The earliest surviving written accounts of Buddhism are the Edicts written by King Ashoka,
a well-known Buddhist king who propagated Buddhism throughout Asia, and
is honored by both Theravada and Mahayana schools of Buddhism. The
authority of the Edicts of Ashoka as a historical record is suggested by
the mention of numerous topics omitted as well as corroboration of
numerous accounts found in the Theravada and Mahayana Tripitakas written
down centuries later.
Asoka Rock Edict 1 dated to c. 257 BCE mentions the prohibition of animal sacrifices in Ashoka's Maurya Empire as well as his commitment to vegetarianism; however, whether the Sangha
was vegetarian in part or in whole is unclear from these edicts.
However, Ashoka's personal commitment to, and advocating of,
vegetarianism suggests Early Buddhism (at the very least for the
layperson) most likely already had a vegetarian tradition (the details
of what that entailed besides not killing animals and eating their
flesh, were not mentioned, and therefore are unknown.)
Views of the Three Buddhist Vehicles
There
is a divergence of views within Buddhism as to whether vegetarianism is
required; with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a requirement.
Some Buddhists avoid meat consumption
because of the first precept in Buddhism: "I undertake the precept to
refrain from taking life". Other Buddhists disagree with this
conclusion. Many Buddhist vegetarians also oppose meat-eating based on
scriptural injunctions against flesh-eating recorded in Mahayana sutras.
Theravada View
The most clear reference in Theravada Buddhism
to monastic consumption of non-vegetarian food is found in the Pali
Canon, where the Buddha once explicitly refused a suggestion by Devadatta to mandate vegetarianism in the monks' Vinaya monastic code. This refusal to proscribe non-vegetarian food is within the context of Buddhist monastics receiving alms food.
The Buddha in the Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.38 Sukhamala Sutta,
before his enlightenment, describes his family being wealthy enough to
provide non-vegetarian meals even to his servants. After becoming
enlightened, he respectfully accepted any kind of alms food offered with
good intention, including meat (within the limitations described above)
, fruit and vegetables.
In the modern era, the passage cited below has been interpreted as allowing the consumption of meat if it is not specifically slaughtered for the monastic receiving alms food:
… meat should not be eaten under
three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a
living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka,
are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I
declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when
it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been
purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three
circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta, MN 55 , unpublished translation by Sister Uppalavanna
Also in the Jivaka Sutta, Buddha instructs a monk or nun to accept,
without any discrimination, whatever alms food is offered with good
will, including meat. In contrast, the Buddha in the Vanijja Sutta, AN 5:177
declares the meat trade to be one of the five wrong livelihood a layperson should not engage in :
Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat,
business in intoxicants, and business in poison. These are the five
types of business that a lay follower should not engage in.
But this is not, strictly speaking, a dietary rule because the
Buddha, on one particular occasion, specifically refused suggestions by Devadatta to institute vegetarianism in the Sangha.
In the Amagandha Sutta in the Sutta Nipata, a vegetarian Brahmin confronts Kassapa Buddha
(a previous Buddha before Gautama Buddha) in regard to the evil of
eating meat. The Brahmin insisted his higher status is well-deserved due
to his observance of a vegetarian diet. The Buddha countered the
argument by listing acts which cause real moral defilement (i.e. those
acts in opposition to Buddhist ethics) and then stating the mere
consumption of meat is not equivalent to those acts.
There were monastic guidelines prohibiting consumption of 10 types of meat: that of humans, elephants,
horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears and hyenas. This
is because these animals (allegedly) can be provoked by the smell of the
flesh of their own kind, or because eating of such flesh would generate
a bad reputation for the Sangha.
Paul Breiter, a student of Ajahn Chah, states that some bhikkhus in the Thai Forest Tradition choose to be vegetarian and that Ajahn Sumedho encouraged supporters to prepare vegetarian food for the temple.
There are a significant minority of Theravada laypersons who practice vegetarianism especially in Thailand.
Mahayana view
Mahayana views on vegetarianism are within the broader framework of Buddhist ethics
or Śīla. The aim of Buddhist vegetarianism is to give rise to
compassion and the upholder of vegetarianism is expected to (at least
faithfully attempt to) observe Buddhist ethics. The Buddhist vegetarian
who does not observe Buddhist ethics is not seen as a true Buddhist
vegetarian.
According to the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, a Mahayana sutra giving Gautama Buddha's
final teachings, the Buddha insisted that his followers should not eat
any kind of meat or fish. Even vegetarian food that has been touched by
meat should be washed before being eaten. Also, it is not permissible
for the monk or nun just to pick out the non-meat portions of a diet -
the whole meal must be rejected.
Mañjuśrī asked, “Do Buddhas not eat meat because of the tathāgata-garbha ?”
The Blessed One replied, “Mañjuśrī, that is so. There are no
beings who have not been one’s mother, who have not been one’s sister
through generations of wandering in beginningless and endless saṃsāra.
Even one who is a dog has been one’s father, for the world of living
beings is like a dancer. Therefore, one’s own flesh and the flesh of
another are a single flesh, so Buddhas do not eat meat.
“Moreover, Mañjuśrī, the dhātu of all beings is the dharmadhātu, so
Buddhas do not eat meat because they would be eating the flesh of one
single dhātu.”
The Buddha in certain Mahayana sutras
very vigorously and unreservedly denounced the eating of meat, mainly
on the grounds that such an act is linked to the spreading of fear
amongst sentient beings
(who can allegedly sense the odor of death that lingers about the
meat-eater and who consequently fear for their own lives) and violates
the bodhisattva's fundamental cultivation of compassion. Moreover, according to the Buddha in the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra,
since all beings share the same "Dhatu" (spiritual Principle or
Essence) and are intimately related to one another, killing and eating
other sentient creatures is tantamount to a form of self-killing and
cannibalism. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, the Brahmajāla Sūtra, the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra.
In the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which presents
itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the
Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating
of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and
every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already
dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks
who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: "[I]t
should be rejected... I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and
scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction... I teach
the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this
sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic
Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and falsely claim that the
Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas he says he does not. A long
passage in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra shows the Buddha speaking out
very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of
vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings
is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva
should strive to cultivate. This passage has been seen as questionable
by a small minority of Mahayana Buddhist writers (eg. D.T. Suzuki).
In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jataka tales), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome.
Some suggest that the rise of monasteries in Mahayana tradition
to be a contributing factor in the emphasis on vegetarianism. In the
monastery, food was prepared specifically for monastics. In this
context, large quantities of meat would have been specifically prepared
(killed) for them. Henceforth, when monastics from the Indian geographical sphere of influence
migrated to China from the year 65 CE on, they met followers who
provided them with money instead of food. From those days onwards,
Chinese monastics, and others who came to inhabit northern countries,
cultivated their own vegetable plots and bought food in the market.
This remains the dominant practice in China, Vietnam, and most Korean
Mahayana temples; the exceptions being some Korean Mahayana temples who
traced their lineages back to Japan.
Mahayana lay Buddhists often eat vegetarian diets on the
vegetarian dates (齋期 zhāi qī). There are different arrangement of the
dates, from several days to three months in each year, in some
traditions, the celebration of the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara's birthday, Bodhi Day and Great Renunciation days hold the highest importance to be vegetarian.
Vajrayana
Some Vajrayana practitioners both drink alcohol and eat meat. Many traditions of the Ganachakra which is a type of Panchamakarapuja
prescribed the offering and ingestion of meat and alcohol, although
this practice is now often only a symbolic one, with no actual meat or
alcohol ingested.
One of the most important tertöns of Tibet, Jigme Lingpa, wrote of his great compassion for animals:
Of all his merit-making, Jigme
Lingpa was most proud of his feelings of compassion for animals; he says
that this is the best part of his entire life story. He writes of his
sorrow when he witnessed the butchering of animals by humans. He often
bought and set free animals about to be slaughtered (a common Buddhist
act). He ‘changed the perception’ of others, when he once caused his
followers to save a female yak from being butchered, and he continually
urged his disciples to forswear the killing of animals.
Above all, you must constantly train your mind to be loving, compassionate, and filled with Bodhicitta. You must give up eating meat, for it is very wrong to eat the flesh of our parent sentient beings.
