HSUS

After fourteen years of litigation, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and related animal rights groups settled a legal battle that they started against the parent company of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus by agreeing to pay almost sixteen million dollars after a Federal Court determined that their case was “groundless and unreasonable.” This unprecedented settlement—paid for with proceeds received from the many thousands of well-meaning contributors who believe that HSUS is an honorable animal welfare charity—was the final outcome of a lawsuit that HSUS brought against the circus over the care of its Asian elephants. The lawsuit was found “frivolous,” “vexatious,” and “groundless and unreasonable from its inception” by the U.S. District Court. “We hope this settlement payment, and the various court decisions that found against these animal rights activists and their attorneys, will deter individuals and organizations from bringing frivolous litigation like this in the future,” said Kenneth Feld, Chairman and CEO of Feld Entertainment, the parent company of Ringling Bros. “This settlement is a significant milestone for our family-owned business and all the dedicated men and women who care for the Ringling Bros. herd of 42 Asian elephants. We look forward to continuing to set the standard for providing world-class care for all our animals and producing high quality, family entertainment.” Will the settlement payment deter frivolous actions in the future as Mr. Feld hopes? Unfortunately, not all targets of animal rights activism possess the financial resources to defend and then prosecute these organizations for their excesses. Just this week the state of Utah denied PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) permission to erect a roadside memorial for hundreds of turkeys that were killed in a tractor trailer accident last month. Activists plan to appeal the decision. PETA has filed for similar memorials in other states to promote their vegan doctrine:  chickens in Georgia and cows in New York City. To date, none of the requests have been allowed. Click for additional information on the HSUS settlement and the underlying litigation. Posted May 16, 2014

The Congress passed, and the President signed the new budget, effectively banning horse slaughter once again by cutting funding for USDA inspections at horse slaughter facilities. Congress did this very same thing in 2006, an action which effectively closed all horse processing plants in the country. Much has happened between then and now. In 2011, the highly respected General Accounting Office (GAO)—Congress’s own watchdog agency—reported bluntly to Congress that their funding cut and the resultant plant closures actually had the opposite effect from that intended. The GAO told Congress that horses were now traveling further (to Mexico and Canada) and in many cases were slaughtered under worse conditions than before, and that their legislation had harmed horse welfare. After receiving that report, in 2011 Congress reinstated the funding for USDA inspections, opening the door for a resumption of horse processing in this country. As a result of that action, the USDA recently gave approval for the opening of horse slaughter plants in New Mexico and Missouri. However, lawsuits filed by animal rights activists repeatedly delayed those openings. “Americans do not want to see scarce tax dollars used to oversee an inhumane, disreputable horse slaughter industry,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). “We don’t have dog and cat slaughter plants in the U.S. catering to small markets overseas, and we shouldn’t have horse slaughter operations for that purpose, either.” HSUS and the Obama administration both lobbied to end horse slaughter in the U.S. Yet unsolved, however, is the issue of how to humanely cope with the more than 100,000 unwanted and abandoned horses that used to pass through those processing facilities each year. Click for more details. Posted January 15, 2014

