Letters [Oct 2004]
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, October 2004:
The impending merger of the Fund for Animals into the Humane
Society of the United States, unanimously approved by the Fund board
on October 6, 2004, may seem attractive in promising to create a
large, more powerful political voice for animals, but HSUS views on
hunting are in opposition to those of the Fund.
Some activists may remember when an HSUS director actually
supported and voted for a deer hunt in New Jersey, but there is a
more recent example of similar conduct.
Former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey defended his
decision to hold a black bear hunt in 2003 by saying that he was
working with HSUS on a birth control plan. Obviously he was using
HSUS for political cover. I asked Wayne Pacelle, then the HSUS vice
president for government affairs, now the HSUS president, to state
that if the Governor held the hunt, HSUS would not work with him on
The response I got back was, “We do not want to burn any
bridges.” HSUS did not change their position, and neither did
McGreevey. Carnage followed. I do not know that if HSUS had done
what we asked, it would have changed anything, but to not risk
offending is to capitulate before the battle has begun.
A second example involving the HSUS’s position on bear
hunting further shows how different HSUS is from the Fund. Promoting
a ballot measure to ban certain forms of bear hunting in Maine, but
not bear hunting itself, Pacelle on web page
<www.hsus.org/ace/21503> wrote that, “Once the majority votes ‘yes’
on Question 2, sound and sporting management approaches will take
hold in Maine, as they have elsewhere.”
Pacelle added, “Despite pre-referendum fear-mongering to the
contrary, bear hunting continues in each of these states [that
banned baiting], and in fact wildlife officials report some unusual
stats: record numbers of hunting licenses sold, more revenues from
hunter tourism, and stable total kills.”
Thus HSUS not only endorsed hunting, but defended actions
against specific forms of hunting with the argument that the changes
will lead to more hunting.
Large corporations do not merge with smaller ones for
philosophical reasons; they do it to absorb their capital.
According to IRS Form 990, the Fund is worth nearly $20,000,000.
This is indeed a mighty prize.
HSUS needs a constant influx of massive amounts of cash. They
get it by taking weak mainstream positions. They offend no one, and
therefore take everyone’s money.
Because HSUS allows nothing to disrupt their cash flow, HSUS
will never adopt a strong anti-hunting stand. Fund employees who
have strong ethical positions against hunting will either be muzzled
or be fired. Just as a hunter does not “merge” with a fallen stag,
but instead consumes him, I believe that HSUS will devour the Fund,
take her assets, and continue as always.
Cherry Hill, New Jersey
Thank you for your September 2004 editorial feature “The
Fund, HSUS, & merging packs.” The article was informative about the
animal protection movement in general and the two groups in
particular, but it was that it winsomely intertwined with your new
adoptions that tugged at my heart.
Menlo Park, California
The National Institute for Animal Advocacy gives a standing
ovation to the merger of the Humane Society of the United States and
the Fund for Animals, under new HSUS president Wayne Pacelle.
While a Fund employee, I worked for Pacelle before he left
for HSUS, and later worked for Fund president Michael Markarian.
Both men are vegans.
Since leaving the Fund, I have provided political training
to animal advocates around the U.S. The Fund has agreed to sponsor
me in writing a political training manual for animal advocates.
Pacelle will be a project advisor.
The merger and Pacelle’s ascendancy portend a tardy trend
toward animal rights at HSUS. Exciting and not to be overlooked is
that the merger will include the formation of an auxilliary 50(c)(4)
political lobbying organization which legally will be able to endorse
candidates. Markarian is likely to direct it. I forecast that this
501(c)(4) will both achieve for animals in its own right and
illustrate that political involvement through the formation of
political organizations is essential for those who want strong laws
for animals at any level of government.
The National Institute for Animal Advocacy believes that
pro-animal organizations must consider founding 501(c)(4) political
auxiliaries a mandatory and essential part of their advocacy. I
learned through years of lobbying for charities that lobbying under
the restrictions that apply to charities cannot begin to achieve what
can be done through organizations incorporated specifically to do
political work, and that no other issue group that has a serious
impact on laws and policies attempts to do so through charities.
In 2002 I founded the National Institute for Animal Advocacy
to create a political culture among animal advocates, provide the
necessary political training to them, and to help develop pro-animal
political leadership. Our next training event is tentatively
scheduled to take place in Las Vegas, at the invitation of the Las
Vegas Valley Humane Society in January. Please consider bringing me
to you. And get political for the animals!