The 14th Dalai Lama
and other esteemed lamas invite their audiences to adopt vegetarianism
when they can. When asked in recent years what he thinks of
vegetarianism, the 14th Dalai Lama has said: "It is wonderful. We must
absolutely promote vegetarianism." The Dalai Lama tried becoming a vegetarian and promoted vegetarianism. In 1999, it was published that the Dalai Lama would only be vegetarian every other day and partakes of meat regularly. When he is in Dharamsala, he is vegetarian, but not necessarily when he is outside Dharamsala. Paul McCartney
has taken him to task for this and wrote to him to urge him to return
to strict vegetarianism, but "[The Dalai Lama] replied [to me] saying
that his doctors had told him he needed [meat], so I wrote back saying
they were wrong."
On 3 January 2007, one of the two 17th Karmapa, Urgyen Trinley Dorje,
strongly urged vegetarianism upon his students, saying that generally,
in his view, it was very important in the Mahayana not to eat meat and
that even in Vajrayana students should not eat meat:
There are many great masters and very great realized beings in India and there have been many great realized beings in Tibet
also, but they are not saying, "I'm realized, therefore I can do
anything; I can eat meat and drink alcohol." It's nothing like that. It
should not be like that.
According to the Kagyupa
school, we have to see what the great masters of the past, the past
lamas of Kagyupas, did and said about eating meat. The Drikung Shakpa
[sp?] Rinpoche, master of Drikungpa, said like this, "My students,
whomever are eating or using meat and calling it tsokhor or tsok,
then these people are completely deserting me and going against the
dharma." I can't explain each of these things, but he said that anybody
that is using meat and saying it is something good, this is completely
against the dharma and against me and they completely have nothing to do
with dharma. He said it very, very strongly.
Common practices
Theravada
In the modern world, attitudes toward vegetarianism vary by location. In Sri Lanka and the Theravada countries of South East Asia, monks are obliged by the vinaya
to accept almost any food that is offered to them, including meat,
unless they suspect the meat was slaughtered specifically for them.
Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Taiwanese traditions
In China, Korea,etnam, Taiwan
and their respective diaspora communities, monks and nuns are expected
to abstain from meat and, traditionally, eggs and dairy, in addition to
the fetid vegetables – traditionally garlic, Allium chinense, asafoetida, shallot, and Allium victorialis (victory onion or mountain leek), although in modern times this rule is often interpreted to include other vegetables of the oniongenus, as well as coriander
– this is called pure vegetarianism or veganism (純素 chún sù). Pure
Vegetarianism or Veganism is Indic in origin and is still practiced in
India by some adherents of Dharmic religions such as Jainism and in the case of Hinduism, lacto-vegetarianism with the additional abstention of pungent or fetid vegetables.
A minority of Buddhist lay believers are year-long vegetarians in
the monastic way. Many lay followers followed monastic style
vegetarianism on Lunar New Year's Eve, Saints days and ancestral feast
days as well as the 1st and 15th day of the lunar calendar. Some lay
followers also followed monastic style vegetarianism on the six-day,
ten-day，Guan-yin (Avalokitesvara) vegetarian, etc., set lunar calendar
schedule.
Other Buddhist lay-followers also follow less stringent forms of
vegetarianism. Most Buddhist lay-followers however are not vegetarians.
Some Zhaijiao lay adherents also do not eat any meat.
Japanese traditions
Japan initially received Chinese Buddhism in the 6th century. In the 9th century, Emperor Saga made a decree prohibiting meat consumption, except that of fish and birds. Around the 9th century, two Japanese monks (Kūkai and Saichō),
introduced Vajrayana Buddhism into Japan, and this soon became the
dominant Buddhism among the nobility. In particular, Saichō, who
founded the Tendai
sect of Japanese Buddhism, reduced the number of vinaya code to 66. (円戒
yuán jiè) During the 12th century, a number of monks from Tendai sects founded new schools (Zen, Pure Land Buddhism) and de-emphasised vegetarianism. Nichiren Buddhism today likewise deemphasises vegetarianism. Zen does tend generally to look favourably upon vegetarianism. Shingon Buddhism,
founded by Kūkai, recommends vegetarianism and requires it at certain
times, but it is not always strictly required for monks and nuns.
In 1872 of the Meiji restoration, as part of the opening up of Japan to Western influence, Emperor Meiji lifted the ban on the consumption of red meat.
The removal of the ban encountered resistance and in one notable
response, ten monks attempted to break into the Imperial Palace. The
monks asserted that due to foreign influence, large numbers of Japanese
had begun eating meat and that this was "destroying the soul of the
Japanese people." Several of the monks were killed during the break-in
attempt, and the remainder were arrested.
The practice of non-harming forms the basis of all three vehicles of Buddhist philosophy. For this reason, the Buddha gave advice to the Buddhist community of monastics in the Vinaya
concerning food and the consumption of meat, since monastics
traditionally relied upon alms given to them by the local community for
sustenance on occasions which may include meat, and to refuse such
offerings could be considered as going against their vows. The Buddha made clear distinctions between eating meat and killing, by giving instructions on the three-fold purity of meat.
In Tibet,
where vegetables are scarce, meat is often consumed as a form of
sustenance. However, records show that in Tibet, the practice of
vegetarianism was encouraged as early as the 14th and 15th centuries by
renowned Buddhist teachers such as Chödrak Gyatso and Mikyö Dorje, 8th Karmapa Lama.
Contemporary Buddhist teachers such as the Dalai Lama, and The 17th Karmapa Ogyen Trinley Dorje, invite their audiences to adopt vegetarianism whenever they can. Chatral Rinpoche in particular stated that anyone who wished to be his student must be vegetarian.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is an American nonprofit organization that focuses on animal welfare
and opposes animal-related cruelties of national scope. It uses
strategies that are beyond the abilities of local organizations. It works on issues including companion animals, wildlife, farm animals, horses and other equines, and animals used in research, testing and education. As of 2001, the group's major campaigns targeted factory farming, animal blood sports, the fur trade, puppy mills, and wildlife abuse.
The HSUS is based in Washington, D.C. and was founded in 1954 by journalist Fred Myers and Helen Jones, Larry Andrews, and Marcia Glaser. In 2013, the Chronicle of Philanthropy ranked HSUS as the 136th largest charity in the US in its Philanthropy 400 listing. Its reported revenue was US$129 million and net assets US$215 million as of 2014.
HSUS does not run local shelters or oversee local animal care and
control agencies; it promotes best practices and supports such entities
throughout the country with a range of services.
Overview
HSUS formed after a schism surfaced in the American Humane Association
over pound seizure, rodeo, and other policy issues. The incorporators
of HSUS included four people—Larry Andrews, Marcia Glaser, Helen Jones,
and Fred Myers—all of whom were active in the leadership of existing
local and national groups, who would become its first four employees.
One of the original founders, for whom the HSUS headquarters in
Washington DC was named in 1975 was Oliver Marshall Evans (1906-1975).
(Source The Humane Society News of the United States Winter edition
1975-1976) He served as a director or officer for the 21 years leading
up to his death in 1975. He was also President of the HSUS from
1963-1967. They believed that a new kind of organization would
strengthen the American humane movement, and they set up HSUS as the
"National Humane Society", in Washington, DC to ensure that it could
play a strong role in national policy development concerning animal
welfare. HSUS's guiding principle was ratified by its national
membership in 1956: "The Humane Society of the United States opposes and
seeks to prevent all use or exploitation of animals that causes pain,
suffering, or fear."
Rationale
The
values that shaped HSUS's formation in 1954, came in some degree from
the humane movement that originated in the 1860s in the United States.
The idea of kindness to animals made significant inroads in American
culture in the years following the Civil War.
The development of sympathy for creatures in pain, the satisfaction of
keeping them as pets, and the heightening awareness about the
relationship between cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence strengthened the movement's popular appeal.
Albert Schweitzer
The most immediate philosophical influence on 1950s-era advocates,
including those associated with HSUS, was the reverence-for-life concept
advanced by Albert Schweitzer.
Schweitzer included a deep regard for nonhuman animals in his canon of
beliefs, and animal advocates laboring to give their concerns a higher
profile were buoyed by Schweitzer's 1952 Nobel Peace Prize
speech, in which he noted that "compassion, in which ethics takes root,
does not assume its true proportions until it embraces not only man but
every living being."
