The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the richest animal rights organization, I think, in the world, with assets of more than $200 million. Unlike the SPCAs around the country and other humane societies that have no connection to HSUS, it is not an animal welfare organization that merely seeks to improve the treatment of animals. It is animal rights all the way.
But it is also very cleverly hides its true goals. HSUS’s leader, Wayne Pacelle, is very professional. He wears suits, he speaks softly, and unlike PETA’s alpha wolf Ingrid Newkirk, he doesn’t openly spout the animal rights dogma. But he is a true believer, and HSUS–which owns no [update: pet] shelters–is in a cold war of attrition against all animal industries, albeit one that employs legitimate tools of democracy, such as the lawsuit and public democratic initiative, to make life difficult for animal industries. (This isn’t to say HSUS is always wrong. Sometimes, it is right, such as when it exposed the abuse of “down” cattle by a stockyard, although even then, it may have allowed its animal rights agenda to interfere with its duty to protect public safety. Businesses that don’t meet the highest standards of legal treatment for their animals, not only act in a morally odious manner, but play into the hands of implacable enemies who seek their destruction.)
HSUS representatives don’t spout advocacy terms such as, “A rat, is a pig, is a dog, is a boy”–the title of my about to be released book, which I took from a famous Newkirk quote–striving to appear as benign as the local SPCA. But its raison d’etre is ultimately animal rights. And here’s some evidence. HSUS is producing dog food with no meat products, allowing owners to turn carnivores into vegans. From the story:
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has entered the pet food market with the launch of its Humane Choice dog food. The non-profit organization is marketing the product as a cruelty-free, all-natural dog food that does not contain animal-based proteins or support the factory farming industry. “Americans are concerned about the food we eat, and it just makes sense that we’d be concerned about the food we provide to our pets,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the HSUS. “Humane Choice is a nutritious, environmentally friendly and ethically responsible food for our best friends. Every bag of Humane Choice helps us celebrate the pets we love, and provides us with additional resources to help animals through our programs.”
Here’s the thing: Dogs are natural carnivores and, were they capable of choice, would never choose a meat free diet. Unlike cats however, they can survive on specially blended vegetarian fare–cats go blind–but it isn’t natural to them. And it strikes me: HSUS providing a product to help make dogs vegans has nothing to do with the welfare of canines, which thrive on dog food containing meat. Rather, the product reveals Pacelle and company’s true inner Newkirk. Ironically, since animal rights ideology holds that there should be no domesticated animals, if HSUS, PETA, and their fellow travelers ultimately prevailed in remaking society, there would be no dogs left to be made into vegans.
February 5th, 2010 | 1:21 pm
I work at the HSUS, and would like to point out that we actually have 5 direct care facilities which cared for nearly 16,000 animals in 2009. Our Animal Rescue Team assisted in rescuing 10,000 animals, and everyday we work hard to stop senseless cruelty.
Just look at the title of the dog food – Humane CHOICE. It simply provides a healthy alternative, that has been fully researched to make sure it provides essential nutrition to those who DO want to feed their dog a non-animal based diet. In our FAQ section, we also point out that before changing your pets diet you should always consult your vet. I strongly encourage anyone with confusion about the pet food to visit our FAQ’s http://thehumanechoice.com/faq1.htm
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
HSUS owns five shelters? Good to hear. When did that come about? Meat is the healthy alternative for dogs. Feeding dogs a vegetarian diet isn’t about the dogs. Thanks for writing. I also note, you don’t dispute the idea that animal rights would ultimately result in no dogs left.
February 5th, 2010 | 1:45 pm
How typical of the animal rights crowd. I stated in my blog that HSUS owned no animal shelters, the context of which clearly meant for dogs and cats. The response from the HSUS rep. was that it owned five “direct care facilities.” That was news to me, so I looked it up.
They aren’t animal shelters of the kind I was clearly referencing. Four are wildlife sanctuaries and one is a ranch that keeps exotic animals. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But these are not the shelters that care for abandoned or abused dogs, cats, and other pets.
http://www.humanesociety.org/animal_community/shelters/animal_care_centers.html
So, unless there is something I couldn’t find on the site, the representative didn’t lie. But she did actively mislead.
February 5th, 2010 | 2:01 pm
I used to work at HSUS and it is so that the company has had animal shelters and ranches for years despite the common accusations that they have none; Black Beauty Ranch, the Cape Wildlife Center, a new horse rescue in Oregon….and the 500 employees include those with animal rights interests, those with animal welfare interests and those with very little experience with or understanding of non-human animals at all. There are employees who hunt and fish and even breed dogs. I’ve never understood the HSUS hate that abounds. It really is a big charity with a bunch of money and hundreds of employees working on educating people on animal issues as well as those actually rescuing animals-EVERY DAY. I do agree with you on the dog food. I’m not feeding my dogs a food made in Uraguay with a label that says there isn’t any meat in it. Weird project.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
I don’t hate HSUS. I think it is deceptive as to its ultimate goal. I think it works hard to undermine animal industries. As I said in the post, sometimes it is right about cruel conditions. But I think it is not a benign animal welfare organization. That isn’t the same thing as saying that people who support it share those views or goals.
February 5th, 2010 | 2:03 pm
Why is it surprising that an organization which exists for the welfare of animals is trying to lesson the need to treat other animals poorly in order to feed the animals under its care?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
It is ridiculous to feed carnivores a vegan diet. And unless you think any animal husbandry is by definition “cruel”–there would be plenty of humane meat biproducts that could be put into the food. It shows the true nature of the organization, and that it isn’t simply an animal welfare organization.
February 5th, 2010 | 2:19 pm
No, it’s not “how typical of the animal rights crowd.” It’s how typical of Wesley Smith, consummate propagandist and sometime apologist for right-wing moonbats.
You made a sweeping generalization that “HSUS owns no shelters.” Then when HSUS called you on the carpet and showed that your statement was untrue you had the temerity to attempt some silly rebuttal about the context being “dogs and cats.” You topped even that when you attempted to twist your original misstatement into an attack on all animal rights people.
If you bother reading your own post you’ll see that the “no shelters” statement was made in reference to HSUS, and had nothing to do with dogs or cats. It’s truly pathetic to see someone who purports to think and argue clearly react with casuistry to valid criticism.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
History Writer: The post had to do with dogs. I should have said pet shelters. I was just not sufficiently precise. I am hardly a consumate propagandist–I am a truth teller! You just can’t handle the truth. : )
February 5th, 2010 | 2:29 pm
Actually, I’ve tried it out and my dogs and my friends’ dogs opted for the vegan food when given a choice. The vet also commented on how much healthier they were, and they’re remarkably lively for their ages (10+ years) I think it’s great that HSUS is doing this.
February 5th, 2010 | 2:32 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by CO2HOG: SHS: Turning Dogs into Vegans: Proof that HSUS Follows the Animal Rights Religion http://bit.ly/9nJI4t #tcot…
February 5th, 2010 | 2:51 pm
I have no trouble with dogs eating meat. Clearly they are designed to do so. But I wouldn’t call them carnivores any more than humans are carnivores. Both dogs and humans are omnivores, which is a big help when prey is sparse.
I wonder at those who push vegan vegetarianism. The effort to maintain a good balance of protein for nutrition when avoiding meat takes considerable discipline. That can be honorable for a thinking human. I can’t imagine a dog living on such a diet without the immediate assistance of a human.In the wild, the alpha dog might determine the eating order and even whether a particular dog gets to eat a kill but never what to eat.
Let dogs be dogs.
February 5th, 2010 | 3:43 pm
How many people are aware that the “meat” in commercial pet foots often includes dogs and cats that were killed in shelters? Yes they sell and render etc. them. As for dogs and cats eating meat, if a vegan diet can make dogs, or any human, for that matter, healther (I noticed the comment by the dog owner above), great. Some humans, and maybe some dogs too, do better than others do without eating meat; for humans there may be a link with blood type in that regard. Like cats, I happen to be someone who doesn’t do well without eating meat, and I only hope there’s some inner Newkirk in me. Ingrid Newkirk herself has said she loves liver –and misses it. I wouldn’t make any dog of mine go vegan for political reasons. But there is good reason for the political aspects of the animal rights movement — to raise awareness. As for consumption of meat, non-human animals are animals — just as we are. Some eat other animals, and that’s not a matter of cruelty or humanity or lack thereof, it’s a matter of survival. I wish SHS would stop maligning the animal rights movement, which is its natural ally when it comes to sanctity of life.
