money is for. After all, look at all
the sad faces on the puppies and kittens we see in the flyers we find in our mailboxes.
This practice can be accurately described as fraud, possibly not legally, but at least
morally. They are misleading the public by giving them the impression that their
money is going for something it is not.
The HSUS answer to the problem of unwanted animals is not to save them and find
good homes for them, but instead to outlaw the breeding of them to begin with. Then
eliminate the keeping of them as well.
So what does the HSUS do with that $38 million, besides print pamphlets and lobby
congress to eliminate our pets? For one thing they pay very well.
The HSUS Chief Executive Officer John A. Hoyt receives a salary of $237,871. In
1986 the HSUS bought a home in Germantown Maryland for Hoyt for the sum of

$310,000. Hoyt lived there until 1992 when he purchased a home in Virginia.
The HSUS president Paul G. Irwin, received a salary of $209,051. He was also paid
$85,000 for renovations ot a cabin he held in trust for the HSUS in Maine. Legal
documents showed that Irwin collected $15,000 in executor's fees from the estate of
an HSUS board member, without notifying the board of directors in advance, as
mandated by the HSUS code of ethics.
Irwin owns five houses, including a $786,500 residence in Darnestown, Maryland as
well as a Mercedes, Lincoln Town Car and a Corvette. Not too bad for the president
of anon-profit organization.

HSUS ties with PeTA

The HSUS employs several former PeTA employees, and Ingrid Newkirk, president
and founder of PeTA has allies within the HSUS directors.
One of Newkirk's allies would be Wayne Pacelle, vice president for media and
government affairs. Pacelle was hired by the HSUS directly from Cleveland Amory's
Fund for Animals. Amory is also interestingly the mentor of PeTA co-founder Alex
Pacheco.
Newkirk used the help of Amory in 1987 when she seized corporate and financial
control of the anti-research New England Anti-Vivisection Society and its multimillion dollar bank account, the first of her moves to consolidate the animal
movement under her influence.
Other former PeTA employees and associates who are now employed at HSUS
include the chief computer programmer, the head of its national and international
investigations who by the way, also oversees its lucrative Wildlife Lands Trust, two
key HSUS investigators and many other people throughout the HSUS corporate
structure, including its lab animal section, which handles the medical research issue.

A Little Advice
Before you decide to write that check to send some of your hard earned cash to
support the worthy cause of protecting animals, take a good look at who you are
supporting.
Just as you wouldn't thoughtlessly offer money to a local church without knowing
their doctrine, or contribute to a campaign fund without knowing the candidate's
political position on issues that you consider important, you should not just hand
money to any group claiming to represent the interests of our pets and wildlife.
I would advise you to be suspicious of any fundraising letters that make sensational
claims of animal abuse. A claimed, or even proven, case of animal abuse does not
mean that it is a common problem.

Your money would most likely be best put to use at a local animal shelter. These
places are almost always in desperate need of food, housing, and medical supplies.
The fact that the HSUS does not support these shelters at all from their massive
funding, contributes to the problem.
Time may be just as valuable as money to these local shelters. Volunteer a couple of
days a month to help feed and clean after the animals. You'll be doing a service to the
animals as well as have the opportunity to better investigate the shelter itself and its
intent.
I say this because there do exist some animal shelters that have been infiltrated by the
animal rights movement. Question the shelter employees, ask their position on pets,
particularly exotics. Make sure you are not inadvertantly supporting those who are
opposed to the hobby you love.
The groups like PeTA and the HSUS are entirely dependant on contributions of
people like us. If we choose instead to support local organizations who truly have the
interests of the individual animals at heart, we will cut the throat of these groups and
they will fall apart from lack of funds. At the same time the animals would be much
better served as well.

Related Links
What Animal Rights Activists Believe
The Illogic of Animal Rights -- An excellent paper describing the faults with the
philosophy of "Animal Rights"
Without Animal Research -- Just a few of the major advances that are the direct result
of medical research involving animals.
Animal Rights Groups' Budgets -- The claimed budgets from several groups. Are they
claiming any of your money?
The Tragic Hypocrisy of 'Animal Rights'

Just a final note from me. I fully expect to get mail concerning the topics covered on
this page. I am usually not inclined to debate the subjects discussed with those who
are supporters of the radical neo animal rights movement. They are fundamentally
opposed to what I do, and debate results in nothing. I also tire of the inability of the
vast majority of these people to offer anything more than anecdotal examples and
repeats of published propoganda. They are merely sheep led by the groups they
support and are basically incapable if independant thought or logical reasoning.

This page is merely an information source for those who share my enjoyment and
respect of nature and alert them toward the radical philosophy of the organizations
asking for their support.
I reserve the right to create an additional page for the publication of any and all hate
mail derived from this page, so that the true intellectual level of these people can be
displayed.
So if you are a radical outspoken proponet of animal rights, feel free to send in your
thoughts on the subject, or the thoughts given you by PeTA at least, it should be good
for a humorous addition to the page. If I'm bored I may even respond, I have been
known for the ability to weave a scathing rebuttal myself.