Myers and his colleagues found another exemplar of their values in Joseph Wood Krutch (1893–1970), whose writings reflected a deep level of appreciation for wilderness and for nonhuman life. With The Great Chain of Life (1957), Krutch established himself as a philosopher of humaneness, and in 1970, HSUS' highest award was renamed in his honor.
The growing environmental movement of the early 1970s also
influenced the ethical and practical evolution of HSUS. The burgeoning
crisis of pollution and wildlife-habitat loss made the public
increasingly aware that humans needed to change their behavior toward
other living things. By that time, too, the treatment of animals had
become a topic of serious discussion within moral philosophy.
The debate spilled over into public consciousness with the publication of Peter Singer's Animal Liberation (1975). Singer's book sought to recast concern for animals as a justice-based cause like the movements for civil rights and women's rights.
Most of what Singer wrote concerning the prevention or reduction
of animals' suffering was in harmony with HSUS's objectives. Singer's
philosophy did not rest upon the rights of animals,
and he specifically rejected the framework of rights in favor of a
utilitarian assessment that focused on animal sentience. His principal
concern, like that of HSUS, was the mitigation and elimination of
suffering, and he endorsed the view that ethical treatment sometimes
permitted or even required killing animals to end their misery.
The 1980s witnessed a flourishing of concern about animals and a proliferation of new organizations, many influenced by the emergence of a philosophy holding that animals had inherent rights. Those committed to the purest form of animal rights
rejected any human use of animals. In this changing context, HSUS
faced new challenges. As newer animal organizations adopted more radical approaches
to achieve their goals, the organization born in anti-establishment
politics now found itself identified – and sometimes criticized – as the
"establishment" group of record.
History
In
1954, HSUS's founders decided to create a new kind of animal
organization, based in the nation's capital, to confront national
cruelties beyond the reach of local societies and state federations.
Humane slaughter became an immediate priority and commanded a
substantial portion of the organization's resources. Myers and his
colleagues also viewed this first campaign as a vehicle for promoting
movement cohesion.
Humane slaughter legislation
In 1958, the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act passed, which required the proper use of humane slaughter methods at slaughterhouses subject to federal inspection.
Only four years after HSUS's formation, Myers pointed out that the
movement had united, for the first time in eighty-five years,chieve enactment of federal legislation that would affect the lives
of tens of millions of animals. He was encouraged that "hundreds of
local societies could lift their eyes from local problems to a great
national cruelty."
Ban of experimentation upon animals
HSUS also made the use of animals in research, testing, and education an early focus. In the post–World War II era, an increasingly assertive biomedical research
community sought to obtain animals from pounds and shelters handling
municipal animal control contracts. Local humane societies across the
nation resisted. HSUS sought to bolster the movement's strong opposition
to pound seizure, believing that no public pound or privately operated
humane society should be compelled by law to provide animals for
experimental use.
HSUS took the position that animal experimentation
should be banned, and in the 1950s it placed investigators in
laboratories to gather evidence of substandard conditions and animal
suffering and neglect. The HSUS was not an anti-vivisection
society, Myers explained in 1958. Rather, it stood for the principle
that "every humane society … should be actively concerned about the
treatment accorded to such a vast number of animals."
Beginning in the 1990s, HSUS board member David O. Wiebers, a medical doctor associated with the Mayo Clinic,
undertook efforts to lessen tensions between animal protection
organizations and the scientific community, and to seek to identify
areas of common agreement.
Companion animals and shelters
Service
to local animal shelters, with a special focus on solving problems and
challenges of importance to every one of the nation's humane societies,
was an early priority for HSUS. Its first brochure, "They Preach
Cruelty", focused on the tragedy of animal overpopulation.
HSUS and its state branches operated animal shelters in Waterford,
Virginia, Salt Lake City Utah, and Boulder, Colorado, and elsewhere,
during the 1960s, and part of the 1970s.
From the early 1960s onward, HSUS worked to promote the most humane
methods possible for euthanasia of animals in shelters, using its
Waterford, Virginia animal shelter as a model for best practices in this
area. HSUS does not currently operate any Animal Shelters.
Under Phyllis Wright, HSUS was a driving force behind the shift
to use of sodium pentobarbital for animal euthanasia, in opposition to
the use of gas chambers and decompression, the standard shelter killing
methods until the early 1980s.
In 1984, a General Accounting Office
report confirmed HSUS allegations of major problems with puppy mills in
the United States, setting the stage for proposed legislation to
regulate mills in the 1990s.
Exposure of cruelty in the dog trade
In
1961, HSUS investigator Frank McMahon launched a probe of dog dealers
around the country to generate support for a federal law to prevent
cruelty to animals destined for use in laboratories. The five-year
investigation into the multilayered trade in dogs paid off in February
1966 when Life published a photo-essay of a raid conducted on a Maryland dog dealer's premises by McMahon and the state police. The Life
spread sparked outrage, and tens of thousands of Americans wrote to
their congressional representatives, demanding action to protect animals
and prevent pet theft. That summer the U.S. Congress approved the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (later renamed the "Animal Welfare Act of 1966"), only the second major federal humane law passed since World War II.
Goals and expansion
Other broad goals during this time included a reduction in the U.S.'s homeless dog and cat population, the reform of inhumane euthanasia
practices, and to regulate pet shops and to end the commercial pet
breeding trade. HSUS and its state branches operated animal shelters in
Waterford, Virginia, Salt Lake City Utah, and Boulder, Colorado, and
elsewhere, during the 1960s, and part of the 1970s.[28] Today, HSUS operates five animal sanctuaries in the states of California, Florida Massachusetts, Oregon, and Texas.
HSUS also worked, from the 1960s, to promote humane education of
children in the schools. Much of this work was carried out under the
auspices of an affiliate, the National Association for the Advancement
of Humane Education. In the 1980s, HSUS sponsored several validation
studies designed to demonstrate the value of humane education.
Relationship to animal rights
While
HSUS welcomed and benefited from growing social interest in animals, it
did not originally embrace the language and philosophy of animal
rights. Rather, HSUS representatives expressed their beliefs that
animals were "entitled to humane treatment and to equal and fair
consideration."
Like many of the organizations and individuals associated with humane
work, HSUS did try to come to terms with the shift toward rights-based
language and arguments. In 1978, attorneys Robert Welborn and Murdaugh
Stuart Madden
conducted a workshop at the HSUS annual conference, "Can Animal Rights
Be Legally Defined?", and assembled constituents passed a resolution to
the effect that "animals have the right to live and grow under
conditions that are comfortable and reasonably natural... animals that
are used by man in any way have the right to be free from abuse, pain,
and torment caused or permitted by man... animals that are domesticated
or whose natural environment is altered by man have the right to receive
from man adequate food, shelter, and care."
In 1980 the notion of rights surfaced in an HSUS convention resolution
which, noting that "such rights naturally evolve from long accepted
doctrines of justice or fairness or some other dimension of morality",
called for "pursuit on all fronts... the clear articulation and
establishment of the rights of animals"
In 1986, HSUS employee John McArdle declared that "HSUS is
definitely shifting in the direction of animal rights faster than anyone
would realize from our literature". The HSUS fired McArdle shortly thereafter, he alleged, for being an "animal rights activist".
At about the same time, former HSUS president John Hoyt stated that
"this new [animal rights] philosophy has served as a catalyst in the
shaping of our own philosophies, policies, and goals."
Position against the use of violence
Since
1990 at least, HSUS has expressed a clear opposition to "the use of
threats and acts of violence against people and willful destruction and
theft of property."
In 2008, HSUS offered a reward for information leading to the
identification and arrest of parties involved with the firebombing of
two University of California animal researchers.
Recent history
Wayne Pacelle tenure
In the spring of 2004, the HSUS board appointed Wayne Pacelle
as CEO and president. A former executive director of The Fund for
Animals and named in 1997 as "one of America's most important animal
rights activists", the Yale graduate spent a decade as HSUS's chief lobbyist
and spokesperson, and expressed a strong commitment to expand the
organization's base of support as well as its influence on public
policies that affect animals.