February 5th, 2010 | 4:06 pm
Dogs are not carnivores. They are omnivores. Only cats are obligate carnivores. Look this up on just about any reputable veterinary information site. That said, there are already a number of dog foods on the market which are vegan. Natural Balance and Avoderm are two that come to mind. A friend’s dog is diabetic and her veterinarian placed her on a vegetarian diet to keep her blood sugar in check. A vegetarian diet is perfectly safe and healthy for dogs. This is nothing new.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Francis: I didn’t say that dogs couldn’t be maintained on a vegetarian diet. I said they would never choose it for themselves, were they capable of choice. I also said that cats had to have meat. I think in nature they would be carnivores. Do wolves eat plants?
February 5th, 2010 | 4:11 pm
HSUS is not an animal rights organization. It it were, it would not be promoting so-called “humane” animal-slaughtering practices, it would be working to abolish those practices.
Dogs are not “natural carnivores”, as stated above; they are omnivores, and can do very well on vegan diets.
Mike Melendez – I have been a vegan for over 13 years and it is incredibly easy. It takes no more discipline than an omnivore diet – especially these days, when even vegan convenience foods are widely available. Also, you talk of alpha dogs in the wild… these dogs rarely engage in any disciplinary behavior – they don’t need to and it requires energy they’d rather conserve. Displays of aggression in dogs in the wild are usually only found among lower-status dogs who are trying to challenge the status of other lower-status dogs. But aside from that, the fact remains that the vast majority of dogs today *are* domesticated (unfortunately) and they *are* dependent on us to be their guardians and make decisions for them. As such, we make decisions based on their well-being AND the desire to be consistent with a plant-based diet; because cows and other animals raised for food are every bit as sentient as dogs, and as such deserve an equal amount of respect.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Kerry: HSUS sees humane meat as a way station on the way to no meat. Thanks.
February 5th, 2010 | 4:13 pm
Dear Wesley:
First, HSUS is not an animal rights organization. What HSUS does, for the most part,is to identify economically inefficient agricultural practices and to launch campaigns to go after what is already “low hanging fruit” identified by agricultural economists. (I discuss this in my new book, forthcoming from Columbia University Press.) This mode of operation characterizes most animal organizations.
Actually, HSUS and PETA are great allies of animal agriculture. These groups make modest demands (and ones that are for the part economically efficient). Industry (and you) portray these demands as “radical,” and when industry does make changes, or some ballot resolution passes, the animal groups go on a fund raising frenzy claiming “victory.” The animal groups praise industry and industry reassures the public that it has made “substantial” changes and really cares about animals. This makes the public more comfortable about the consumption of animal products.
Consider the current campaign for the controlled-atmosphere killing of poultry. There may or may not be welfare benefits from CAK over the present slaughter methods but the bottom line is that CAK is much more economically efficient for producers for many reasons, including reduced carcass damage. Take a look at my essay here: http://is.gd/7Mke6
2. Using PETA as the standard for an “animal rights” organization is difficult if for no other reason that PETA kills a huge number of the animals it “rescues.” That fact alone (and there are many others) disqualifies PETA from being considered an “animal rights” organization, irrespective of what Ingrid Newkirk says or does not say.
3. The HSUS “Humane Choice” dog food is not vegan; it apparently contains ingredients that are sourced from animals.
4. All of our dogs are vegans and have been for decades. We have adopted dogs with serious health problems that have thrived on a vegan diet. The last dog we lost was 19 years old at death and he was blind and had neurological problems when we adopted him. It is simply wrong to maintain that vegan diets are anything but great for animals–human or nonhuman.
I plan to review your new book and I hope that you will do a podcast with me. Although you and I have a *very* different view of the world, we always interact cordially and I would like to discuss these issues with you.
Yours for a nonviolent world,
Gary
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Gary: Thanks for stopping by. Gary’s complaint with HSUS/PETA reflects a divide in animal rights advocacy from my perspective. Gary supports “abolition,” that is changing our relationship with animals through leadership by example, primarily by a completely vegan lifestyle. As indicated, Gary believes that PETA/HSUS, by attacking animal industry practices that are on the margins or outside of acceptability, actually help animal industries by making them more acceptable to the general public. In contrast, PETA sees these actions as incrementally moving the ball toward the eventual end of all animal use.
HSUS says no animal bi-products. Not sure what “sourced” from animals means, but would be interested in learning.
Gary was very cooperative in my book’s research and we do indeed have cordial relations, while viewing this issue from very contrary perspectives. I did my best to present his views fairly and in context. He doesn’t believe there should be dogs, but he believes as long as there are, we should care for them properly. Cats, however, can’t go vegan, so I don’t know how he would handle that issue.
I will be happy to do a podcast with Gary and will let SHSers know when it airs.
February 5th, 2010 | 4:42 pm
I don’t agree here, Wesley (no offense).
Like all businesses, the HSUS has no ‘ultimate’ goal except to accumulate profit for its own sake. The HSUS sees a need in the consumer market today: selling indulgences to people who feel bad about eating meat but don’t want to give it up. Sarah (among other HSUS spokespeople) has made it clear over and over and over again that the HSUS isn’t opposed to hunting, to animal use, and so on. If they were, they’d promote veganism, which they don’t.
More important, it’s not organizations like the HSUS, PeTA or other groups who can be and have been misdirected in their rush to market themselves to donors; it’s organizations like mine, who do sincerely and unequivocally support an end to the property status of nonhuman animals as soon as possible.
Our agenda is by no means secret: global abolition of the property status of nonhuman animals and world-wide veganism. Bang your shoe all you like, but more and more people are realizing there is no need to use nonhuman animals and they are taking nonhuman animal seriously as the persons they are. The fact that this blog exists is evidence enough that the public mindset is changing and you feel the need to stem the tide.
I’m sure that even you, Wesley, are already thinking about how wonderful it would be if you just went vegan. Just think about the rich life you might lead not harming other animals who want to continue their lives and not be harmed and exploited. It’s never been easier to go vegan, and when you’re ready to do it, I hope you’ll get in touch.
Vincent J. Guihan
Executive Director
AnimalEmancipation
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Vincent: I never take offense at people disagreeing with me. What is fascinating is the variation of opinion being expressed about HSUS. It is a benign welfare group only interested in proper animal handin;, it is a stealth animal rights group (my view); it is not an animal rights group but helps animal industries by getting rid of the low fruit (Francione); it is a group really only interested in raising cash, etc. Fascinating.
February 5th, 2010 | 5:07 pm
HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, who uses both deception and outright lies in order to attract “supporters”, raise tons of cash and advance his agenda, was interviewed in the December 2009 issue of Newsmax. “It’s been a tough year” for fundraising and pet shelters dealing with the effects of the foreclosure crisis but “HSUS has responded with some of the most creative fundraising” in its history, such as an online trivia game that provides food for dogs and cats in shelters…HSUS runs none of these and in 2008, gave half of one percent of its tax free revenue to local humane societies. The trivia game – Freekibble.com – that HSUS ripped off was created by a 12 year old girl in 2008. HSUS’s scam generates CASH for the HSUS. How low can this man sink? Read “Betrayal and Deceit at the Humane Society of the United States (also December 2009), look up the sick rantings of senior staffer J.P. Goodwin in “No Compromise Magazine.” I could go on and on.
Pacelle has 23 year old Sarah post on every website that exposes unflattering information about HSUS – she and a few others respond with scripted (by Pacelle and his speechwriters) defenses that almost always add new spin, misrepresentations and outright lies. Yes, HSUS did acquire (through “corporate combinations” with other groups like the Fund for Animals) some sanctuaries. And the Fund raises money for those sanctuaries as a separate organization. I’ve got their 2010 calendar and multiple requests for money.
I think Wayne Pacelle is morally and possibly psychologically unfit to lead a charity and I am entitled to that opinion. He seeks to dominate and monopolize the field; feels his group is “better positioned to use funds” than any other. The tactics he uses to advance his goals (raising vast sums of money, getting legislation passed that he can shape to his agenda, garnering media attention any way he can, from partnering with Sick Vick to stealing credit for the work of others, intimidating and censoring critics via legal threats and actions) have shocked even his supporters.
2009 WAS a tough year not for their overflowing coffers but for Pacelle’s reputation with scandal after scandal and he responded with some of the most creative [Ed. changed wording to misleading] in the organization’s history.
By the way, HSUS’s claim of 11+ million members is as shady as their trivia game. Even with all the misleading TV ads; junk mail containing free keychains and blankets; multiple telemarketing campaigns and all the outside acquisitions/associated organizations i.e. revenue streams, they have at most one million current dues ($25 and up) paying members. In 2007 it was just 420,000.
February 5th, 2010 | 5:25 pm
Both dogs and cats can live healthfully on vegan diets, although cats’ urine, especially males’, must be monitored to maintain the proper pH level. Some pet foods contain ingredients from 4-D animals – those who were dead, dying, diseased, or disabled when they got to the slaughterhouse.