National Institute for
P.O. Box 475
Guilford, CT 06437
In 2000 I created a nonprofit organization for the sole
purpose of putting up murals to educate the poor about spay/neuter
and related animal care. I have ended the organization because I
funded most of it, but the two murals I put up, the one shown in
the accompanying photo and one in east Harlem, have helped many
animals and people. Most days I receive several calls in response to
them. The mural in the photo is there on a 10-year contract, and
the one in east Harlem will be there as long as the landlord owns the
building, he has promised.
I am writing to ANIMAL PEOPLE about this because murals are
an effective way to reach people in low-income areas. Murals
supplement and support the work of sterilization clinics and rescue
projects, provide an attractive educational presence, and do not
take time away from hands-on work.
Here is how I did it: I contacted a street painter/muralist;
we walked through the target neighborhoods, looking for high walls,
to protect our murals against graffiti; and found two landlords, a
year apart, who were receptive to what we wanted to do. The first
landlord charged us a one-time fee of $200. The other landlord
donated the space in exchange for our painting the outside of his
I rented a lift to enable the painter to cover the entire
side of each building, insured him for the few days he was on the
job, got a telephone number to handle the response, and the calls
have been coming ever since.
The most gratifying aspect of my mural project has been the
gratitude of the callers. Often they are isolated individuals with
no awareness of the many local resources available to help animals.
For example, one young man was a paraplegic in a wheelchair,
who said his cat’s ears were turning over. He did not know about ear
mites, and had never treated his cat for them. I had never actually
seen what happens with untreated ear mites, either. I had the
necessary ear surgery done and also had the cat spayed.
I have printed post cards showing the mural in the photo,
and would be happy to send a card to anyone who is interested.
New York, New York
Mount Longevity monkeys
The mayor of Kaohsiung City, Taiwan, has ordered that 300
wild Formosan macaques must be removed from the Mount Long-evity
municipal nature reserve. Local aborigines will be hired to capture
the macaques. Many monkeys may die during the process!
The city wants to control the monkey population, but these
smart creatures, the only non-human primates found in Taiwan, are
not over-populated. They are shy and seldom go out of the forest to
disturb people and property.
Those who are concerned about saving the lives of these poor
monkeys can write directly to Kaohsiung City mayor Frank Chang-ting
Hsieh, c/o Kaohsiung City Government #2, Swei 3rd Rd., Lingya
District, Kaohsiung 802, Taiwan, Republic of China; fax
886-7-3373761; e-mail <mayor@-mail.kcg.gov.tw>.
–Dr. G. Agoramoorthy
Taiwan, Republic of China
For many years I have been in the doghouse with many animal
lovers because I advocate abolition of breeding dogs and cats. I
began urging that long before any thought of breeeding regulation was
entertained. Foremost among dogs not to be bred I cited pit bull
terriers, Staffordshire terriers, Rottweilers, toy poodles, and
dachshunds (because of their too-long spines).
I am now blind, at age 91, and must have a friend
transcribe this for me, but have long decried the use of dogs for
blind and otherwise handicapped people because such dogs are too
often abandoned when age or sickness prevent their servitude.
Because of the frustrations felt by the blind and handicapped,
service animals may be abused, and often they are not properly cared
I am aware of the issue of not having warm companionship from
technological substitutes for guide dogs (I have been without warm
companionship myself for some years now), but the rights and
feelings of animals should be recognized and respected.
Eilers was long associated with Animals’ Crusaders, an
acti-vist network founded in Spokane, Washington in 1950 by L.
Constance M. Barton, with affiliates in Scot-land, New Zealand,
and around the U.S. Barton earlier in 1950 chaired the New Zealand
Association of Rationalists & Humanists, promoting the teachings of
pro-animal author George Bernard Shaw. Active former affiliates of
Animals’ Crusaders include Animals’ Cru-saders of Arizona,
separately incorporated in 1955, and Greater Victoria Animals’
Crusaders, separately incorporated in 1973. There may be others.
Eilers was also an Arizona representative for Inter-national
Defenders of Animals, a similar network formed in 1959 by the late
Virginia Gillas. Gillas identified Eilers as a humane movement
veteran in captioning a 1963 photo of the two of them with Fred
Meyers, founding president of the Humane Society of the U.S.