Under Pacelle's leadership, HSUS has undertaken several dozen ballot
initiative and referendum campaigns in a number of states, concerning
issues like unsportsmanlike hunting practices, cruelty in industrial
agriculture, greyhound racing, puppy mill cruelty and animal trapping.
In August 2014, Pacelle was again named to the NonProfit Times' "Power
and Influence Top 50" for his achievements in leading HSUS, the fourth
time he has been so recognized.
Since Pacelle's appointment, HSUS has claimed successes such as
the adoption of "cage-free" egg-purchasing policies by hundreds of
universities and dozens of corporations; the exposure of an international trophy hunting scam subsequently ended through legislative reform;
a number of successful congressional votes to outlaw horse slaughter;
progress in securing legislation at the state and federal level to
outlaw animal fighting and the interstate transport of fighting
implements; the enactment of internet hunting bans in nearly all of the states; announcements by Wolfgang Puck and Burger King that they would increase their use of animal products derived under less abusive standards;
and an agreement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to begin
enforcement of federal laws concerning the transportation of farm
animals.
In 2018, The Washington Post reported on a Humane Society board investigation conducted by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
into allegations of sexual harassment involving Wayne Pacelle. The
investigation found three credible accusations of sexual harassment and
female leaders who said their "warnings about his conduct went
unheeded."
The board voted to keep Pacelle, but after several board members,
including author Suzy Welch and philanthropist Marsha Perelman, resigned
in protest and high-profile donors revealed they would withhold
donations, Pacelle announced his resignation on February 2, 2018. Shortly thereafter, Perelman, along with Kathleen Linehan, returned to the board as Vice Chair and Treasurer, respectively.
The HSUS board of directors closed the investigation, declining
to take any action, and issued a statement that Morgan, Lewis had found
no "credible evidence" that would "support the women's claims," sparking
outrage and resulting in the resignation of seven further board
members. The organization named as Acting President and interim CEO, Kitty Block, who was President of the international affiliate of the organization, Humane Society International, and who had sued her former HSUS boss, David Wills, for sexual harassment 20 years ago.
On January 25, 2019, Kitty Block was named official President and CEO
of the organization, and Susan Atherton and Thomas J. Sabatino, Jr. were
appointed co-chairs of the HSUS Board, after Board Chairman Eric L.
Bernthal stepped down after seven years of service.
Animal protection litigation section
HSUS
launched an animal protection litigation section in 2005. The section
works with several thousand pro bono attorneys around the country to
pursue its docket of cases. Under section leader Jonathan Lovvorn, the
animal protection litigation group has won approximately three dozen
cases in its first decade of existence, taking a practical approach,
which Lovvorn explained in a 2012 interview. "We look at cases that are
going to have a concrete impact on animals but are winnable. You won't
see us out asking for courts to declare animals persons. Or to file
habeas corpus requests on behalf of animals, or other things that
require judges to go way beyond what they're comfortable with." In 2010,
the section estimated that it had filed more than 50 legal actions in
25 states, and won 80% of its cases, while booking 10,000 hours of pro
bono attorney time for a total in-kind contribution of $4 million.
Canadian seal cull campaign
Seals being clubbed
Once launched in 2005, the HSUS's campaign to end the hunting of seals in Canada secured pledges from 300 restaurants and companies, plus 120,000 individuals, to boycott Canadian seafood.
By 2014, the campaign claimed more than 6,500 restaurants, grocery
stores and seafood supply companies were participants the Protect Seals
campaign.
Corporate expansion
The
corporate expansion forged by Pacelle included mergers with The Fund
for Animals (2005), founded by social critic and author Cleveland Amory and the Doris Day Animal League (2006), founded by screen actress and singer Doris Day.
This made possible the establishment of a separate campaigns
department, an equine issues department, a litigation section, the
enhancement of signature programs likes Pets for Life and Wild Neighbors, and an expanded range of hands-on care programs for animals. During the first 2½ years of Pacelle's tenure, overall revenues and expenditures grew by more than 50 percent.
In early 2008, HSUS re-organized its direct veterinary care work and
its veterinary advocacy under a new entity, the Humane Society
Veterinary Medical Association, formed through an alliance with the
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR).
Corporate social responsibility outreach
Engagement
with major corporations in an effort to persuade them to press for
reforms in their supply chains has been a significant priority for HSUS
in the last decade, and as a result of its efforts, more than 60 major
food suppliers have used their leverage to change production level
practices in the pork industry.
Shareholder resolutions play a part in HSUS campaigns to generate corporate reform.
Faith outreach
In
2007, HSUS launched a program designed to advance relationships and
awareness within the American faith community at all levels. The
program provides speakers, produces videos and other materials, and
works with faith leaders to lead discussion of animal issues within the
broader religious community. HSUS works on this program with Farm Forward, a 501(c)(3)nonprofit organization
that implements innovative strategies to promote conscientious food
choices, reduce farmed animal suffering, and advance sustainable
agriculture.
Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy
The
Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy (HSISP), founded in
2010, supports the application of scientific and technical analysis and
expertise to animal welfare issues and policy questions worldwide. and
HSISP is sustained by HSUS's own core group of academic, scientific, and
technical experts in animal welfare, as well as outside scientists.
HSISP is the manager of the Animal Studies Repository, a digital
collection of academic and scientific resources related to animal
studies and to animal welfare science. HSISP has held three
conferences, the first on purebred dogs and genetic defects, the second
on outdoor cats and associated management issues, and the third on
sentience as a factor in determining animal welfare policy.
Hurricane Katrina animal rescue
In September 2005, when thousands of animals were left behind as people evacuated during Hurricane Katrina,
HSUS joined other organizations in a massive search-and-rescue effort
that saved approximately ten thousand animals, and raised more than $34
million for direct relief, reconstruction, and recovery in the Gulf
Coast region. HSUS led the campaign that culminated in the federal
passage of the PETS Act in October 2006, requiring all local, state, and
federal agencies to include animals in their disaster planning
scenarios.
In August 2008, Pacelle appeared with Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell
at a press conference marking the enactment of a law prohibiting
cockfighting in Louisiana, the last state to do so. The prohibition
resulted from a longtime campaign led by HSUS. The HSUS remains active in the Gulf region, funding a number of projects aimed at reducing the area's pet overpopulation problem, and improving access to pet care for the Gulf Coast residents.
Investigation into "faux" fur
In
late 2006, HSUS broke the story of its investigation into the sale of
coats trimmed with real fur but labeled "faux" or fake. Laboratory
testing found that the fur came from purpose-bred raccoon dogs
in China that were sometimes beaten to death and skinned alive. The
story of fur animals beaten to death and skinned alive is disputed by a
fur industry trade group. The investigation reportedly prompted several retailers including Macy's and J.C. Penney
to pull the garments from the sale floor. Legislation was introduced in
the U.S. Congress to require that all fur jackets be properly labeled,
and to ban raccoon dog fur.
In 2014, HSUS accused Kohl's department store of selling a men's
jacket made with real animal fur as "faux", and issued a warning to
consumers.
Investigation of Westland Meat Packing Company
In February 2008, after an undercover investigation conducted by HSUS at the Westland Meat Packing Company
alleged substantial animal abuse, the USDA forced the recall of 143
million pounds of beef, some of which had been routed into the nation's
school lunch program. HSUS had been a longtime advocate for the elimination of downer animals from the nation's food supply, and the undercover investigation led to the USDA adopting the policy. In November 2013, the Justice Department reached a $155 million settlement with the firms that operated the plant. Michael Greger, Director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture for HSUS at that time, testified before Congress about the matter.
Petland puppy mills campaign
In the fall of 2008, HSUS also launched a campaign to expose the reliance of the pet store chain Petland on puppy mills where animals are raised under inhumane conditions. However, Jessica Mitler from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the government agency that regulates dog breeders,
provided the following response to the HSUS investigation: "The agency
has received no complaints from the Humane Society about a particular
kennel or Petland; so they have not investigated this specifically." On November 24, 2008, Petland responded to the HSUS campaign video footage of the Petland investigation
by stating: "Petland is outraged that HSUS would intentionally use
video footage of unrelated kennels in the report to try to mislead the
general public into believing these facilities have a connection to
Petland." In another statement dated February 19, 2009, Petland stated they turned over death threats and threats of kidnapping
generated from the HSUS campaign against Petland to the proper
authorities for further investigation. Petland continued by asking HSUS
to cease and desist in any actions that may promote malicious intent (directly or indirectly).