Vegan food is one solution. My 13-year-old dog, who I got at age 2, has done fine on it. But I think she would prefer animal products if I offered them to her. People often have to restrict their diets for health or other reasons; we can’t always eat what we prefer. I would have to weigh my dog’s “suffering” from eating a second-choice food against the suffering of the animal I would feed to her. Because of the concentration of corporate power in the slaughter industry, the vast majority of animals are killed in large facilities, and they do it FAST, not humanely. Animals are often not stunned properly. I know this because I’m writing a book about this and other problems, so I interviewed a slaughter inspector who spilled the beans. I have other corroborating evidence. Slaughter in America is horrible, and getting worse.
February 5th, 2010 | 7:42 pm
Wesley, I’m not trying to kiss up here but since I’ve known you, the only time you’ve ever deleted one of my comments was when I indirectly swore and tried to justify “IT”.
For people who don’t believe that you really don’t take offense when people don’t agreed with you, they simply need to read the many times that HW disagrees with you. Nothing personal HW but I’m sure that there are others also.
As far as eating meat is concerned, I just love pigs! I mean pork or should I say Bacon? Anyway, I can’t help “IT” cause I was raise on “IT”. They called my father a “Bleeder” and while on the farm he told me that “IT” was ok to eat them as long as they were properly blead. God Bless his soul.
If I thought that God wanted me to stop eating animals and I believed “IT” in my heart and soul that I should stop, I probably would but I would feel so sorry for our grand son who has C.F. To make a long story short he can’t stand vedgies and to make another long story short he’ll only eat potatoes and not sweet. He’s eleven now and he’s seen a few friends die from C.F. complications and we try to please him when we can. God only knows why he can’t stand vedgies cause we’ve always told him that they’re good for him and we eat them all the time. Go Figure!
I hope that I was not too far off topic this time.
Peace
February 5th, 2010 | 7:45 pm
The ultimate agenda of the Veganist Jihad is total elimination of ALL animal husbandry, followed by the total elimination of all humans (except themselves and their Annointed Disciples, of course). They are evil, death-worshipping Fascists who wrap themselves in a cuddly, furry, completely superficial skin of “animal welfare” to disguise their actual goal: Total, cradle-to-grave control of the lives of all other HUMAN BEINGS, for the purpose of ELIMINATING human beings. They never have given, (and never will give), one fat damn about actual animals or their “welfare”.
February 5th, 2010 | 7:49 pm
The HSUS has 27 directors that put in a whole 1 hour per week according to the hsus tax form
http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/financials/form_990_2008.pdf
they spent a huge whopping $450,000 on animals in the tax year out of the $86,000,000.00 taken in i call fraud. That is less than one half of one percent . The HSUS even donates money to PETA . Animal rights all the way. Next they will be funding lawyers for the rights of animals.
Spay & neuter the HSUS try that on a google search. Just read their tax form 70 pages of trash all lobby the gov nothing for the animals.
The HSUS should by law have to spend 50 % on the purpose they solicit the funds not 50 % on stopping the american way of life.
February 5th, 2010 | 8:17 pm
Well even if cats can or could be kept healthy without meat I’m damned if I’m going to spend my life lugging them back and forth to the vet to have their pH monitored while I know perfectly well they’d rather eat meat, just as I do. For God’s sake they’re hunters, little lions.
February 5th, 2010 | 8:20 pm
And I suppose the cats would just love being lugged back and forth to the vet all the time to have their pH monitored, on top of everything else. I’ve always regretted not accepting the offer of a full-time staff position at PETA, except I know now as I knew then that I couldn’t be a vegetarian. Which doesn’t mean I don’t admire the consciousness-raising they do.
February 5th, 2010 | 8:42 pm
I co-opted this from another source but the explanation is spot on.. Dogs are carnivores…classified as such..
‘Actually, Dogs are NOT omnivores. They are CARNIVORES, members of the mammal order Carnivora. Like the majority of carnivores (dogs, bears, raccoons, etc) they can and do eat some vegetable material. Carnivores of this type are called facultive carnivores. The rest of the carnivores (cats, weasels, mongoose etc…) that do not eat any veggies are called obligate carnivores. Because facultive carnivores consume some veggie material in the wild and in our homes does not mean that they can be maintained on a purely vegetable diet. Some facultive carnivores are better at dealing with veggies than others. Bears for instance can and do eat a tremendous amount of vegetable material when it’s available and the Giant Panda consumes bamboo almost exclusively dogs however are not too good at this. The bear cannot exist without meat in it’s diet while the Panda is a carnivorous conundrum (a vegetarian carnivore!). Neither is typical of the order Carnivora and each
has adopted its diet through many generations of evolution. You cannot achieve these results by switching your dog to a vegan diet today! Until recently the diet of dogs was described in vet manuals as carnivorous. It’s only since the junk pet food industry began to subsidize vet schools and put financial pressure on them that the official designation was changed to “omnivorous”. True omnivores (rats, chimps, monkeys, prosimians, and people) can survive long term on a vegan diet though all will do better with varying amounts of meat in it’
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Thanks alice in LALA land. I escaped LALA land 18 years ago! It is also worth noting that the vegan dogs can only be maintained because the food has been specially supplemented. Same with human vegans. And veganism is unhealthy for young children.
February 5th, 2010 | 8:52 pm
Have any of you “vegans” considered the HUGE “carbon footprint” caused by bringing grain based food to the USA from Uruguay (where the food is made) to feed to dogs? Humane Choice is surely not “green” nor is it “healthy”. Large scale farming is necessary to produce this food harming and KILLS MILLIONS of animals, not to mention polluting the air we breathe just by bringing the food to this country.. If that is not enough for you the price should be. Humane Choice is over $17.00 for a six pound bag.. why not buy bird seed to feed to your dog.. lots cheaper.. and much more “green”
February 5th, 2010 | 9:07 pm
If HSUS is so much an animal welfare organization vs lobbying organization, why does less than 5% of its $152 MILLION income directly aid animals?
Second, would a hungry dog attack an animal for food or a grain field? The answer to this will tell you their food preferences.
February 5th, 2010 | 9:34 pm
A small correction – Dogs are not omnivores. While they are not olbigate carnivores, they ARE facultative carnivores. Faculatives, in their natural state, do have some vegetable matter in their diets – some to a greater degree like bears and some only very slightly like wolves (dogs). (I wonder if HSUS is going to try to convince the wolves of Yosemite to become vegans, too? And their prey dies so much more violently than the cattle and chickens in slaughterhouses.)
HSUS is always very clever to make statements that, while not totally untrue, give an impression of something that is not true. Go out and ask people in the general public what HSUS does and almost every one will tell you that HSUS runs their local shelter. (I know people do; I took a survey.) HSUS does nothing to correct that erroneous impression and all their fund-raising propaganda, featuring those sad-faced dogs and cats, mightily reinforces it.
And, yes, it seems that HSUS does have a few facilities with actual animals in them now. For over a decade they’ve had Black Beauty Ranch which they inherited as part of a larger bequest from Cleveland Amory and, by the terms of that bequest, must keep operating it. And, in the past few years after we have widely publicized the fact that HSUS’s purpose is NOT to take care of animals (and, in fact, charges local Humane Societies for their services and dumps the animals they “rescue” in local shelters with rarely any money to take care of them), HSUS now seems to be acquiring a few more places like the horse sanctuary they opened last year so that they can claim that they operate shelters.
As to Kerry Wyler’s statement “HSUS is not an animal rights organization. It it were, it would not be promoting so-called “humane” animal-slaughtering practices, it would be working to abolish those practices.”, Pacelle and his fanatical vegans who took over HSUS some years back have made no secret of what their ultimate aims are but, now that we are onto them, are much more discreet in their public pronouncements. (One example: Five years ago, Pacelle boasted loudly to the media that it would be a slam-dunk to pass AB2110 in California, banning hunting with sighthounds, and it would be his first step toward outlawing ALL hunting and fishing in the country. Bad move. His outrageous and deceptive claims united all the sighthound people, hunters, fisherman, ranchers, wildlife management people and many, many more and the bill went down to defeat. Pacelle is much more discreet now with his pronouncements about his ultimate aims.)
However, HSUS has mastered the art of “moving the middle”, working tiny step by tiny step toward their goal. (One of many, many examples: Two years ago I listened to testimony in front of the Maine legislature about new dog and cat breeding regulations being proposed there. The HSUS rep fell all over herself insisting that HSUS WANTS to work with breeders and they ONLY wanted to stop the evil puppy mills. The very next day, I watched the Los Angeles City Council meeting where HSUS was lauded for being the driving force behind the draconian forced sterilization law that makes any legal breeding of dogs and cats, no matter how wonderfully done, virtually impossible there.)
I’ve known two vegetarian dogs and neither was healthy and both went absolutely berserk whenever they smelled meat. Sad dogs. Dogs have evolved for eons to be meat-eaters. Forcing a dog to be vegan is cruelty in my book but, unlike HSUS, I won’t try to legislate to force my opinion on them.
