Carla Hall made it very clear that HSUS's Wayne Pacelle is a very political animal. She also made it clear he just tolerates animals. In fact, she also mentions that Wayne told her he just fell into animal work when he found out he could make a living at it.
This epiphany is exactly what led Boks into getting into animal shelter work: I can make a living in animal work.
I talked to Bob Hoover, president to the company that makes Chameleon software, about two years ago after Katrina. Bob had been there helping in some capacity.
He told me that HSUS was diverting a lot of the money given to them to rescue animals into organizing animal rescue and welfare groups across the country into a nationwide congress for social change. Sounds good, doesn't it.
However, recently one person has been feeding me a lot of info about HSUS and the phony methods they have for fundraising and then diverting that money away from rescue into organization building a political movement.
Here is one of many posts sent me:
Look at these figures!! $2 MILLION. $1.35 MILLION.
All those small individual contributions that roll in from John Q Public who "think" that the Humane Society of the United States is affiliated with their local shelters. Here is just one instance of $3.35 MILLION that has been "donated" to just one of the issues getting pushed by HSUS.
Tens of thousands of individuals that do not understand the goals of HSUS and their political warchest. HSUS uses "stock" photos of dogs and cats in their fundraising materials. They rush in following fires and floods to get those million-dollar photo opportunities that will generate more $$$ for them in the future.
HSUS is the wealthiest animal rights organization in the world. There is nothing "humane" about them. Whereas most local animal shelters are either financial struggling or under-funded, the HSUS is sitting fat and happy in the nation's Capitol.
In my next email, I will send "HSUS by the Numbers." It is an account of their 2007 Annual Review. They had 15 completed "covert" investigations and paid out less than SIX PERCENT (6%) in grant monies to Animal Care Partner Programs. Additionally, only 24,078 animals received direct care in 2007. But, hey, they did manage to produce 165 videos.
In addtion, Nathan posted another Pacelle hitpiece today on his blog:
Wayne Pacelle in a photo op with a dog belonging to someone else.
In an earlier blog, I discussed how Wayne Pacelle, the head of the Humane Society of the United States, is supposed to be a champion for the “winged” and the “furry,” but is, in many ways, an apologist for their killing. The question, of course, is why is that so? Why does he fail to embrace No Kill and to promote it as the head of the nation’s largest and most influential animal protection organization should? Why does he continue to pretend in statements to the media that No Kill communities do not exist and that the formula for ending the killing has not been discovered? Why does he allow HSUS representatives nationwide to misrepresent and deride No Kill and its supporters and to defend shelters with a poor record for lifesaving?
Time and time again, the positions he has taken regarding companion animals have vexed those of us who have dedicated ourselves to saving the lives of animals. But perhaps there is a simple, logical explanation. Perhaps Wayne Pacelle behaves as though he doesn’t care about animals because, by his own actions and admissions, he doesn’t.
When he was with the Fund For Animals, Pacelle was quoted as saying:
I don't have a hands-on fondness for animals. To this day I don't feel bonded to any non-human animal.
Admittedly, that was over a decade ago. But in this month’s Los Angeles Times feature, the reporter writes:
For years, Pacelle did not even have a pet. But when [his girlfriend] moved in with him, she brought along her cat, Libby."
He's interesting with animals… He doesn't want to bother them or invade their space. He's like 'Hello, Libby.'“ She imitated a formal, masculine voice, then laughed. “I just want to swoop her up and bury my head in her fur. He just lets her be. So, of course, she just crawls on the counters and he lets her crawl up and sit on his chest. If he needs to work, he'll ask me to remove her."
Despite the facile attempt to spin this into a positive, for those of us who have deep and meaningful relationships with animals, this description is disturbing. He doesn’t share his life with animals. He doesn’t feel compelled to rescue one from death row at any of the shelters he defends or promotes at his conferences. In fact, he has no real relationship with even his girlfriend’s cat who now lives in his home.
Don’t the five million animals facing certain and yet unnecessary deaths in our nation’s regressive shelters and pounds deserve to have a dedicated, passionate animal lover who is motivated by those very qualities overseeing the organization that has the greatest potential to bring that national tragedy to a speedy and final end?
Don’t donors to HSUS, who send that organization their hard earned dollars to the tune of over $100 million a year under the belief that their donations are going to be used to save animals, deserve to have an earnest individual who shares their values towards animals making decisions about how that organization's influence and capital can best be expended to further that cause?
In other words, shouldn’t a love for animals be a qualification for running HSUS since right now, it doesn’t appear to be? Is it any surprise then that HSUS under Pacelle continues to champion shelter policies which reflect a lack of caring for animals?
Perhaps he is thus unable to advocate for a nobler and just future for companion animals because he does not know what that future should look like. And he doesn’t know because he does not hurt at the thought of all the beings needlessly put to death. He fails to find it abhorrent. And he can’t even call it for what it is: a slaughter—something he has said is a “lamentable” choice of words when others have used it, because in his view, it is nothing more than “humane euthanasia.”