On March 17, 2009, HSUS launched a class action suit against
Petland on behalf of patrons who allegedly purchased sick animals from
the chain, under the alleged pretense that the animals had come from the
nation's finest breeders. On August 8, 2009, the case was dismissed by a United States District Judge for lack of facts concerning the case.
Petland responded to the dismissal by stating: "The Humane Society of
the United States touted the lawsuit in furtherance of its fundraising
and media campaign seeking to end the sale of animals through pet
stores. Petland denied that it had done anything unlawful, and it
believes strongly that consumers have the right to purchase and keep
pets."
The HSUS does not oppose the ownership of pets, but maintains that the
desire for profit in commercial pet stores undermines proper care of
companion animals.
Political and legislative initiatives against animal abuse and cruelty
During 2013, HSUS helped to pass 109 animal protection laws at the state level.
In 2006, HSUS helped to secure the passage of 70 new state laws on
behalf of animals. Two successful November 2006 ballot initiatives
conducted with its support outlawed dove hunting in Michigan and,
through Proposition 204, abusive livestock-farming practices in Arizona. In 2008, HSUS helped to pass 91 state animal-welfare laws, including Proposition 2 in California. HSUS was a leader in the Proposition 2
campaign in California, which gained eight million votes on Election
Day 2008, more than any other initiative on the ballot. The measure,
which prohibits certain intensive confinement practices in agriculture
beginning in 2015, passed by a 63.3 to 36.7 percent margin, winning in
46 of 58 counties, and gaining support throughout the state's urban,
suburban, and rural areas. It garnered votes from Democrats,
independents, and Republicans alike, as well as among Caucasians,
African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Latinos. Nearly 800,000
Californians signed petitions to place the measure on the ballot.
HSUS was also a participant in a ballot initiative campaign
focusing on inhumane treatment of farm animals in Ohio. The
livestock-agriculture initiative was withdrawn from the ballot after a
compromise was brokered between HSUS, Ohioans for Humane Farms, the Ohio
Farm Bureau, and Ohio Governor Ted Strickland.
HSUS led a campaign against puppy mill cruelty in Missouri in 2010. The Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, known as "Prop B", was narrowly passed by Missouri voters.
United Egg Producers
For
several years, HSUS cooperated with the United Egg Producers to secure
federal legislation to phase out barren battery cages for all laying
hens in the United States. Discussion between HSUS and the United Egg Producers
concerning a national standard for egg production began with a meeting
between Jerry Crawford, an Iowa resident with ties to the egg production
industry, and HSUS's Wayne Pacelle. Crawford recommended a further
meeting with the United Egg Producers' Chad Gregory. The context for the meeting was HSUS's commanding win in Proposition 2
in California, and a shared belief that open warfare would serve no
one's purposes. Additional negotiations produced the agreement to pursue
federal legislation, the Egg Products Inspection Act of 2013, to
support a shift to cage-free housing systems for laying hens, like
enriched colony cages. The proposal failed in the Congress, and was not
taken up in the 2014 Farm Bill, as a result of opposition by livestock
production groups concerned over the precedent of federally-mandated
standards for housing. Hog producers in particular recognized their
vulnerability in reference to gestation crates.
Positions and program work
Animal fighting
In July 2007, HSUS led calls for the National Football League to suspend Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick in the wake of allegations that he had been involved with dog fighting activity. Vick was prosecuted and convicted under state and federal laws.
HSUS has backed upgrades of the federal laws concerning animal fighting
in 2007, 2008, and in relation to the Animal Fighting Spectator
Prohibition Act, from 2011 to the present.
Animals in research, testing, and education
Beginning in the 1990s, HSUS board member David O. Wiebers, a medical doctor associated with the Mayo Clinic,
undertook efforts to lessen tensions between animal protection
organizations and the scientific community, and to seek to identify
areas of common agreement.
The announcement by the NIH that it would no longer fund experiments
that relied on Class B dealers marked the end of a long campaign by HSUS
and other organizations to halt this channel for the supply of animals.
In 2013, HSUS worked closely with the Arcus Foundation
and other partners in the successful effort to persuade the U.S.
government to transfer the remaining chimpanzees it owns to sanctuary
over time, and for an end to chimpanzee use in research, testing, and
education. Since 2007, HSUS has pressed corporations still using chimpanzees in research to commit to policies of non-use. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine, part of the United States National Academies,
recommended the curtailment of chimp use in testing. The IOM said that
while genetic similarity made chimps valuable for medical research, such
research raised ethical issues and carried a "moral cost." In 2014,
Merck, the world's third largest pharmaceutical company, became the
largest multinational corporation to make such a commitment.
Animals used for food
Basic policy
HSUS
opposes cruelty in the raising and slaughter of animals used for food,
and has done so since its inception in 1954. HSUS's policy of the 3 Rs
encourages its constituents to reduce their consumption of meat.
Campaigns
HSUS led the ballot initiative campaign to enact California Proposition 2 (2008),
enacted as the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, requiring
cage-free conditions for laying hens, mother pigs and veal calves raised
in the state. An HSUS-led coalition also pressed for the passage of a California foie gras ban that took effect in mid-2012. In 2016, HSUS led the campaign to enact the Massachusetts Conditions for Farm Animals Initiative, which banned the use of small cages to raise animals in agriculture; it received 77.7% of public support .
In 2018, the HSUS-led California Proposition 12 (2018),
which built on the 2008 law, mandated that eggs, pork and veal produced
and sold in the state come from cage-free facilities. Since then, HSUS
has spearheaded successful efforts to pass cage-free legislation in
Washington, Oregon, Michigan and Colorado.
HSUS has convinced hundreds of the largest grocery and restaurant companies
to enact reforms regarding their treatment of farm animals. The
organization also collaborates with food service companies and
institutions to offer more plant-based meals, stating that in 2019 it trained more than 10,000 food service professionals.
Companion animals
The HSUS has an entire department devoted to pets, and to services for companion animals.
It also has sections working to end dog-fighting, and to provide
rescue and emergency services to animals at risk in animal fighting,
hoarding, puppy mill enterprises and disasters.
The HSUS Pets for Life program uses community-level outreach in a
number of American cities, including Los Angeles, and Philadelphia, to
raise retention levels and to improve the lives of companion animals and
those who care for them, by providing veterinary services in zones
where convenient and low-cost care is lacking. The HSUS is a strong supporter of "pets in the workplace" programs.
HSUS publishes Animal Sheltering, a bi-monthly magazine for animal sheltering professionals. It also operates the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, which provides free veterinary services for animals in impoverished communities.
In 2013, the HSUS gave its Henry Spira Corporate Progress Award to the Consumer Specialty Products Association
to recognize the antifreeze manufacturing industry's commitment to add a
bittering agent to products so that animals would not die poisonous
deaths, the subject of a long-running campaign by the HSUS.
HSUS believes that, in general, wild animals are not suitable as pets, and opposes the general traffic in wild animals.
Puppy mills
HSUS has been an active opponent of the domestic and global puppy mill
industry, and helped law enforcement agencies to confiscate more than
35,000 animals from purported puppy mills since 2007. HSUS has also
pressed anti-puppy mill bills in states like Indiana, Missouri,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The number of dog breeders licensed
by the United States Department of Agriculture declined from 3,486 in
2009 to 2,205 in 2011.
HSUS led the effort to secure adoption of a United States Department of Agriculture
rule to prohibit the importation into the United States of dogs from
foreign countries for resale unless the animals were in good health,
vaccinated and at least 6 months old.
Dog breeders opposed another measure supported by HSUS, to regulate the sale of dogs over the Internet.
Wildlife
HSUS
opposes the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or sport.
HSUS only supports killing animals for population control when carried
out by officials and does not oppose hunting for food or subsistence
needs.
As a practical matter, HSUS has generally campaigned against abuses
found in the treatment of wildlife. Its ballot initiatives focus on
things like shooting bear over bait, hunting with hounds, and other
forms of hunting the organization believes are unsporting.
Together with its global affiliate, Humane Society International, HSUS has waged a decade-long fight to end the Canadian seal hunt. In late 2013, the World Trade Organization upheld the European Union ban on trade in products of commercial seal hunts, rejecting the Canadian and Norwegian challenge.