Geraldine Clarke
CA-Animal Legislation
February 5th, 2010 | 10:02 pm
Mahalo Aloce for co-opting my post. Feel free to do it any time! Let me start by saying: I eat meat. I raise pure bred cats (Abyssinians) and dogs (Pharaoh Hounds and APBTs) and I feed them raw meat, bones and organs (frankenprey). My vet and everybody else who sees my animals tell me that they have never seen animals as healthy as mine (he even calls in the vet techs and tells them my cat is “perfect”). I do this because I accept that they are carnivores and as such NEED meat in their diet. I have seen first hand the results of feeding dogs and especially cats a vegan diet and it’s not always pretty. Despite what many people wish you just cannot change the NATURE of an animal through you own willpower. Can you FORCE a dog or cat to eat vegan food? Of course you can. Hunger is a powerful tool. Will cats and dogs survive on a vegan diet? Sure, for now. Is a vegan diet in the best interest of the animal? A resounding NO! It’s basic biology. As carnivores dogs and cats have very short small intestines designed to absorb meat protein very quickly and efficiently and then evacuate ASAP. In contrast to carnivores, vegan animals (horses, cows, parrots, iguanas…) have very long small intestines designed to absorb plant proteins and heavy carbohydrate loads. All of this takes a long time so the gut is very long to maximize contact time. In addition many (cows, giant tortoises, termites…) have specialized/ compartmentalized guts that contain commensal bacteria that help to ferment plant sugars into products that can be utilized directly by the animal. True omnivores (rats, people, pigs, chimps…) have guts that are intermediate to carnivores and vegetarians. Carnivores also are not so good at producing amylase (dogs produce some, cats none). This is the main enzyme responsible for the breakdown of plant carbohydrates and the main active ingredient in human saliva. Without amylase an animal cannot breakdown plant material so the majority of the nutrition of plants passes through a carnivore UNDIGESTED. This is why when you feed cheap dog/ cat food the poops are large and numerous. The distinctive odor is due to to the rotting of the indigestible plant material. These are only two of the reasons NOT to feed your cat or dog vegan food. There are many others. If you’d like to hear more of them feel free to ask. BTW, I was a vegan for 5 years (1990- 1995). I was never so sick so often in my life (caught every cold and flu and they were much worse than when I ate meat) Since I’ve returned to eating a moderate amount of meat I’ve hardly been sick at all.
WB
February 5th, 2010 | 10:15 pm
Ron: I had read only the beginning of your post when I posted about cats, pH monitoring, etc. Slaughter was bad enough as it was — it’s getting worse? Michael Schiavo was able to get away with what he did, Obama was elected, and we’ve got the death culture all in the same world in which slaughter is getting worse. Seems to me, SHS, that if you want to fight the death culture, you should take another look at animal rights.
February 5th, 2010 | 11:16 pm
“Non-human animals” Tell me the responses are some weird joke concocted by Iowahawk. If not we have to get him to do one of his insanely funny takedowns. What a rich vein of comedy for a gifted satirist! Thanks, Wesley, the responses you provoked. I left vegetarianism whn I saw an ad in one of their publications urging a campaign to provide ovo/lacto alternative food sources for lions in Africa. The lions aren’t biting.
February 5th, 2010 | 11:17 pm
Wesley, you state that:
“It is also worth noting that the vegan dogs can only be maintained because the food has been specially supplemented. Same with human vegans. And veganism is unhealthy for young children.”
This is a very ill-informed statement. And the American Dietetic Association, for one, disagrees with you.
February 5th, 2010 | 11:45 pm
Put a Salad and a steak in with a dog, and see wich one he chooses! and leave off the ranch dressing! lol Does anyone watch the Discovery channel? animals eat animals all the time. And if we did not eat them, they would quickly take over the world.
February 6th, 2010 | 1:04 am
Vegan dog food? I guess it is still a free country unless you own a few head of cattle or 15 or 20 hunting dogs. You may want to see the leaflet on the http://www.abolutionistapproach.com web site. Seems right in line with HSUS to me. Have a read.
You may also want to read Peter Singer’s written word. Quite interesting. I suppose when people give up all meat eating, wearing leather, wool, hunting is long gone, zoos too, there are no domestic animals and all the animals are allowed to multiply and be free of “slavery”, will we finally have reached the eutopia that the animal rights social movement seeks? Then what? What in the world will the Wayne Pacelles do in the world? I would hate to think that I would be the one trying to stop meat eating and animal ownership and that was my contribution to the world when there are no more animals to feed “vegan” food to. I think the cayotes, cockroaches and mice will proliferate and we know where the direction of history went when the mice were allowed to multiply when their prey was removed.
JS
February 6th, 2010 | 1:27 am
I have to make a personal comment, because this is such an important subject. Because of some health issues that I had growing up–with mysterious symptoms, but nothing really diagnosed–by the time that I got to college I was exploring all sorts of alternative ways to improve my health and finally came upon vegetarianism. And I did try to be a vegetarian for almost 20 years, as in the West Coast US culture that I was living in at the time, vegetarianism was thought to be the healthiest and most humane way to eat.
But when I was finally diagnosed with SLE–lupus–and underwent lots of food allergy tests, trying to find a diet that would work for my health–I discovered that I was very allergic to soy–which had been the mainstay of my vegetarian diet for over 20 years.
But once I got rid of soy–got rid of all of the tofu and the soy milk and the tempeh, and the garden burgers etc–I went into remission! And after much thought I’ve finaly decided that eating soy is dangerous to any woman who might be prone to an autoimmune disorder such as lupus, as SLE has to be hormone related, with 9 out of 10 patients being female–and soy is chock full of plant based hormones.
So I truly feel that all of those hormones in all of the soy–that is the basis of most vegetarian diets–that I ate for all of those years finally pushed my body into full blown SLE–whereas if I had stayed with a healthy balanced diet, with meat, then I still might not have had the best health–but I might have escaped what I have suffered with SLE. And my health has vastly improved since I went back to meat eating, although I still have health issues from the SLE that I will have to deal with for the rest of my life.
Vegetarianism is the only diet that can kill children, and I have now come to the conclusion that raising children–much less pets–on a vegetarian diet is tantamount to child abuse. And after much study I finally realized that our bodies have evolved into what we are–with our big brains that use up a tremendous amount of our bodily energy–on the rich meat protein of our hunter/gatherer ancestors. And all one has to do is look at the archeological remains of the Paleolithic hunters, who killed so many mammoths that they had enough bones and hides to builds shelters for themselves from mammoth remains, to realize how important hunting for meat was to Paleolithic human survival and development.
And I do believe that people gradually came to agriculture and domesticating animals because we hunted off most of the big game in the world, like the woolly mammoths, but we still had to have meat in order to survive.
And a quick perusal of the various early types of human structures, such as is found at this website of Stone Age Habitats, will quickly acquaint anyone with how completely dependent human evolution and civilization has been on on the use of other animals:
Death is a part of life, and one has to step back and look at the world as it is–which is that life lives upon life. And I cannot reconcile the vegan’s ignoring the fact that billions of small animals are killed in the fields during harvest of grains for instance, with their self righteous bleating about how morally superior a vegan diet is. And being a long time veggie gardener, I know that one must protect the harvest from all of the insects and wildlife that wants to eat it too–which often means killing raiding animals.
And people are the pinnacle of evolution in this world at this point, and I refuse to hate humans for being who and what we are–which are meat eaters. But unfortunately too many people in our culture were raised on Bambi movies and have absolutely no idea about their essential nutritional needs.
And I feel that many well meaning people give money to animal rights groups because they feel that they “can make a difference,” as they are used to controlling animals, whereas in human life things are often very unpredictable and out of control. And the animal rights groups take advantage of this feeling in order to raise money to promote all sorts of laws that make any use of any animals by humns more expensive and difficult.
As to the H$U$–I find them utterly despicable for their duplicity in their real motives–which is the abolition of all human/animal interaction–and I sincerely hope that all of the recent “push back” from the agricultural community will have some effect in reigning in all of the damage that the H$U$ is doing, such as doubling the price of eggs out in California since the passage of Prop 2.
We currently have about a billion people on this earth that are starving tonight, and the last thing that we need is to make food production even more expensive! And “organic food” is fine if you are affluent and can afford to shop at Whole Foods along with Michael Pollan and all of the other elitist foodies.
But the billions of people on this earth are NOT going to go back to an agrarian way of life after they’ve moved to the cities and tasted the freedom of living away from village life. For in the village no one has any real privacy and roles are defined from a very early age.
And we need to work with modern food production as has been developed in our land grant universities over the past 150 years or so, and not go back to some sort of idealized version of a vegan agrarian “organic” village in a past that never really existed. And when my grandparents were born it took a very large percentage of the population working very hard on the land to feed our population. But now only 2% of our population needs to work the land in order to feed everyone. And grazing animals utilize land that cannot be farmed.
