More on Robeson Co Animal Shelter

There is another article in the local paper regarding allegations of cruelty at the Robeson Co Animal Shelter (RCAS). It's basically a he said/she said type deal with the shelter manager countering one eyewitness report with this handy retort:

“She did not witness anything. What she thinks she saw was not the truth.”

Beyond the back and forth, there are a couple of noteworthy items:

Robeson Co is paying for the HSUS to come down and evaluate the shelter. Part of the expense is being covered by a "grant" although the article doesn't give any details on that. It seems a shame that a shelter with less than a $400k annual budget would spend money on getting an evaluation from an organization that does not operate a single shelter. Since RCAS kills roughly 4000 of the 6000 pets they take in each year, I would think they'd want to spend their money on consultants who actually shelter and save pets. But what do I know?

The article ends with the county and Rachelle Dudgeon, a shelter critic, enthusiastically blaming the public for the killing:

One point the county and Dudgeon agree on unequivocally is that the shelter’s problems start with pet owners: “These animals wouldn’t even be in the shelter if people took care of them,” Dudgeon said.

County officials and animal rights advocates both emphasize the necessity of spaying and neutering animals and properly identifying them with collars and tags, which would reduce the number of animals that have to be euthanized.

“Everyone needs to understand that everything that is happening is preventable,” Dudgeon said.

There will always be pets in shelters. Pet owners become incapacitated/die, stray animals reproduce, etc. The idea that if everyone just did what I said, we'd have no need for shelters is fatally flawed.

Preventing unintentional breedings and putting ID on pets are fine ideas but those things are not going to stop the killing.

What is preventable is killing healthy/treatable pets. And you don't have to pay HSUS to tell you that.

One Thing Leads to Another

Humane Watch has a full page ad in the New York Times today about HSUS. The ad reads, in part:

The Humane Society of the United States is NOT your local animal shelter. In fact, it gives less than one-half of one percent of its $100 million budget to hands-on pet shelters.

It's always good to research any group before making a donation. Learning how your money will be spent goes a long way toward providing that peace of mind we seek when donating to a charity. To that end, users can explore HSUS relationships in detail by clicking on this interactive map. Some may be interested to explore these relationships further.

For example, the lobbying firm Hogan & Hartson lobbies/d Congress on behalf of many clients in addition to HSUS (which is a tax-exempt organization). Those clients include a number of farm related groups such as American Farmland Trust, International Dairy Foods Association, and National Chicken Council. There are many household name corporations including Wal-Mart, General Electric, Pepsi, American Express, Citibank, and Amway. Big auto is on the list as well with Ford Motor Company and General Motors. The insurance industry clients include Aflac, Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, and Health Insurance Association of America. There are many clients from the pharmaceutical industry such as Bristol-Meyers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Graceway Pharmaceuticals, Guilford Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, PHRMA, and SmithKline Beecham. Other clients of interest include Monsanto Co and National Renderers Association.

According to HSUS' 2008 tax return (pdf - page 19), they spent over $4 million on lobbying activities for the year. In the 2008 "Annual Filing for Charitable Organizations", HSUS stated the following:

GENERAL PURPOSE FOR WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS WILL BE USED
Contributions are used to produce publications including educational materials, which are sent on a regular basis to members and the general public. The society investigates cruelty in the transportation, handling and sale of animals at pet shops, zoos, circuses and animal shelters. The Society also uses contributions for animals in the wild including wildlife refuges, predator control and people/wildlife problems.

I don't see anything about spending millions on lobbying in there but hey, I'm not a tax professional. Maybe this is A-OK.

Related Tidbit:

On February 16, a federal lawsuit was filed against HSUS (and others) by the parent company of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus under RICO. The lawsuit alleges the defendants are using such crimes as bribery and money laundering in an effort to "unjustly enrich themselves" while working to ban elephants in circuses.