HSUS has waged campaigns on behalf of wolves since the 1970s. In
recent years, HSUS has campaigned against the killing of wolves via
ballot initiatives, and—with other partners—in litigation.
In June 2007, HSUS launched Humane Wildlife Services, a program
to encourage and provide humane wildlife-removal services when wild
animals intrude on human dwellings.
Through its efforts in the United States, and globally through its affiliate Humane Society International, HSUS has helped to achieve prohibitions on shark finning in state and national legislatures and through administrative action here and abroad.
The HSUS offers many resources to individuals, organizations and public officials, for helping feral cats and ultimately reducing their numbers in the community.
The Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy convened a
conference on outdoor cat issues in December 2012, bringing together
stakeholders from a range of interested perspectives.
Zoos
HSUS first
took a policy position on zoos in 1975, its board of directors
concluding that it would be neither for nor against zoos, but would work
against roadside menageries and regular zoos that could not improve.
In 1984, HSUS adopted a policy that animals should not be taken from the
wild for public display in zoos.
HSUS has taken a careful but critical stance concerning practices commonly found in the horse racing industry. On occasion, HSUS has taken a position against particular practices associated with horse racing, such as the use of corticosteroids.
HSUS has long opposed the keeping of marine mammals in captivity
and played a key longterm role in the campaign to end captive orca
performance at SeaWorld. HSUS opposed the Georgia Aquarium's application to the National Marine Fisheries Service to import 18 beluga whales from Russia, an application the NMFS denied.
HSUS has long opposed the use of horses for food, and campaigned
against their slaughter via litigation and public policy approaches.
It has pursued both legislative and litigation channels as part of its
campaign to prevent horse slaughter plants in the United States from
resuming their operations.
HSUS, in addition to its ongoing lobbying against the pet
industry, has taken a strong stance against the private ownership of any
exotic pet, regardless of species. The HSUS also heavily lobbied for the passing of HB 4393 in West Virginia,
which generated a large amount of controversy when its restricted
animal list was originally drafted and made illegal the private
ownership of common and harmless exotic pets, such as hamsters, hedgehogs, turtles, tortoises, pufferfish, sugar gliders, salamanders, alpacas and domestic hybrid cat breeds.
Governance and expenses
The Humane Society of the United States headquarters located in the West End neighborhood of Washington, D.C.
A nonprofit,
charitable organization, HSUS is funded almost entirely by private
membership dues, contributions, foundation grants, and bequests. HSUS is
governed by a 27-member, independent board of directors. Each director serves as a volunteer and receives no compensation for service.
HSUS meets all 21 BBB Wise Giving Alliance financial and administrative standards, and all 20 of the BBB's Standards for Charity Accountability. In 2010, Worth Magazine named the HSUS as one of the 10 Most Fiscally Responsible Charities.
In 2012, President and CEO Wayne Pacelle received $347,675 in compensation.
In 2014, Charity Navigator issued a "Donor Advisory" about HSUS, temporarily removing its rating of the organization.
Grantmaking
HSUS gave grants to 260 other organizations in the U.S. and abroad during 2011, totaling $6.5 million.
According to its IRS Form 990, HSUS makes grants to organizations
that meet its mission criteria, and typically to those groups which it
has researched, with which it has an existing relationship, or with
which its staff members have interacted at events and through other
channels. HSUS lists all grants of $500 or more, with details, although
the IRS Schedule F requires only that grants surpassing $5,000 need be
reported.
Affiliated and related entities
Humane Society International
Founded in 1991, Humane Society International
(HSI) seeks to expand the HSUS's activities into Central and South
America, Africa, and Asia. HSI's Asian, Australian, Canadian, and
European offices carry out field activities and programs.
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association
The
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA) was formed in
2008 to encompass both veterinary advocacy and veterinary clinical
services work conducted by the HSUS, and to provide a political
alternative to the American Veterinary Medical Association for veterinarians of a strong animal welfare orientation.
Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust
As
an affiliate of the Humane Society of the United States since 1993
HSWLT, alone or in partnership with other conservation groups, has
participated in the protection and enhancement of more than 3.6 million
acres of wildlife habitat in 38 states and nine foreign countries. HSWLT
has taken both large and small properties under its protection, through
title donations, conservation easements, and formal agreements, to
provide sanctuaries for a variety of animal species.
In recent years, HSWLT has also sponsored anti-poaching awards as part
of its commitment to public awareness and law enforcement work.
Doris Day Animal League
The Doris Day Animal League, established in 1987 by the actress Doris Day,
is a 501(c)(4) organization that focuses the spaying and neutering of
companion animals and the development of national, state and local
legislation that will minimize the inhumane treatment of animals. The
League launched its annual observance of Spay Day USA in 1994, to bring
attention to the pet overpopulation problem in the United States.
The Fund for Animals
The Fund for Animals, founded by the social critic Cleveland Amory
in 1967, worked for many years on wildlife issues. Today, it is an
entity that manages animal care facilities as an affiliate of HSUS. Its
sanctuaries include the Ramona Wildlife Facility, the Cleveland Amory
Black Beauty Ranch, the Duchess Horse Sanctuary, and the Cape Wildlife
Center.
Humane Society Legislative Fund
The Humane Society Legislative Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization
formed in 2004. The group supports the passage of animal protection
laws at the state and federal levels, educates the public about animal
protection issues, and supports humane candidates for office. In the
2014 cycle, the Humane Society Legislative Fund has endorsed 38
Republicans and 240 Democrats in races across the country.
Headquarters and regional offices
The Humane Society's national headquarters are in Washington, D.C. It employed 528 employees during 2014. Its international arm, Humane Society International
(HSI), has offices in half a dozen nations and a broad range of
international animal protection programs. One of the largest veterinary
clinics in the Midwest is the Humane Society location in St. Louis, the
growth and success of the clinic has been accredited to their Chief of
Staff for 55 years, Suzanne Saueressig. The clinic admits around 80,000 patients a year and averages around 17,000 surgeries.
Critics
Center for Consumer Freedom
The Center for Consumer Freedom
(CCF), an organization that lobbies on behalf of the food and beverage
industry, has criticized HSUS for many years. Experts on non-profit law
question CCF's non-profit status. while commentators from Rachel Maddow to Michael Pollan have characterized CCF as an astroturfing group.
CCF's founder Richard Berman refuses to disclose its funders, and in
2013 Charity Navigator issued a donor advisory concerning the group.
CCF has produced several advertising campaigns alleging various
improprieties by HSUS and accusing HSUS of misrepresenting itself to
supporters and donors. HSUS has rejected CCF's accusations as
"falsehoods and distortions" by "a flack agency and industry front group
for tobacco, alcohol, and agribusiness interests."
Non-profit groups operated by Mr. Berman's public relations firm paid
Berman and Company $15 million from 2008 to 2010, an arrangement that
may violate Internal Revenue Service rules that prohibit executives from
profiting off of the non-profit entities they run. CCF carries out its attacks on HSUS via advertisements and direct mail campaigns targeting HSUS donors and supporters.
CCF takes this approach in criticizing HSUS: in 2014, HSUS reported
revenue of $135,499,050, and it disbursed $15,843,692 of grants.
Humane Watch
The Humane Watch website was created by the Center for Consumer Freedom.
In 2012, Mother Jones reported the following: "According to the Center
for Consumer Freedom's 2010 tax filing, the group set aside about a
million dollars to set up its anti-Humane Society website "Humane
Watch." Berman has created a separate group with the oddly Humane
Society-sounding name, the Humane Society for Shelter Pets. Its website
snarks at the Humane Society for failing to provide more money for
animal shelters."
Nathan Winograd
Nathan Winograd, a No Kill
advocate, has been critical of HSUS. He has accused the organization of
aiding animal abusers by thwarting legislation designed to curtail
abuse. He made such claims in a Huffington Post article entitled "Putting Abusers Before Animals Is Business as Usual at the HSUS." Winograd's general claims concerning HSUS and animal sheltering work have been disputed or qualified by other parties.
Protect the Harvest
Protect the Harvest is an organization founded by trucking magnate Forrest Lucas of Lucas Oil,
who uses the group to defend industrial animal agriculture and
commercial dog breeders, on whose behalf he has spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars nationwide. Protect the Harvest is a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, and in 2014 formed a Political Action Committee to elect and defeat candidates for office.