And if anything good comes out of this recession I hope that it will be the drying up of the funding for these bogus animal groups so that the rest of us can go about leading our meat eating lives and enjoying our pets in peace. And dogs may not be our working partners anymore in most cases, but living with pets is beneficial to people’s mental and physical health, and dogs especially provide great companionship in an increasingly lonely world for many people–and a pet’s presence in the home can even help maintain or improve physical health.
I usually just read all that is available on the internet about the animal rights movement without commenting. But vegans are now a forceful proselytizing religion who are not content with living their lives as they wish, but will not be happy until they have FORCED us all to live as they want us all to live–all in the name of a religious fervor that is a mirage and has absolutely nothing to do with real life as humans on this earth–so they must be resisted in every way possible.
February 6th, 2010 | 1:57 am
Sarah of the HSUS says:–” Humane CHOICE. It simply provides a healthy alternative, that has been fully researched to make sure it provides essential nutrition to those who DO want to feed their dog a non-animal based diet”
umm not quite.. the only “research and testing” done at least according to your Q and A’s.. was done in “guardian homes”.. the food is NOT suitable for puppies ( hmm wonder why).. at least you say that much… the food has NEVER been throughly tested through feeding trials. Humane Choice for your pet is anything but..
February 6th, 2010 | 2:55 am
Dear Wesley,
How consistently factually innaccurate can one person be before their argument loses all credibility? Dogs are not carnivores. (Determined by physiology… not university) A well-planned vegan diet is not unhealthy for children or anyone. (According to the ADA) Vegans do not need any more supplements than carnists. (Yes, many meat-eaters are b-12 deficient.) HSUS and PeTA are not animal rights orgs. (Professor Francione handled that earlier.)
And then there’s the shelter thing… Oh, you weren’t talking about *that* kind of shelter…good cover.
And the appeal to the naturalistic fallacy of a dog’s “choice”. As if the dog would eat kibble or canned food in the wild. As if the dog would exist “in the wild”. As if the dog weren’t incapable of making the choice to stay with his/her biological family and make their own decisions in the first place. Burning house…anyone? Yo, GLF.
And then there’s the whole “it isn’t about the dogs” thing. As if vegan dogfood is not approved by AAFCO. As if vegan dog food is not prescribed by vets for allergies. As if kibble or canned food with chicken-meal and genetically modified soy and corn (plus the same supplements found in vegan food) is “about the dog”. As if buying a dog like one buys an iPod is “about the dog”. As if leashes, kennels, collars, etc. are “about the dog. As if it should be “about the dog” regardless of the suffering involved. As if my dog has any more right to life than any other animal.
So… My question is: where is the line between honest intellectual mistake(s) and intentional deception?
Do you make it up as you go, or do you have 100 Penn State chimps chained to iPads doing your research?
Based on this article, which seems to be mostly factual error sprinkled with opinion, why would I pick your book over…say… Sarah Palin’s or Glenn Beck’s?
February 6th, 2010 | 8:09 am
Actually, Dogs are NOT omnivores. They are CARNIVORES, members of the mammal order Carnivora. Like the majority of carnivores (dogs, bears, raccoons, etc) they can and do eat some vegetable material. Carnivores of this type are called facultive carnivores. The rest of the carnivores (cats, weasels, mongoose etc…) that do not eat any veggies are called obligate carnivores. Until recently the diet of dogs was described in vet manuals as carnivorous. It’s only since the junk pet food industry began to subsidize vet schools and put financial pressure on them that the official designation was changed to “omnivorous”.
February 6th, 2010 | 9:36 am
Florida Gal, your comment is so well written and so true that I am going to copy it and keep it as a reference for times when I end up debating someone on the Internet about animal rights verses human rights.
February 6th, 2010 | 9:59 am
Domestic dogs eat everything, which makes them
omnivores, even if not obligate omnivores. However,
if forced to subsist on HSUS’s ”Humane Choice” food,
be sure to expect a serious surge in cases of gastric
dilatation volvulus (GDV, aka bloat/torsion). That food
is a recipe for GDV, which is a quick killer disease
coming on with no warning and almost no time at all
to get the dog to an ER hospital.
Considering that the dog who dies of GDV dies in
agony, it would be kinder to shoot the dog.
February 6th, 2010 | 11:02 am
Dear peaceiscomingforyou: I think you need a little peace in your own heart. The anger about dogs is telling.
As you can see from the comments, things aren’t so black and white. Vegan diets require “careful planning.” Part of that is usually supplements, particularly for vitamin B 12. Studies have shown that babies of vegans face a higher risk of birth defects. The Vegetarian Society urges vegans to consume range free eggs or have small amounts of milk, particularly since “the current nutritional consensus is that no plant foods can be relied on as a safe source of vitamin B 12.” I’m sure their part of the Beck conspiracy too.
February 6th, 2010 | 11:38 am
YES, HUMANS ARE ANIMALS. AN ANIMAL IS ANYTHING THAT BREATHES (L. anima means “breath”). Every animal who isn’t human is a non-human animal, just as we and every other animal who isn’t a dog, for example, is a non-dog animal.
February 6th, 2010 | 2:45 pm
Wow. Lots of comments here.
I had a rescued greyhound by the name of Harry. Rock star, that guy. Anyway, I actually cooked for him. He always had fresh food (kibble was just snack or filler). Harry died when he was 16 years old. The vet told me his life span was quite unusual for a greyhound. He attributed it to Harry’s healthy diet and good care.
A vegan diet, as Wesley points out, may not be health-appropriate to our pets but a mission of morals from animal rights activists. Only you, your pet and your vet know what is the proper go.
Dogs do well with a high-veg diet, but they dig meat and fish. Cats need taurine from meats and you’ll harm them if you take it away. But, every individual animal (like people) kinda has their own situation. We have a betta fish at the office and he likes me to scritch his back. Explain that one.
Do what is healthy and proper for your pet, but the whole idea of a vegan lifestyle for a dog is just nonsense and nothing more than making a point at the pet’s expense.
February 6th, 2010 | 2:48 pm
I just came across this interesting, non-polemical article about vegetarian diets for dogs and cats which is well worth reading.
http://www.dognutrition.com/vegetarian-diet-for-dogs.html
It was written by a board-certified veterinary nutritionist who is a past chair of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition, Past President of the American Academy of Veterinary Nutrition and member of the National Research Council Subcommittee on Dog and Cat Nutrition.
February 6th, 2010 | 2:53 pm
Let’s just let the man & his peeps speak for themselves:
One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” –Wayne Pacelle quoted in Animal People, May, 1993
‘When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born’.” –Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt, by Ted Kerasote, p. 266, 1993
“Like any kind of sophisticated political operation, you use the best research tools in order to drive your message, but in terms of our policy formulations, I can’t think of a time that we’ve done research.”—Wayne Pacelle
“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.”— Wayne Pacelle, HSUS President, quoted in ‘Bloodties’ by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 251
“My goal is the total abolition of all animal agriculture” –Former ALF terrorist & now HSUS coordinator, John Goodwin
The difference between PeTA and HSUS is that at least Ingrid is honest enough to tell the world what her agenda is up front, whereas Wayne thinks he can hide it behind an Armani suit and a pair of nice wingtips.
February 6th, 2010 | 3:00 pm
Here’s a good website that talks about the differences in carnivore/omnivore and vegetarian/vegan options for one’s pets:
http://www.dognutrition.com/vegetarian-diet-for-dogs.html
February 6th, 2010 | 3:22 pm
HSUS inherited the sanctuaries upon merging with the Fund for Animals. Animal People has an excellent commentary on the history of both organizations.
HSUS avoided becoming involved in hands-on care for animals, for the same reasons Cleveland Amory professed in early position statements: to focus on advocacy, to avoid any dilution of mission, and to escape philosophical compromises that might be driven by the need to raise money to feed and house animals.
Armory later had a change of heart. Amory had come to believe that taking on at least a limited mission of hands-on care helped to keep an organization honest; that if an organization rescues animals, it has an obligation to care for them; and that having sanctuaries helped him to avoid hiring anyone who felt above cleaning litter pans or shoveling out a stable.
February 6th, 2010 | 4:20 pm
Want the truth about HSUS? Try reading the articles at http://www.hsussucks.com Don’t miss the Dept Of Homeland Security Presidential Executive order that NO ONE but a President can rescind, that names HSUS and Friends For Animals as domestic terror support groups. page 9. If you work for HSUS, you are an enemy of the United States.