Horse slaughter plants in New Mexico and Missouri expect to resume processing again in the U.S. in a matter of days. “Expect” is the operating word in this ongoing battle between the opposing views. Horse slaughter plants expected to open back in July of this year after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cleared the way, but a last-moment appeal spearheaded by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) resulted in a temporary restraining order on the plant openings. That emergency ban has now been vacated by a federal appeals court, deciding that the humane organizations “failed to meet their burden” of proof that the injunction was necessary. The way is cleared once again for the plants to open. Most media news articles continue to approach this contentious issue from the horsemeat angle. The sensitivity of many in this country to the use of horses for human consumption is powerfully emotional, and such headlines sell newspapers. However, what the media mostly ignore in their coverage is that the Government Accounting Office (GAO), Congress’s independent investigative arm, bluntly reported to Congress in 2011, that horse welfare had been harmed by their legislation that resulted in the closing of all horse processing plants in this country. Prompted by animal rights groups, Congress, in 2006, passed a law which eliminated funding to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the inspection of horses in transit to slaughter and at slaughter facilities. Since existing law required USDA inspection, it was a back-door method of ending the slaughter of horses in the U.S. Within a year the last domestic slaughter house closed. At that time about 100,000 horses a year were being shipped to slaughter facilities. It was the ideological dream that these horses would somehow be absorbed by equine retirement facilities to spend the remainder of their natural lives in green fields tended by loving caretakers. That dream became a nightmare for horses. With retirement facilities unable to absorb even a small fraction of unwanted horses, the GAO reported that in 2010, 138,000 horses were exported to Mexico and Canada for slaughter. “The horses are traveling farther to meet the same end…in foreign slaughtering facilities where U.S. humane slaughtering protections do not apply,” said the GAO. The agency went on to say that horses are sometimes shipped in too small containers—conditions that were not allowed when USDA inspections applied. Not only have more horses been shipped greater distances under conditions unregulated by the USDA, to be slaughtered in facilities unregulated by the USDA for humane treatment, but thousands more horses are simply abandoned and neglected for lack of a commercial outlet that slaughter facilities used to provide. Horse slaughter may not be the best solution for the unwanted horse. Surely we must continue to pursue and develop all practical ideas that have come forward to solve the problem of unwanted horses in a kinder way. But the cessation of horse slaughter in the U.S. as the result of Congressional legislation has resulted in more suffering, not less, according to the GAO. Posted December 17, 2013

On Monday, November 4, a federal appeals court granted an emergency request by animal rights groups to temporarily block the expected reopening of horse slaughter plants in the U.S. After eleven years, horse slaughter was expected to resume as early as this week after a U.S. District judge in New Mexico last Friday threw out a lawsuit brought by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal protection groups. The lawsuit by HSUS et al alleged that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), responsible for inspection of processing plants, failed to carry out environmental reviews before granting approval to the three companies scheduled to resume slaughter. The district judge in New Mexico dismissed the suit on Friday, clearing the way for horse processing to resume. HSUS et al responded on Monday, in their emergency request to the 10th Circuit, by arguing that an emergency injunction was necessary to prevent environmental harm. A two-judge panel granted the request. The anticipated resumption of horse slaughter was enabled mainly by a General Accounting Office (GAO) report to Congress that their 2006 legislation resulting in the closing of all horse processing plants in this country actually turned out to be detrimental to horse welfare. For more details, click to read Terry Baynes’s Reuters article. Posted November 5, 2013

A long courtroom battle to stop hunting on sixty wildlife refuges was decided by a federal judge in favor of sportsmen. The case started with a lawsuit brought in 2003 by the Fund for Animals, which later merged with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The judge’s decision was rendered in April, and the appeal period ended on June 20, 2011 with HSUS failing to file an appeal. The suit attempted to use the National Environmental Policy Act to close hunting on the refuges. In his decision, Federal Judge James S. Gwin said, “Plaintiffs…are not entitled to an inviolate sanctuary for their preferred uses….Congress has determined that, to the extent possible, hunters, fishers, observers, photographers, and educators must share the refuge.” Congress, with its 1997 Refuge Improvement Act, made hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-oriented activities priority uses on refuge lands. Groups representing hunters—the U.S. Sportsmen’s Association (USSA), Safari Club International, Ducks Unlimited, National Rifle Association, Izaac Walton League, and local organizations—defended the case through numerous and costly briefings. See the Outdoor News article of June 20, 2011 for more details. Posted June 21, 2011

Six Republican members of Congress have written to Inspector General Eric Thorson claiming that the level of lobbying activity conducted by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is incompatible with HSUS’s 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Previous letters written to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman and Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner have been unproductive. Three of the Congressmen—Jo Ann Emerson, Sam Graves, and Billy Long—represent constituents in Missouri where a recent ballot initiative established new regulations for dog breeders there. The initiative was supported by more than two million dollars in HSUS contributions to its front group in Missouri. The Congressmen question whether HSUS attempts to influence legislation constitute a “substantial part” (the IRS test) of HSUS’s activities. Under the IRS code, no group is allowed to maintain tax-exempt status based on its political leanings or power, as taxpayers would be effectively subsidizing a political organization. For more details, read Glen Wunderlich’s article in the Argus-Press. Posted May 16, 2011