Executive Director Brian Klippenstein has singled out HSUS as a target
of his organization's political activities, and as treasurer of Protect
the Harvest PAC he and Lucas campaign against candidates the two groups
consider aligned with HSUS.
The United States Association of Reptile Keepers
The United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK) is a 501(c)(6) organization that lobbies on behalf of the captive-bred reptiles industry, which is made up of both pet owners and professional breeders, as well as supporting zoos and sanctuaries.
USARK has argued against a national ban that HSUS has lobbied for since
its writing in 2009, which was originally intended to ban the import
and interstate transport of nine constrictor snake species.
However, due to pressure from the reptile keepers association, the U.S.
government lessened the ban to include only four of the original nine
species. As a response, Wayne Pacelle wrote on his blog in response that
"these large constricting snakes are not suitable as pets", continuing
with "they suffer from capture in the wild and long-distance transport
for trade; they can injure and kill people who possess or interact with
them; and they can wreak havoc on our natural resources as an invasive
species, killing native wildlife, including endangered animals."
In the summer of 2014, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service reopened its admission of comments on whether to list the five remaining species of snakes on the Lacey Act, including Boa constrictors.
The HSUS then called upon its proponents to send in replies and letters
to support further restriction of the trade in the reptiles.
In response, USARK has accused the HSUS of directly telling its
advocates to lie to the U.S. government: the reptile keepers association
stating on their website that "HSUS President Wayne Pacelle is even
asking HSUS followers to join in and lie to the U.S. Government by
sending their sample letter." They continue their argument with "Their
deceptive campaign continues because there is not valid, peer-reviewed
science to support their claims. They lack credible arguments and
instead focus on sensationalized propaganda."
HSUS has always been against the keeping of snakes in captivity,
stating that they are a "threat to public safety" and that the welfare
of the snakes themselves are at risk, as they "[require] specialized
expertise and care."
The HSUS is also against the keeping of other reptiles in captivity, such as turtles and iguanas, which is in direct opposition of USARK's interests.
Specific criticism
Allegations of misappropriation of donations for Hurricane Katrina rescues
In 2006, the Attorney General of Louisiana opened an inquiry into the American Red Cross and HSUS after complaints about the misuse of funds raised in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
This inquiry was part of a wide-ranging effort to ensure that charities
providing relief for the victims of the hurricane did not profit from
the incident.
Neither Attorney General Charles Foti nor his successor Buddy Caldwell
took any action, and the inquiry focusing on HSUS ended in early 2008.
AR-HR's analysis of the HSUS's 2005, 2006, and 2007 tax returns claimed
that 48% of the $34.6 million donated to the HSUS for the purposes of
helping animals after Hurricane Katrina was then unaccounted for. For a number of years, HSUS published updates on its Gulf Coast spending, the last of which appeared in 2011.
Allegations of misleading fundraising materials
Critics
including the CCF, AR-HR, and Nathan Winograd have accused HSUS of
misleading donors into thinking that their donations directly support
local animal shelters, when HSUS has no affiliation with or control
over local humane societies. HSUS states on its website that it is not
affiliated with local animal shelters, and that the organization's role is to supplement and support
the work of local shelters, not duplicate them. The fundraising
materials of HSUS do not make the claim that HSUS runs local shelters,
or that donations will be applied directly to local animal shelters.
Allegations of financial malfeasance
According to the "Pennies for Charity" report issued by the New York State Attorney General,
of the $1.95 million raised in 2008 by fundraisers, only 5.29% went to
HSUS. The average return for charities in the report was 39.5%. HSUS
actually incurred a net loss of $5,358 (−0.32%) in 2007. Those figures
in 2006 and 2005 numbers were more positive, with 7.27% and 19.99% of
contributions going to HSUS.
In July 2015, the Council of State Governments
(CSG) passed a resolution calling on their states' attorneys general to
investigate HSUS' fundraising efforts. The resolution highlighted the
fact that HSUS' promotional materials give the impression that animals
are the main focus, even though only one percent of the money raised
goes to pet shelters (and HSUS runs none itself).
Animal rights agenda
USA Today, The International Herald Tribune and The San Francisco Chronicle have described HSUS as devoted to "animal rights", as opposed to "animal welfare". Shortly after Wayne Pacelle joined HSUS, he stated in an interview with the Animal People newspaper that his goal was to build "a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement". The IHT describes HSUS as the "least radical" of animal rights groups. Feedstuffs, an agribusiness newspaper, has leveled the charge that HSUS is pursuing a vegetarianism and veganism agenda instead of animal welfare. In 2010, one journalist in Oregon also claimed that HSUS "primarily works on animal rights legislation."
Charity Navigator
In June 2014, Charity Navigator replaced its rating of HSUS with a "Donor Advisory" citing a $15.75 million settlement of a lawsuit. A Charity Navigator representative told The Washington Examiner that a Donor Advisory indicates "extreme concern."
The advisory has since been removed. At no point did it ever have
anything to do with financial metrics, governance, transparency, or the
impact and effectiveness of work to protect animals. It came solely as a
result of a legal settlement the HSUS and several other parties reached
with the owner of Ringling Bros. circus.
Charity Navigator rated them at 85.09 for the 2014 fiscal year, and at 75.61 for the 2019 fiscal year.
Charity Watch
The American Institute of Philanthropy, now called Charity Watch, has been critical of the HSUS. Charity Watch gave the HSUS a "C-" in 2013.
Charity Watch believes that HSUS spends an insufficient percentage of
donations on programs, and an inordinately high percentage on
fundraising. Using different estimates of fundraising expenses and
efficiency, the American Institute of Philanthropy
AIP's rating system heavily penalizes charities for possessing large
assets or maintaining more than three years' operating expenses in
reserve.
Only Charity Watch among all charity evaluation groups believes that
organizations should not write off some of their fundraising costs as
program expenses. Other evaluators agree with the approach taken under Generally accepted accounting principles, which permit such joint allocation of expenses.
The organization maintains a focus on particular financial
measurements, strictly interpreting all direct mail, telemarketing and
solicitation costs as separate fundraising expenses.
Feld Entertainment litigation
Feld Entertainment
sued HSUS and other animal-rights advocates and advocacy groups under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Feld
asserted HSUS wrongdoing in relation to litigation brought by animal
rights activists against Feld alleging abuse of animals in the circus.
This litigation was dismissed in 2009, with the judge finding that
animal-rights groups had paid the key witness, a former Feld employee,
at least $190,000, a significant amount of which was in a check signed
by Mr. Pacelle. HSUS's merger and combination with The Fund for Animals
drew HSUS into the case. In December 2012, the ASPCA settled the Feld suit and agreed to pay $9.3 million.
In May 2014, HSUS and the remaining co-defendants (which included two
HSUS employees, the HSUS affiliate Fund for Animals, and parties
unaffiliated with HSUS) agreed to pay $15.75 million to settle the
litigation.
IRS complaint
In November 2013, a complaint was filed with the Internal Revenue Service against HSUS by the Center for Consumer Freedom. According to Bloomberg News,
the IRS complaint alleges that HSUS "violated IRS rules by listing as
contributions the $17.7 million value of air time for its public service
announcements to promote pet adoption. The net effect is to raise the
ratio of program expenses to total expenses, which the independent
assessor Charity Navigator uses to rank the effectiveness of charities."
According to Bloomberg News, a tax attorney claims that the "Humane
Society shouldn't count the public service air time as contributions."
Meat packing investigation
US Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer
questioned the way HSUS handled its Westland/Hallmark Meat Packing
Company investigation, stating that HSUS "sat on four months of
production that went out into the marketplace that's now being
recalled".
More recently, the debate over forcing animal welfare organizations to
release information about cruelty within a specified period of time has
prompted criticism from editorial boards and journalists skeptical of
the motivations for such calls.
Michael Vick controversy
The football player Michael Vick
was sentenced to prison for running a dogfighting ring; he was found to
have buried dogs alive, drowned them, beaten them to death, and pulled
out their teeth without anesthetic. After he had completed his sentence,
Vick offered to volunteer his time to an HSUS campaign against
dogfighting.