February 6th, 2010 | 4:42 pm
A couple of comments on the posts:
Florida Gal: I’m very happy that you are doing better. Like you I was chronically ill on a vegan diet. After cutting way down on soy products and adding in a moderate amount of animal protein I now feel and am much better. Like most Americans I was raised on a meat heavy diet and never felt well. Then like most Americans, I went overboard in the opposite direction. Now that I’m in the middle, I feel and am much healthier.
Peace is coming for you: Wow, where do I start? Did you have a point to make other than personally attacking Wesley? If you did it got lost in your dark prattle. Carnists? How did you come up with that? A carnist is someone who enjoys the “pleasures of the flesh” i.e. SEX, not meat. I think the word your looking for is carnivore (someone who eats meat). But the truth of the matter is we are OMNIVORES (like chimps, pigs, rats, etc) not carnivores you know, like dogs and cats. You can sit there and deny the truth and human biology all you like and it still won’t make it true. So, when your veganism has left you in the nut house mindless but painting very beautiful, detailed pictures flowers (a strange byproduct of the deficient vegan diet and you can look it up!) maybe those last few functioning neurons will regret your closed mindedness.
Ianthe: Nice try but plants breathe too. So do mushrooms (more closely related to us than plants. Who’d a thunk it?), bacteria and all living things. “Breathing” has nothing to do with whether an organism is a plant or an animal. Even within the animal kingdom there are many strategies for respiration and not all of them require lungs or gills.
Class dismissed.
WB
February 6th, 2010 | 4:54 pm
“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…(snip) there’s no special bond between me and other animals.”— Wayne Pacelle
That is so ineffably sad. We really should pity the man who has never known the great joy in creating a partnership with an animal from another species. He just doesn’t “get it” (and probably can never get it) which explains why he does what he does. His quote above is echoed by many other leaders of the “animal rights” movement.
I have a friend who was a therapist in Berkeley and treated a lot of “animal rights” activists. She was of the opinion that most of them, especially the fanatical ones, had been abused as children and never dealt with that abuse and transferred their feelings of being abused irrationally to animals. That makes a lot of sense to me from what I know about the AR activists that I’ve known personally and it certainly could be the case with Newkirk who has said that her relationship with her father was horrid.
And it explains the difference between the people who work long and hard for animal welfare and those who want to sever the human/animal bond (which will keep all those abusive people away from all animals.)
Animals have brought so much joy into my life and I’ve spent my whole life learning how to bring joy into theirs. So I pity Pacelle and the others who can’t understand that but I hate the fact that I am having to spend so much of my time fighting off their horrible and counter-productive legislation and their neurotic propaganda which takes time away from the animals I love. But the time needs to be taken to protect animals of the future and the people who love them.
February 6th, 2010 | 5:00 pm
Well said, Florida girl.
Neuter HSUS.
February 6th, 2010 | 5:16 pm
Here’s the part I find most interesting. Your first comment was from Sarah of the HSUS. I’ve encountered her before. She’s someone HSUS pays to monitor the web for any comments that question HSUS.
So I wonder, how many more animals could be “saved” (as if HSUS does that) if they weren’t paying someone a salary to surf the web for PR? Shows you where their TRUE priorities are – and it is NOT animal welfare, it’s PR, propaganda and making more money!!!
February 6th, 2010 | 8:03 pm
WAYNE PACELLE QUOTE:
“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding …One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
— Animal People News, May 1993
Additionally, did the man change his name spelling and was his family involved in the Valentine’s Day massacre as stated on the internet?
February 6th, 2010 | 8:24 pm
BULL!!!
H$U$ is working directly for their agenda – to eliminate all domestic animals!!! It doesn’t take rocket science to see this. They bought their way out of legal problems in Louisiana after Katrina – what happened to all those dogs they were supposed to SAVE, and they disappeared? What about the owners that were promised their animals would be returned – and they still haven’t seen them? What about the Vick’s dogs that H$U$ wanted $$ for, when they KNEW they would never even see them let alone touch them – and when they were called on that, they then called for their immediate death!!!
H$U$ isn’t a friend of animals, pets, children, or humans! They’re out for one thing – power for Wayne! What a crock!!!!
: (
February 6th, 2010 | 9:03 pm
Vincent said:
“Like all businesses, the HSUS has no ‘ultimate’ goal except to accumulate profit for its own sake.”
Uh, Vincent – the H$U$ is a regisistered non-profit.
Oops. It’s certainly true that they don’t behave like a non-profit, so your mistake is probably understandable. I sincerely hope that rumours of investigations of them for their lobbying activities and other behaviours under RICO are not exaggerated.
I thank you for your frankness; abolition is much easier to deal with than sedition, and your honesty is refreshing.
Geraldine said:
“Five years ago, Pacelle boasted loudly to the media that it would be a slam-dunk to pass AB2110 in California, banning hunting with sighthounds, and it would be his first step toward outlawing ALL hunting and fishing in the country.”
Yes, he did. And he said in a public interview that he thought that lure coursing was a wonderful way to exercise hounds, that it was a great sport, that he wouldn’t want to see it go – or words to that effect – and the legislation proposed so quickly after the OFC event which spurred all this mealy mouthed lying drivel would have classed sighthounds as ‘dangerous dogs’ and outlawed ownership of lure coursing equipment. I’m sure H$U$ would deny having written that legislation, which was certainly not written in a week by the legislator who proposed it, but it would be hard for me to believe them. And by the way – that bill is not dead merely tabled. You’ll see it again, no doubt.
You are right, though, it was greed that defeated the bill. If it hadn’t been quite so greedy, and he hadn’t been so cocky about it, it quite likely would have passed. He has said:
“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”
— Full Cry magazine, Oct 1990″
He’s moving briskly to his goal; there is so much AR legislation out there now that there is no way to put out all the fires. Hunting is not the only animal related activity he wants to stop. Some of these laws will pass, and each of those laws will make it easier to get others in. And by the way – for those of you who see no harm in passing that kind of law – remember that once in, it is very easy to modify it, so a law which appears quite reasonable as passed can turn into a nightmare a couple of years down the road. A law which says a dog breeder can possess 25 intact dogs as passed might seem eminently reasonable, but when people have stopped thinking about it, it’s easy to quietly reduce that number to, say, 12 in a couple of years, then 3 – all without asking the voters again. Those of you who are pet owners who support the vegan agenda may be surprised when you find ten years or so down the road that it is a practical impossibility to acquire a dog, much less to meet the legal requirements to keep it.
Unless we wake up and put a stop to this, he will succeed not only in outlawing hunting, but also in making it impossible, for practical purposes for people to afford meat, milk or eggs. He doesn’t have to outlaw it, he just has to incrementally make it more and more difficult for anyone to raise it.
And Sarah – There is a difference between sanctuaries and shelters, and your company could well afford to fund *shelters* in all fifty states, if caring for animals was your mission. Let’s try to remember apples are apples and not oranges, shall we?
February 6th, 2010 | 9:49 pm
Dear Wesley,
You ar right, I do need peace. I need people tostop spreadig misinformation and portraying opinion as fact. Your statements are just plain wrong. This is a black and white issue as much as rape, pedophilia, or human slavery are. All diets need to be well-planned to be healthy. Carnists also suffer from b-12 deficiency. There is no necessary nutrient found in animals that is not avaiable from alternative sources. The vegetarian society is right in claiming b-12 does not come from vegetble sources – it is made by microbes, not plants. The vegetarian society recommends people eat milk or eggs because they are a vegetarian society, i.e., not vegan. As for anger towards dogs, I harbor none. But supposing I did, do you recommend it would be absolved by feeding my dogs other animals, when they are as healthy as ever on their organic vegan diet? Or maybe I should start killing and eating animals and supporting exploitation of them – maybe then I’ll find peace. Once again, based on the errors so abundant in your writing, why should I buy your book?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 7th, 2010 at 12:17 am
That’s up to you, Peace. Your absolutism is disturbing, and there is no moral equivalency of the kind you brought up here. It is a real problem for the animal rights movement.
February 7th, 2010 | 2:12 am
Florida Gal said:
“I have to make a personal comment, because this is such an important subject. Because of some health issues that I had growing up–with mysterious symptoms, but nothing really diagnosed–by the time that I got to college I was exploring all sorts of alternative ways to improve my health and finally came upon vegetarianism. And I did try to be a vegetarian for almost 20 years, as in the West Coast US culture that I was living in at the time, vegetarianism was thought to be the healthiest and most humane way to eat.”
I agree with your whole post, pretty much, but I’d like you to clarify something for me, and perhaps for others. You say ‘vegetarianism’ here often, and I’m confused because it sounds like you are talking about veganism.
There are important differences between the two; vegetarianism is a diet which often includes milk, eggs, even seafood, and I have yet to meet a vegetarian who would pressure anyone into eating his way. Veganism is a whole way of life, avoiding not only red meat, but all animal products, including milk, eggs, honey … but also leather, wool, silk, all entertainment involving animals from zoos and cat shows to rodeos and racing, all companion and working dogs, from sheep dogs to seeing eye dogs to bomb sniffer dogs and search and rescue dogs and all other service dogs, both private and public. And they want to impose this lifestyle on the entire globe, using the legal system to do it.