Dogs Illegally Seized in SD

In September of last year, a group called Second Chance Dog Rescue, along with HSUS, seized 172 dogs from a breeder in Turner Co, South Dakota. The entire investigation and seizure was riddled with problems - of the U.S. Constitution variety - and a pdf detailing the case can be found here. A judge ruled this week that the seizure was illegal.

At the time of the seizure, HSUS stated it was "collecting evidence" and removing dogs. Now that the raid has been deemed illegal, HSUS appears to be walking back its involvement:

"The request that was made to us was specifically for handling animals and so that is what we come in under was that an actual request for physically handling those animals, and not developing the case," Senior Director of the HSUS Puppy Mills campaign Stephanie Shain said.

Anyone have an HSUS decoder ring to figure out exactly what they are saying here?

Tuesday, the HSUS told KELOLAND News it was simply asked by Second Chance to help with the removal of Christensen's 172 dogs and did not have any involvement in the case, obtaining the warrant or making sure what they were doing that day was legal.

I'm not a lawyer but don't all of us, including HSUS, have an obligation to make sure what we're doing is legal every day? I mean, even if we're just walking down the street, we're supposed to make sure we are complying with the law and especially if we are entering someone else's property and taking their dogs.

If someone is allegedly committing animal cruelty, I am 100% in favor of conducting a legal investigation and, if that investigation yields criminal charges, prosecuting to the full extent of the law. But these kind of shenanigans? Oh hell no. If we allow illegal searches and seizures, what will faux law enforcement animal groups like HSUS do next? I don't want to find out and I'm glad the law is being upheld in this case.

Before You Donate

HSUS has already begun rattling the disaster relief donation pan. Now HSUS can spend their money any way they like - although I take issue with their tax-exempt status - and that's their right. But in the interest of full disclosure, which HSUS seems to have a hard time with in general, anyone considering donating to HSUS to help animals in Haiti (or to help pets here at home even) should research exactly how the organization spends its cash. For example, direct mail services and lobbying. And it's a good time to review how HSUS performed with the last boatload of cash it received from donors during a natural disaster - Hurricane Katrina. Add to these their more recent deceptive fundraising ploys such as asking for money to care for Michael Vick's dogs when they didn't have the dogs and were actually lobbying for their deaths as well as the Fay debacle, then decide for yourself if you trust your donation will be used how you wish it to be used.

I always research before making a donation to any group - animal related or otherwise. There are unfortunately more than a few "charities" out there who exist to help only themselves.

Dude - What?

The Danville Area Humane Society kills approximately 90% of the pets they get their murdering hands on and is under the direction of HSUS BFF Paulette Dean. Ms. Dean was recently named "Person of the Year" by the VA Voters for Animal Welfare. And if you're done swallowing that mouthful of irony, open wide:

The Danville Area Humane Society announced Monday that it plans to build a no-kill adoption center for Danville and Pittsylvania County next to the existing city animal shelter.

Executive Director Paulette Dean said she believes the new adoption center will help solve the overpopulation problem and decrease the need for euthanasia of animals.

*monocle pop* *spittake*

The slaughterhouse-shelter side by side design aspect is wonderfully convenient. So with one hand, Ms. Dean can fundraise for the no kill shelter while the other hand can reach across the way and keep killing pets by the thousands.

In most cases I would extend support to anyone claiming to adopt the no kill philosophy but in this case, there is obviously no one adopting even the most fundamental tenent of no kill - which is, actually to not kill pets. You can't run a pet slaughterhouse at 666 Main St. and open up a no kill shelter at 668 Main St. and expect no one to notice the hypocrisy. Instead of asking the public for 3/4 of a million bucks to build the new shelter, why not just stop killing pets at the existing place? Ask the public for help doing that, and then ask for more once you've proven you are committed to no kill. As things stand, sorry - no sale.

Danville Area Humane Society Kills Pets, Wants More

Do you read/watch interviews and want to butt in to the conversation and question the answers given by the interviewee instead of just letting them slide? I do. This is possibly why Larry King never calls me back.

Michael Markarian, President of the Humane Society Legislative Fund has an interview posted on his blog with Paulette Dean, shelter director for the Danville Area Humane Society (DAHS) in VA who lobbies for anti-chaining laws:

About 10 years ago, we strengthened our adoption guidelines. We knew that it would be a controversial move since we have a high euthanasia rate, but we also knew it was the right thing to do. We were laying a foundation for the future. Adopted dogs cannot roam and be chained, and adopted cats must be kept inside.

*butts in* How "high" is your kill rate?

From the data provided on the shelter's website for the year 2008:

Intake: 2005 dogs, 3666 cats, 94 "other" pets
Returned to owner: 140 dogs, 26 cats
Adopted: 243 dogs, 142 cats

By my math, that makes the totals: 5765 pets in, 551 pets out.

Although no numbers are provided for how many pets killed, if we make an assumption that the pets who were neither returned to owners or adopted were killed, that works out to an approximate kill rate of 90%. So yeah, I guess I'd have to agree that the shelter's kill rate is "high", if by "high" you mean "insanely cruel". I can see why you'd want to restrict and thus discourage adoptions.

And the shelter director spends her time lobbying for anti-chaining ordinances? From the shelter's site:

The Danville Area Humane Society is thrilled to tell you that an ordinance was passed unanimously by Danville City Council tonight that bans the constant tethering of companion animals! As of July 1, 2010, it will be illegal to:

Tether a companion animal for more than 4 hours in a 24 hour period,
Tether a companion animal when the temperature is below 32 degrees
Tether a companion animal under 4 months old
Tether any sick or injured animal
Tether any companion animal to a fixed point. (specifics to be made public at a later date)

Well hurrah. I guess the shelter will take in even more pets after this ordinance takes effect. And presumably most all of those will be killed. How "humane".

The shelter's website is full of rhetoric against no kill and reads like a blame-the-public manifesto. The director admits in the interview that Danville "has the highest unemployment rate in the state, and also struggles with low education and high poverty rates." Knowing that, is it truly helpful to restrict pet ownership further by imposing ordinances many owners will be financially unable to meet, especially when seizing those pets means they will most likely be killed?

My feeling is that 24/7 chaining is cruelty and should be prosecuted as such. But chaining for 4 hours or to a "fixed point" (?) is something many responsible pet owners do who can't afford a fence. As long as quality shelter and clean water are provided, I'd certainly rather see a dog chained for part of the day by an owner who loves him than to see the dog in a garbage bag at the DAHS. That is, if we have to choose. And apparently, according to this shelter director, we do.

Wayne Puts the Smack Down

You guys! Oh my god you guys! I heard from Brent that over on the Wayne's World blog, Wayne posted a note that he was passing around Mrs. Pigglewiggle's class in 4th period. And in that note, he says that Marcie has a big butt - AHAHAHA! I mean, he doesn't actually say Marcie by name, in case Mrs. Pigglewiggle would have gotten hold of the note you know, but it's totes obvious he's talking about Marcie. And not only that, but you know how Marcie is so uppity and all "I'm Class President" and stuff? Well Wayne's now saying that he's the Class President and he thought of the whole idea of having a Class President and he's gonna get us beer at the prom! Isn't he teh awesome?
OK Code 9. G2G.

HSUS Relies on Bloggers for Moral Compass

"The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest and most effective animal protection organization...". And by "effective" I assume they mean "morally bankrupt".

• In 2007, HSUS doesn't realize it's wrong to ask donors for money to care for Michael Vick's dogs - which they did not have in their possession - while simultaneously advocating to have all the dogs summarily killed. But when called on the carpet about it online, they quickly 86'd the money seeking campaign.
• For years, HSUS doesn't realize it's wrong to use their influence and money to get all bust dogs killed. But after the dog blogs erupted in protest earlier this year over the killing of the Wilkes Co, NC dogs and public outcry rose to a level which threatened their donation stream, HSUS turned around and changed its policy on bust dogs to include evaluations.
• This week, HSUS doesn't realize it's wrong to use images of Fay, a rescued bust dog whose bills are being paid by someone else, to ask donors for money so HSUS can "save thousands of animals like her". Let's be clear - HSUS didn't spend one red cent on helping Fay, they just used her to try and get money for themselves. I call that a swindle. But when bloggers raised a stink over the deceptive fundraising plea, HSUS pulled an "Oops, don't expose us as frauds again and make our donors aware - here have some money".

Each time HSUS gets exposed for their swindling, they hit back. Remember the lengths they went to trying to quash the expose done by ABC News in Atlanta?

So I ask, do they truly not realize what they're doing is wrong when they do it but only see the light after bloggers make a fuss? Or do they know what they're doing is wrong but go forward anyway figuring that bloggers can't catch them on everything and they'll continue to rake in the cash from unsuspecting donors in the meantime?

Is one scenario worse than the other? I can't decide. But for myself, I can't afford to donate to every animal cause out there so I have to choose carefully when it comes to who gets my support. I choose my local no kill shelter. I visit them in person with my donations and spend time with the dogs while I'm there. I can see first hand the kind of care the dogs get and I don't worry that they are just photos on a flyer being used to sucker me into sending a donation. They are real pets, being cared for by real people, and I feel good about making a small contribution toward their care. I wish I could do more. But at least the shelter workers there know the difference between right and wrong without repeatedly having to be called on the carpet for their shady practices. I wish I could say the same about the country's "most effective" animal advocacy group, HSUS.

We are the real humane society. Find your nearest no kill shelter here.


Added: KC Dog Blog weighs in on HSUS throwing money at the Fay debacle.

What is there a sale on jumper cables?

At one of his HSUS sponsored whitewashing engagements, Michael Vick says he would like to have dogs again, "more than anything in the world":

He said he's hopeful one day he'll have a dog again. "I don't know when that day is going to come. It's up to my judge at his discretion," he said.

Maybe the HSUS will recommend to the judge at some point that Vick should be allowed to have dogs again, I don't know. But it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Added: Apparently Vick denies electrocuting dogs, despite evidence to the contrary.

Gosh, Lookit All the Dogfighting Raids

Post HSUS going through "the change", seems like Pitbulls are being rounded up faster than Obama can kill the elderly and disabled with his death panels. I guess that's just a coincidence. And the concurrent timing of HSUS's double super secret Michael Vick "I'm sorry I got caught dogfighting" motivational speeches to young people is another coincidence. If we watch the 60 Minutes show about Vick and HSUS, will the truth be revealed? Hint: Watch for code delivered via eye blinks.

NC "Puppy Mill Bill" Out for the Year

Good job North Carolinians:

Senate Bill 460 was delivered a final defeat for the year today when its sponsor, Sen. Don Davis, pulled the bill from consideration by the House Finance Committee.

This was a bad "legislation by numbers" dog breeding bill that HSUS tried to force on the people of NC. I'm glad it's off the table, at least for now.

Shenanigans! I Call Shenanigans on you Vick/HSUS!

The AP is reporting that Vick showed up for work at an HSUS event today in Atlanta. But apparently you had to know the secret password to get in:

However, several members of the community were barred from entering the building. The human (sic) society also refused to allow The Associated Press to enter.

What's the HSUS trying to hide now? Are they so ashamed of hiring Michael Vick that they have to keep the press and others from covering it?

HSUS: Vick Enablers

While many people are understandably distraught over the idea that someone in the NFL might give Michael Vick a job, it's worth mentioning that someone at HSUS did give Vick a job. And obtaining that position with HSUS was an important element in getting Vick reinstated to the NFL. Vick is set to play a role in the HSUS dogfighting campaign which is managed by another convicted felon, John Goodwin. Vick's history on killing Pitbulls is clear. So is Goodwin's. And neither Vick nor HSUS has ever publicly expressed remorse over their Pitbull killings. In a way, I guess you could say they were meant for each other.

My question is this: Will the general public hold HSUS accountable for giving Vick the job which, in part, enabled him to get reinstated to the NFL so he might get his old job back? Or will all the wrath be directed at whatever team signs him?

NC: SB 460 Passes by One Senate Vote

SB 460 was passed by the state Senate in NC yesterday by a vote of 23 - 22. Since changes have been made in the bill after it left the House, I assume the bill has to go back to the House for their approval. North Carolina residents can find their Representatives here and urge them to vote NO on this HSUS sponsored "puppy mill bill".

Why the Numbers Game isn't a Game

Note: There is a story regarding the seizure of the Murder Hollow Bassets in Philadelphia circulating on message boards, e-mail lists and blogs. I have no way of knowing the full facts of the case or whether the post making the rounds is accurate. But to my mind, even if we totally discount it as fiction, the scenario is at least plausible which is what concerns me most. And since I just covered the topic of legislation by numbers yesterday, I thought I'd add some additional thoughts. Added: PSPCA has posted a bit about the seizure on their website. Added, 8-7-09: A blog at Philly.com has posted on the case as well. Added, 8-8-09: Article at Philadelphia Daily News

As I have often said, legislation sponsored by HSUS and other animal rights lobbyists fails to take into account that number-of-dogs does not correlate to quality-of-care. There are good dog owners who keep more than the number of dogs HSUS tells lawmakers is ok. That number by the way, varies from state to state and even within states - so why do we need a number- of-dogs stipulation in legislation exactly? If we can't come up with a consistent number for the country to point at and shout "Bad owner!", how can we possibly place any stock in "X is too many for here but Y is too many there"? It makes no sense. Breeders have different setups. One might be perfectly outfitted to care for 15 dogs very well while another living right across the street may be ill equipped to care for 2 dogs. But they would both fall under the same numbers rule.

And while we're at it, warrantless searches and seizures of dogs, included in many of these HSUS sponsored bills, are prohibited by the US Constitution. I know there are some Constitutional law experts who own dogs and I hope one of them will step up and help the many dog owners who have had their dogs seized illegally or been coerced into surrendering them by crafty liars in fancy logo jackets.

I can guess what many of you are thinking: That's just paranoia and things like that don't happen to normal dog owners who take care of their dogs. Maybe you're right.

My view is that this is exactly why these laws are dangerous: They dress themselves up as "puppy mill cruelty" bills but effectively target most all dog breeders. They lull dog owners into thinking the laws would never be used against them because they are responsible owners. But once these extremists get a foot in the door, they will whittle away at the rights of dog breeders and owners "until there are none". From the city of Philadelphia:

Limits on animals are currently not based on size of property. At this time, a resident may keep 12 cats and/or dogs in a property. This Law is currently under review for an amendment to decrease this number. [emphasis=mine]

See what I'm saying? These laws aren't about the cruelty of puppy mills, although groups like HSUS like to solicit donations under that guise. They are, even if unintentionally, about driving dog breeders out of business - all breeders. And eventually putting an end to dog ownership. But hey, maybe I'm just a tin foil hat wearing freak. Maybe they won't come for your dogs. Maybe.

NC "Puppy Mill Bill" Set for Final Senate Vote Today

NC Senate Bill 460 is a "puppy mill bill" which HSUS played a key role in developing:

"We will soon introduce legislation that will help to crack down on the cruel puppy mill industry in our state." [said Amanda Arrington, North Carolina state director for The HSUS.]

That bill is set for a final vote today. If you are a NC resident, a list of your state Senators can be found here.

Included in the current version of the bill:

• "Commercial breeder" means any person who owns or maintains 15 or more intact female dogs of breeding age and 30 or more puppies for the purpose of sale. Nothing in this Article shall apply to those kennels or establishments operated for the purpose of boarding or training hunting, sporting, herding, show, or working dogs.
• "Commercial breeding operation" means the physical location or facility at which a commercial breeder breeds or maintains intact female dogs of breeding age and puppies.
• Commercial breeders shall provide adequate veterinary care to the intact female dogs of breeding age and any puppies in their care and custody. An intact female dog of breeding age shall not be bred without an examination from a licensed veterinarian to determine that the dog is in suitable health for breeding.
• Commercial breeding operations shall be subject to inspection by duly appointed employees of the Department unless otherwise requested by a local animal control officer and authorized by the Department. In conducting such inspections, the Department employee or local animal control officer may inspect the records of the commercial breeder, the premises where animals are bred and maintained, and any animal used in the breeding program or any puppies in their care and custody.

I interpret this to mean that a breeder with 30 puppies for sale who cares for dogs in her home is prohibited by law from making decisions on breeding bitches unless a Vet signs off on it. Further, the breeder is subject to warrantless searches of her home and inspection of adults and pups by whoever shows up to do the inspecting. I don't know about you but I don't allow visitors when I have pups, especially if they've had contact with other dogs. It's too great a risk to the health of the pups to my mind. And I prefer to make my own decisions on breeding bitches. Not that I wouldn't consider input from my Vet, but my Vet may or may not be a breeder and his opinion would not trump mine. As for warrantless searches of my home - put me down for "nuh-uh".

Commercial dog breeders are already regulated by the USDA. They've been falling down on the job for years but that is not an excuse to pile more intrusive laws on top of the already unenforced ones on the books. Let's get the USDA the funding, manpower and resources it needs to enforce the laws as they stand. After they get their feet under them, let's hear from them what tools they need to better insure humane care of dogs. Maybe laws will need to be strengthened, or more funding provided to enforcement, I don't know. But to my way of thinking, it's better to fully utilize what the government already has in place rather than add more laws, expense and burden to taxpayers. The idea that we can't enforce the commercial breeding laws we have now therefore we must add more laws just doesn't make sense to me.

We all want good quality care for dogs. I can't see how this bill accomplishes that. We are a humane society, not a police state. Let's work within the existing framework and see how things can be improved. I am all for progress but this bill is a giant step backwards to me.


Related: The Long Arm of HSUS in NC

400+ Seized Dogs Await Judgment

Article on the recent multi-state dogfighting bust:

Last week, specialists completed behavioral evaluations of the more than 400 dogs that are temporarily being held near St. Louis. After receiving recommendations from the Humane Society, expected later this month, federal judges will decide the fates of those dogs and the 39-and-counting puppies born since the raids.

The ASPCA's Randall Lockwood, who also analyzed pit bulls in the Vick case, said that most dogs from fighting operations go into foster homes or special sanctuaries for further care. Eventually, some dogs may be safe for the general public to adopt.

Lockwood said that usually, as in the Vick case, some especially sick or aggressive dogs must be euthanized.

Since none are being adopted out to the public straight away, what's the rush to kill? Couldn't we let them ALL live at least until they have a chance to get acclimated to their new routines and surroundings? I can't see any harm in that. If any dogs are killed based upon some pass/fail type evaluation, that does a disservice to the whole idea of evaluating dogs. Individual tests are not intended to be pass/fail - they are a guide to determining a future direction for each dog. Pass/Fail temperament tests are just an excuse to kill to my mind and we have enough of those excuses already. As for the "39-and-counting puppies" born since the seizures, I am assuming they are all guaranteed a chance for rescue. HSUS doesn't kill bust puppies anymore, right?

The article gives an overview of some other recent dogfighting busts as well:

At Wildside Kennels in North Carolina, authorities seized more than 100 of Faron's dogs. Many of the dogs were "significantly scarred" and at least one had a broken jaw.

Broken jaws are treatable, last I heard. And scarring is nothing in comparison to the pile of carcasses HSUS left after killing every last one of these dogs, including puppies still nursing from their dams.

But they don't mention that - they never do. So I will bring it up. Because dead dogs can't speak for themselves. And I won't forget.

HSUS on Twitter

HSUS recently presented a "Taking Action for Animals" (TAFA) Conference in VA. One thing I learned from following Tweets on the topic: 1000 lawyers donate their services to support HSUS.