Pacelle's acceptance of Vick's offer and willingness to appear in
public and be photographed alongside Vick caused outrage and led one
organization with the words "Humane Society" in its name to stress its
non-affiliation with the HSUS. Sports Illustrated magazine published a major investigative cover story about Michael Vick's
dogs, and what happened to them after they were seized. The writer, Jim
Gorant, was highly critical of the HSUS's immediate call for the pit
bulls to be euthanized. Gorant went on to document the animals'
rehabilitation, and how one went on to become a therapy dog in a
hospital. In 2010, during an interview, Wayne Pacelle pointed out that Vick could own a dog "two or three years down the line"
after his sentence was completed. Pacelle toured schools with Vick, in
the HSUS campaign against dogfighting, and was quoted as saying, "I have
been around him a lot, and feel confident that he would do a good job
as a pet owner."
Vick's sentence did not include a lifetime ban on owning pets, and
Pacelle issued a blog post explaining his stance on Vick as a potential
dog owner. In October 2012, Michael Vick acquired a pet dog, purchased from a breeder. Additional controversy surrounded the report that HSUS had received a $50,000 grant from Michael Vick's team, the Philadelphia Eagles.
The Eagles' donation was made as part of the 2009 launch of its
"Treating Animals With Kindness" (TAWK) program, which provides grants
to animal welfare organizations to protect animals: HSUS received a
$50,000 grant, used to launch anti-dogfighting and community
intervention programs in Philadelphia. In April 2011, Vick joined HSUS
in denouncing the android App "Dog Wars", which involved a simulation of
animal fighting. In July 2011, he lobbied on Capitol Hill for passage of the Animal Fighting Spectator Provision Act.
Animal fighting experts generally agree that since the Vick case,
there has been a significant strengthening of anti-cruelty laws at the
state level, making it easier to prosecute wrongdoers.
Some have accused HSUS of a misleading fundraising pitch in relation to the Michael Vick dog fighting case.
Fundraising material on HSUS's website one day after Vick's indictment
states that donations will be used to "help the Humane Society of the
United States care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case" and
that donations would be "put to use right away to care for these dogs." It was later revealed that the dogs were not in the care of HSUS and that the group recommended the dogs be euthanized. The donation pitch was altered to remove references to caring for Vick's dogs one week after the initial pitch.
Misrepresentations of Canadian seafood boycott participation
In
2006, CCF conducted an informal poll of restaurants listed as
boycotting Canadian seafood in protest of the slaughter of seals. CCF
claims that 62% of the chefs and restaurant managers they spoke to on
the phone were unaware that their companies were listed as "boycotters"
on the HSUS website. In its report, CCF excluded those restaurants that
were boycotting Canadian seafood prior to the HSUS boycott, and
restaurants that serve any Canadian seafood (regardless of the type or
quantity), and drew the conclusion that 78% of the interviewees were not
actively participating in the boycott.
CCF quotes Loyola Hearn, Canadian Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, as
saying: "Some animal rights groups have been misleading the public for
years ... it's no surprise at all that the richest of them would mislead
the public with a phony seafood boycott."
Oklahoma Attorney General Issues Alert
In March 2014 Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt issued a consumer alert regarding HSUS and other national animal organizations. Pruitt stated that his office had received complaints about HSUS misleading donors following a May 2013 tornado disaster.
Position on horse slaughter
Veterinarians for Equine Welfare (VEW) and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) have criticized HSUS and other organizations who lobbied for an end to horse slaughter
in the United States, stating that instead of making things better,
"horses are being abandoned in the United States or transported to
Mexico where, without U.S. federal oversight and veterinary supervision,
they are slaughtered inhumanely."
Project Chimps
On May 4, 2020, 22 people who worked or volunteered at Project Chimps, a chimpanzee sanctuary primarily funded by HSUS, sent a letter
to the sanctuary’s Board of Directors to express their concerns about
poor veterinary care, overcrowding, inadequate enrichment, and
insufficient access to the outdoors for the resident chimps. When
Project Chimps refused to acknowledge the welfare violations, two whistleblowers posted their evidence of the mistreatment online. On July 9th, National Geographic covered the whistleblower allegations in an investigative story; Project Chimps later wrote a letter alleging bias in the story. On October 14th, the Nonhuman Rights Project, a national legal organization that advocates for animals, issued a public statement demanding that Project Chimps provide the chimps with daily access to
the outdoors. Unlike the previous letter to the board of directors and
the National Geographic story, the Nonhuman Rights Project also called
out the Humane Society of the United States as the primary funder of
Project Chimps. Between July and October, activists in New York City,
Los Angeles, and San Francisco staged protests at the homes and offices of HSUS board members. Project Chimps has issued a public statement defending their living conditions and animal care. HSUS has also issued a public statement that they believe the allegations against Project Chimps are unsubstantiated.
On November 30, 2020, an independent “Chimp Welfare Assessment”
of the Project Chimps Sanctuary was made public. The assessment was
conducted by renowned primatologist, Dr. Steve Ross, and funded by the
Arcus Foundation.
The results of the assessment corroborated whistleblower complaints
about poor conditions at Project Chimps. During his assessment, Dr. Ross
documented "inadequate veterinary care", "insufficient access to the
outdoors”, "relatively little veterinary experience among caregivers”,
[a lack of] "dedicated, sterile examination rooms”, and "some chimps
exhibiting anxiety related behaviors such as scratching and rocking."
In response to the assessment, the whistleblowers said that the welfare
reforms proposed by Dr. Ross can only be implemented under leadership
that has chimpanzee experience; who command the respect of their staff
and peers; and who instinctively prioritize the welfare of the animals.
At the time that whistleblowers came forward with allegations of animal mistreatment at Project Chimps, five of its eight board members were ether employed by or served on the board of HSUS.
After animal rights advocates referenced the board makeup as evidence
that HSUS has the power to improve the welfare of the chimps, HSUS
removed three of its representatives from the board and stated that “the
board makeup seemingly caused some confusion around the relationship
between the HSUS and the sanctuary, specifically about who makes
decisions on the sanctuary’s behalf.”
HSUS claims that Project Chimps is an independent organization,
but internal documents published by whistleblowers demonstrate that the
organizations are operationally intertwined and that HSUS wields a
significant degree of control over Project Chimps. For example, the
Humane Society and Project Chimps email domains are interchangeable; HSUS’s Information Technology (IT) department serves at the IT department for Project Chimps; and HSUS pays some of Project Chimps bills; HSUS pays the salary of the Executive Director of Project Chimps. Furthermore, there are detailed letters from the Nonhuman Rights Project to the President of HSUS concerning the inadequate care at the Project Chimps sanctuary.
Other criticisms
1% of the group's budget goes directly to shelters,
and in recent years, HSUS has taken criticism for not dispersing enough
money, in ratio to what it receives from memberships and donations, to
local humane societies and shelters, though the HSUS webpage clearly
states they are unaffiliated with local shelters,
and is the largest nonprofit organization advocating animal rights in the world.
Unlike its founding vision which strictly revolved around animal welfare, HSUS has evolved to work towards establishing a broad range of animal rights legislation, including those involving companion animals, wildlife, farm animals, horses and other equines, and animals used in research, testing and education.
Animal Charity Evaluators review
Animal charity evaluator Animal Charity Evaluators
recommended the Humane Society of the United States' Farm Animal
Protection Campaign as a Standout Charity between May 2014 and February
2018.
ACE designates as Standout Charities those organizations which they do
not feel are as strong as their Top Charities, but which excel in at
least one way and are exceptionally strong compared to animal charities
in general.
In their November 2016 review of the HSUS Farm Animal Protection
Campaign, ACE cited their strengths as their large reach, strategic
approach, and long track record of legal work, corporate outreach, and
meat reduction programs. ACE stated that their primary concern with the
Farm Animal Protection Campaign was that it was unclear the extent to
which their budget comes from the HSUS general budget, and whether small
donations to the Farm Animal Protection Campaign would be fungible with
other HSUS activities.
In February 2018, ACE rescinded their recommendation of the HSUS
Farm Animal Protection Campaign following allegations of misconduct from
both the former president of HSUS and the former vice president of the
Farm Animal Protection Campaign. This rescission was made because ACE
believes strong, ethical leadership and a healthy work environment are
critical components of an effective charity.