A very considerable difference.
You mention another thing which I find problematical in all our diets, and that is soy. A lot of soy is used by both vegetarians and vegans, and now by the entire population who buys commercially prepared food, and it is not a healthy food for humans (and probably our pets) in its unfermented form. This seems to be the lion’s share of soy products offered in North America, and it is unhealthy for everyone, not only women. The soy which is eaten in Asia is always fermented, and in that form it is good and useful. But in Asia they are not wholly dependent on soy; they eat a lot of seafood as well as other animal protein.
There has been a lot of sloppy use of the two terms in the media lately, and this is not a benign error, if error it is. It implies that there is little if any difference at all between the two isms, that vegetarians are supportive of the vegan manifesto, and only one short step away from making a full commitment. This is not the case, though many vegetarians are vague themselves about the difference, and are perfectly willing to see meat go away, until it is explained to them that they are supporting not only the disappearance of meat, but also eggs, milk, cheese, honey and all other animal based products even outside of diet. When they understand that, most of them are no longer interested in backing the vegan horse.
The vegetarian diet is wholesome and healthy without any artificially produced supplements, it is simple and works for pregnant women and children. It can be implemented without the use of soy, for those who tolerate it poorly, but only fermented soy products should be used.
The vegan diet, despite vegan protests is none of the above; though the nutrients the supplements provide are found in the plant world, they must be industrially concentrated to make the vegan diet safe. I have seen a few vegans claim not to need these supplements, but they are playing with permanent, irreversible brain damage.
Many of the most ardent activists are too young to know whether the vegan diet is going to sustain them over the long term, and should be conservative in their projections. Many don’t understand that the issues go far beyond diet, that they are supporting an agenda that will deprive them of their pets, their horseback rides, their fiber hobbies … Over and over again I’ve seen people on these forums say that they were vegans for x number of years, but they couldn’t maintain their health on the diet. Many insist that pets are fine for vegans. The catch is that if they continue to support the vegan AR agenda, and pets and livestock become too rare for ordinary mortals to associate with, it will be very hard to turn back. Whole breeds will be lost, expertise will disappear, is already disappearing, as AR laws target not the commercial breeders but the knowledgeable hobby breeders. Agriculture bills target not Big Ag and factory farming, but small, traditional farmers. Once those experts are done away with, they can effectively tackle the commercial interests, who *everybody* would like to see gone from the animal world.
H$U$ has no actual experts on animals, none of their management teams have any use for animals, no exposure to animals, and they don’t want to learn any more than they need to know to sabotage labs and agriculture and pet breeders. They want to take over the making of animal law and animal management so they can put an end to the ownership and use of all animals, domestic and wild. They want to redefine the term “animal ownership” to mean “animal abuse”. That is their position.
February 7th, 2010 | 2:49 am
Peace said:
” You ar right, I do need peace. I need people tostop spreadig misinformation and portraying opinion as fact. Your statements are just plain wrong. This is a black and white issue as much as rape, pedophilia, or human slavery are. All diets need to be well-planned to be healthy.”
Wait, wait, wait … are you saying here that diet is somehow related to crime? How does diet have any relationship to rape, pedophilia or human slavery? Well, short of the twinkie defense.
“Carnists also suffer from b-12 deficiency. ”
Well, they also occasionally suffer other deficiencies, but that is a result of our very poor commercial diet, not the fact that we eat meat. Or eggs, milk, honey … If more people had access to natural food, that is, whole, unprocessed food, including some animal products, they would suffer no nutritional deficiency.
“There is no necessary nutrient found in animals that is not avaiable from alternative sources.”
That’s true. Unfortunately some of those nutrients are found only in trace amounts in plant foods, and must be industrially concentrated to be made available in sufficient amounts for those who are not eating any animal products whatever. These supplements are not necessary to a lacto-vegetarian diet, only the vegan diet.
” The vegetarian society is right in claiming b-12 does not come from vegetble sources – it is made by microbes, not plants. The vegetarian society recommends people eat milk or eggs because they are a vegetarian society, i.e., not vegan. ”
Actually, I don’t think it’s the vegetarians who are claiming any such thing. Why would they need to? They are eating animal products of some sort, if it is only milk or cheese. It’s the vegans who are determined to convince people that it is so.
I scrounged around a bit, though, and found this really interesting article at veganhealth.org. Here’s the first part of it:
‘It has long been assumed that B12 is produced by bacteria in the large intestine (aka the colon), but since B12 is produced below the ileum (where B12 is absorbed), it is not available for absorption. This theory is reinforced by the fact that many species of totally or primarily vegetarian animals eat their feces. It is surmised that eating feces allows them to obtain B12 on their diets of plant foods. Although I believe this to be true, it has not been verified beyond a reasonable doubt.’
An honest man. But wait!
‘The best evidence I have found for this theory is reported by Herbert.1 He reports a study in the 1950s in England where vegan volunteers with B12 deficiency (as shown by megaloblastic anemia) were fed B12 extractions made from their own stools and it cured their deficiency. He said it proves that the colon bacteria of vegans produce enough B12 to cure a deficiency, but that the B12 produced by the bacteria in the colon is excreted rather than absorbed. This appears to be convincing evidence.’
So, you are right. But I won’t speculate as to your method of exercising this knowledge.
Any way you look at it, the vegan diet doesn’t appear to be a natural one. A diet which is dependent on supplementation is neither safe nor reliable, and not one which should be imposed forcibly on the general public.
February 7th, 2010 | 2:53 am
My apologies, this statement was incomplete. I should have said:
Any way you look at it, the vegan diet doesn’t appear to be a natural one. A diet which is dependent on supplementation is neither safe nor reliable, and not one which should be imposed forcibly on the general public, much less their carnivorous pets.
February 7th, 2010 | 3:07 am
I have to do more research about HSUS before I can post an opinion, but I would like to point out something I believe is being overlooked. There’s a lot of talk on here about carnivors needing meat, and this isn’t necessarily true. Carnivors require the nutrients they get from meat to stay healthy (proteins, fatty acids, etc). These nutrients can be found in a number of other plant-based sources, and don’t have to come from meat.
I just thought I’d throw that out there.
February 7th, 2010 | 4:11 pm
Mat is entirely correct though he fails to see that the structure of plants often makes those nutrients unavailable to carnivores. If they were then there would be no carnivores. They don’t just eat meat because it’s easier. It’s not. Think about it. When a carnivore attacks it’s prey it runs the risk of debilitating injury. When a carnivore is debilitated it can’t hunt and dies a slow death by starvation. Why, if it had a choice would it choose to hunt? As I have stated before the anatomy and chemistry of a carnivore make a vegan diet impossible in the wild and a real crap shoot at home. As I have also said before, you can’t change the biology of an organism through will power.
WB
February 7th, 2010 | 4:34 pm
Willyboy: Yes they all breathe, but when the Romans made the word, they were thinking of breath in the way humans and what we call animals breathe, and the word also means “soul.” I believe everything has a soul (I think Shintoism is along the same lines), but when the Romans made the word, they were talking about the kind of breath — and soul — we recognize as breath and soul like our own. It wasn’t until Christianity that non-human animals were deemed not to have souls and to be distinct from us as “animal” vs. “human. That’s when the trouble started and the culture of death became possible.
February 7th, 2010 | 7:09 pm
I hope that you’re each enjoying p!..ing contest in which you’ve chosen to take part. Have we determined yet who can yell the loudest? I ask you, does it make you feel better to put down others for their lifestyle choices? Do you feel as though you’ve accomplished something important by spreading rumors, half-truths, and lies about an organization whose only goal is to reduce the suffering and cruelties humans impose on God’s beasts? Do you believe that cows, pigs, chickens, deer, sharks, pandas, honey bees, horses, and harp seals deserve to be treated less humanely than our dog and cat companions? Peace be to you all, but most importantly, make peace with yourselves.
February 7th, 2010 | 9:28 pm
“Francis: I didn’t say that dogs couldn’t be maintained on a vegetarian diet. I said they would never choose it for themselves, were they capable of choice. I also said that cats had to have meat. I think in nature they would be carnivores. Do wolves eat plants?”
Lots of dogs wouldn’t choose eating slop from a can or kibble either if they had a choice between that and a juicy steak. My dog would have enjoyed killing and eating wild rabbits and eating peanut butter cookies over normal dog food.
I’m not an animal rights activists and I very much dislike PETA and the HSUS. But if a dog can survive fine on a vegan diet I do not see the problem at all.
It may not be “natural” but neither is canned food or kibble. Dogs themselves are not natural in that sense either.