From Michael Markarian, President of the Humane Society Legislative Fund, Twitter name "mmarkarian":

Had a great time at #TAFA reception and Pro Bono Litigation Awards tonight. Thanks to all law firms who did amazing pro bono work for HSUS.

From Jennifer Fearing of HSUS, Twitter name "HumaneCA":

Appreciating the awesome work of the 1,000 pro bono attorneys who work to protect animals, supporting our litigation section. #TAFA

Imagine if we could get 1000 attorneys to donate their services defending the rights of pet owners against HSUS. Maybe the folks in IN who had their dogs seized by the Attorney General, sold to HSUS under a "do not disburse" order and then apparently disbursed by HSUS might have a chance to get their dogs back.

And on the subject of HSUS Tweets, this one inspired a post of thanks from Local Humane.

Death for Underperformers?

Dear Michael Vick,

Is it ok to kill dogs if we feel they are in some way "underperforming"? Maybe a rescue dog underperforms in an evaluation, for example - exhibits fearful behavior during the test. Or maybe a competition dog underperforms in the venue of the owner's choice, for example - doesn't win.

Considering that you have never publicly expressed remorse nor accepted legal responsibility for the cruelty you inflicted to your dogs, and taking into account the USDA report on your criminal case, I assume your answer is an unqualified YES. To use your words, "They got to go".

But what are the best methods for killing dogs? I know you personally have employed hanging, shooting, electrocution, drowning and repeated body slamming to kill your dogs. But now that you've partnered with HSUS, I'm wondering if you still feel those are the best methods or if you've been influenced to believe that an injection is more appropriate? Or should I say, an injection after a dog has been given an unfair evaluation which determines he should be killed, preferably after farming the dog out to a third party so the blood is not on your hands?

If my assumption that you remain in favor of killing underperforming dogs is wrong, please let the public know in clear terms. And if that is the case, definitely get as far away from HSUS as you can, since their actions would seem to be at odds with your changed beliefs.

HSUS + Vick, Up in a Tree

To be honest, I thought HSUS would back out of this stunt before it got off the ground. Apparently not:

"He's going to be contributing to our anti-dogfighting campaign next week." Pacelle said of Vick, who vowed to spread the Humane Society's anti-dogfighting message with inner city teens. Pacelle refused to elaborate on further details.

Refused to elaborate. Gee, what a promising start. I'm all like, filled with hope n' stuff now.

Although HSUS tried to set it up from the outset as a "no way WE can lose" situation, not everything is about HSUS. To me, this is about a pile of dead dogs. Dead dogs whose blood is on the hands of HSUS and Michael Vick and others who are directly responsible for killing dogs abused in fight rings. Vick tortured and killed dogs, HSUS has historically done it "cleanly" by going to court and "advising" shelters to kill bust dogs, even puppies still nursing from their dams.

Now that both Vick and HSUS have been busted for their dog killing (Vick by the justice system, HSUS by the court of public opinion), they want to say they've changed. And they're teaming up to stop dogfighting. Sorry but - cover your ears children - no fucking sale.

My parents taught me that the first step in righting a wrong is to make a sincere apology. Not a "sorry I got caught" apology but an unscripted "I'm sorry for what I did because it was wrong". I haven't heard anything of the sort from either Vick or HSUS. Vick offered a vague apology of sorts at the time of his guilty plea but there was no mention of the dogs he tortured and killed. HSUS of course - *crickets*. (Although they do have the audacity to demand Vick demonstrate sincere remorse.)

I am by nature a forgiving person. I think most people are. If I hear an apology from someone and it feels sincere to me, I am eager to forgive. That doesn't mean I forget, it means I am open to hearing whatever comes next. As of the start of these shenanigans with HSUS and Vick teaming up to stop dogfighting, I am so not there. All I can see is two remorseless peas in a pod, with dollar signs in their eyes and blood on their hands.