I’m also sure that brand of vegan food is probably much better for dogs than the garbage food like Pedigree or whatever that most people buy for their dogs that is full of corn, by-products from corn-fed, hormone-injected farm animals, roadkill, and other crap.
If someone is worried about dogs being fed an “unnatural” diet, then they should feed their dogs (remember you need to get more than one, wolves live in packs!) live elk, caribou, rabbits, deer, and whatever else wolves eat in the wild.
When I had a button quail, I used to feed him all sorts of food that he wouldn’t naturally eat in the wild. Guess I was a bad owner.
February 8th, 2010 | 4:24 pm
You know, the cats and dogs are laughing at us for even having this discussion.
February 8th, 2010 | 5:39 pm
Aloha Ianthe,
Sorry to tell you this but, the word breathe is of Germanic NOT Latin origin. The Old High German root word is brothem and simply means breath. The Old English root is aethem (also the root for aether and ether) meaning exhaled air. The word breath in Old English means odor, scent, stink, exhalation, or vapor. It has nothing to do with the Romans or the “soul” whatever that is, though I do agree that the whole “dominion over the Earth” thing is a pain in the ass. Perhaps the word you were thinking of is the Latin respire (the root for the word breathe in French Italian and Spanish) as in respiration? It means literally to breathe in AND out and while the common Romans probably did use it in the context of animals the intelligentsia of Rome did recognize that plants also respire. They also recognized that respiration had 2 components: Inhalation and exhalation. These in turn gave us the modern words inspire and expire (Inhalation= the Latin inspiration, exhalation= the Latin expiration) This is where the whole God thing comes in. It was said in the Middle Ages when a person came up with a good idea that God had given it to him/ her with his breath and the recipient had breathed it in (inspiration). That person had therefore been “inspired” by God. Of course we also say that a dead person has expired i.e. breathed out his last breath.
Class dismissed.
WillyBoy
February 9th, 2010 | 12:17 am
There is no doubt in my mind what so ever that Profit lance will show you how to make money online, but there are many obstacles your going to face in order to do it or to get to where I am at. What I mean is, there’s allot of information, tools and resources in this course that your going to have to get familiarized with before you can become successful. Yes you will earn money but to make a living out of it your going to really need to understand how everything works.
http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com
February 10th, 2010 | 2:52 am
Ianthe said:
“Willyboy: Yes they all breathe, but when the Romans made the word, they were thinking of breath in the way humans and what we call animals breathe, and the word also means “soul.” I believe everything has a soul (I think Shintoism is along the same lines), but when the Romans made the word, they were talking about the kind of breath — and soul — we recognize as breath and soul like our own. It wasn’t until Christianity that non-human animals were deemed not to have souls and to be distinct from us as “animal” vs. “human. That’s when the trouble started and the culture of death became possible.”
You can make that argument if you wish.
Aren’t you overlooking the fact that people hunted their dinner long before Christianity?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 11:33 am
“Animals have no politics.” Excellent, Pica. Indeed, the vegan dogs are so their owners can feel righteous.
February 10th, 2010 | 3:13 am
Francis said:
“I hope that you’re each enjoying p!..ing contest in which you’ve chosen to take part. Have we determined yet who can yell the loudest? I ask you, does it make you feel better to put down others for their lifestyle choices? Do you feel as though you’ve accomplished something important by spreading rumors, half-truths, and lies about an organization whose only goal is to reduce the suffering and cruelties humans impose on God’s beasts? Do you believe that cows, pigs, chickens, deer, sharks, pandas, honey bees, horses, and harp seals deserve to be treated less humanely than our dog and cat companions? Peace be to you all, but most importantly, make peace with yourselves.”
It seems to me that to feed a carniverous pet, who is, after all, dependent on one, a vegan diet, is a total put down of the animal, which you claim to be so committed to. Animals have no politics, and rarely protest what they are fed or how they are handled, and therefore should be treated with more respect, perhaps, than we might treat someone who can protest or argue his state. It is hardly respectful to say ‘well, this animal behaves in a way I don’t approve of, so I’ll just pretend he’s something different, that will suit me a little better, and ignore his biology and physiology’.
This is far from being ‘humane’.
What you believe, what you wish, can’t change facts. Some animals are flesh eaters. If you find this offensive, I suggest you avoid them. Don’t eat meat. Don’t keep carniverous pets.
Those of us who are appalled at the idea of vegan dog foot aren’t telling you that you must eat animal protein, much less meat, but your arrogance in expecting to redefine the physiology and biology of the animals you profess to love so much is truly beyond comprehension. They are what they are. Wishing won’t make them something else.
You are supporting the agenda of a man who despises domestic animals and would be glad to see them extinct, because they are the product of human breeding. But you want to skip all pretenses of reality and re design carniverous pets to suit your whims, without even having the decency to help them to adapt.
Isn’t this a little bit hypocritical?
February 10th, 2010 | 5:30 pm
Well said Pica.
WB
February 12th, 2010 | 10:13 am
[...] Money they’d probably like to spend on getting you to give up your Fido fix altogether, as First Things’s Wesley J. Smith explains: Dogs are natural carnivores and, were they capable of choice, [...]
February 15th, 2010 | 11:27 pm
Pica,
So I take it you must feed your dogs a raw flesh diet?
It would seem to redefine their “biology and physiology” by feeding them modern dog food which is typically mostly grains (and often corn and soy) and even those with decent meat is processed at very high temperatures and meets the nutritional requirements by adding vitamins and minerals such as Vitamins A, D, B6, B12, Zinc, Copper, Potassium among others. That’s anything but natural yet that’s what’s practical for most people to feed their dogs. I suggest the true nature of dogs should obligate us to not breed them by the millions and rely on people and their whims in the first place. But as long as there’s dogs that need homes, it’s our duty to give them one and do the best we can.
Ironically, most of the animals that you’re feeding your dog, were raised on corn or soy, something completely unnatural to their biology. Furthermore, they didn’t get to actually enjoy their life, they spent it crammed with thousand of others. The voiceless always depend on those who can think rationally not to inflict pain and suffering, where they are our personal companions or being bred as a production unit.
Perhaps you feed your dog raw grass fed free ranged beef, and let’s assume they live a wonderful painless life — still there’s a certain irony that these gentle creatures’s lifes come to a violent end, their lives being snuffed out to support your doggie, just because they are seen as “others”. What if I raised dogs to feed my other dogs, the ones I keep in side and consider my companions. What would you think of a Korean cat foot that’s made from dog meat?
Anyone wanting to feed their dog a vegan dog food, consider an alternative to the HSUS brand which is full of crap, like corn and soy.
A brand I feed my dog is:
http://www.naturalbalanceinc.com/dogformulas/Vegetarian.html
Mix it up by making them home cooked lentils and oatmeal. My dog is a thriving example that dogs can digest and use plant protein. She’s muscle bound beauty that goes on 5 mile runs and plays tug of war like a champ.
Perhaps when “vat grown meat” is a reality we can use that as well, we can then all feed our dogs a raw flesh diet.
February 16th, 2010 | 4:51 am
Hey peter p. Yes, I do feed my dogs and cats raw whole prey meat, organs and bones and no, it’s not farmed meat grown on soy, wheat… It’s wild hunted meat grown as nature intended it to be. Feral goat, deer, pig and pheasant. Both the dogs and cats love it and thrive on it and I’ll bet you what ever you like that my 10 month old 80 lb never eaten kibble or veggies in his life APBT is a lot healthier and stronger than your vegan dog (you never mentioned how old it is or how long its been on a vegan diet). Hey, why don’t you do an experiment! Set up a video camera then buy some meat and put it next to your vegan food. start filming then release your dog and let us all see which one he chooses.
WB
March 9th, 2010 | 10:34 pm
The issue isn’t what I feed my dogs, though they are not getting the synthetic food you describe, and yes, they are getting as much raw meat as I can afford to give them.
The real issue is that an organization which pretends to preside over the welfare of animals is pushing a food which is less natural than commercial kibbles by a factor of .. oh, say a hundred or so – which can hardly be a act of positive guardianship of pet welfare.
The reality is that H$U$ is working hard to eliminate all pets as well as all other animal contacts in our lives. The fact that they have hijacked the term ‘animal welfare’ doesn’t mean they have embraced it. They are determined to redefine the terms in law so that animal ownership = animal abuse, which, in case some of you have missed the fact, is illegal.
It’s sad that people don’t believe this, believe still that H$U$ is working on behalf of animals, and are willing to support their belief with money better spent directly on their pets or donated to their local shelters – which get no support from H$U$.
Unfortunately, what you believe doesn’t change the facts, which are that you are supporting the end of pet ownership and your right to choose the diet which works for you, as well as a myriad of other personal and property rights.
And in my opinion, to feed a dog or cat a vegan diet is tantamount to animal abuse.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact