Llama offers wisdom. (Greg Robbins photo)
How do you describe your concern for animals to others?
If you read ANIMALS 24-7, you obviously care a lot about animals––probably every day, every hour, every minute.
But how do you describe your concern for animals to others? Do you describe yourself as an animal advocate, animal rights activist, animal welfarist, humane voter, donor to animal causes, animal lover, all of these depending on context, or in some other manner?
Do you ever describe yourself as a “humane consumer,” or “humane constituent”?
Does the term you use to describe your concern really matter?
Perhaps not, if you are simply using the term that you feel the people with whom you are conversing will best understand. But if you are using the term you most identify with, there can be a world of difference in what you mean, not only in your views about animals, but also in how you think about your relationship to the organizations you hire with your donations to represent your concerns.
Noah, age 3, instructs ostrich against sticking her head in the sand. (Greg Robbins photo)
Let me put this another way: do you think of yourself as setting the agendas for the animal charities to which you donate, or as only responding to whatever they have already chosen to do?
Do you believe that animal charities should listen to you, at least as much as your elected public officials do? Or do you trust them to lead, without your input and advice?
I have been thinking about these questions for several weeks now, in light of the recent payouts to animal use groups, totaling nearly $28 million, by the Humane Society of the U.S., the American SPCA, and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.
Sometimes an overview helps. (Greg Robbins photo)
In each case, as ANIMALS 24-7 detailed, the payout resulted from a lawsuit over the use of particular advocacy tactics, not over the substance of the animal issue at hand.
In each case the animal advocacy charity involved can legitimately claim to represent tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands, of constituents who care about animals.
In each case the animal advocacy charity involved can also claim credit for a wealth of positive achievements on behalf of animals.
The issue at hand in thinking about what the payouts really mean is not whether HSUS, the ASPCA, or the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a “good” group or a “bad” group. From almost every reasonable perspective, they are all “good” groups doing good things for animals.
Sleepy owl asks, “Who? Me?”
(Trish Conner photo)
The more problematic question is whether HSUS, the ASPCA, and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society appropriately represented their donors when they used tactics that cost them each more money than the annual operating budgets of more than 99% of all animal charities.
On the one hand, all three organizations won significant donor support for the campaigns that backfired.
HSUS and the ASPCA accurately represented the hopes and frustrations of millions of people who wish to see an end to chained elephants being hauled about to perform in circuses as elephants never perform in the wild––but HSUS and the ASPCA also waged costly lawsuits for a decade based on an untested legal premise with only a slim chance of success, resting heavily on the testimony of an individual who had significantly misrepresented himself.
(Beth Clifton photo)
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, meanwhile, has grown from a single rusty old converted trawler into an eight-ship “whale’s navy” largely by doing things that attract an ever-growing audience to the internationally broadcast TV series Whale Wars.
Probably everyone who cares about whales has felt the impulse at one time or another to strike back at whalers in some direct manner. The tactics that a U.S. federal judge called “piracy,” leading to the Sea Shepherd payout, were mild compared to what many animal advocates would like to do, and did not actually hurt anyone.
But none of those considerations made those tactics wise, either, or necessary, even to make great TV footage.
Matters are not always black-and-white. (Greg Robbins photo)
The question ahead, for donors, is whether to continue to support animal charities which in these examples may not have made well-considered use of millions of dollars.
HSUS, the ASPCA, and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society hope, probably accurately, that most donors will forgive and forget.
The question ahead, for constituents, is how to continue to support animal charities and causes they believe in, while letting leadership know that they expect more thoughtful use of their donated dollars.
One important way is for constituents to donate to ANIMALS 24-7, as a sympathetic yet critical independent watchdog helping to ensure that animal charities live up to donors’ trust and expectations.
Rescued baby alligator. (Greg Robbins photo)
As it happens, and as a matter of record, I long ago personally advised the senior leadership of all of the national animal charities involved in the nearly $28 million worth of payouts to animal use industries that they were making the specific mistakes that eventually cost them.
In each case they chose to ignore the information and perspectives that I brought to their attention––because what they were doing was bringing lavish, enthusiastic, and too often uncritical donor support, nearly $28 million of it now further enriching animal exploiters.
Neither ANIMALS 24-7 nor any other voice can ensure that costly mistakes will never be made, by leadership acting with the best of intentions, with what those leaders believe to be the overwhelming support of their constituencies.
(Trish Conner photo)
Yet far fewer mistakes will be made, with far less expensive consequences, if sympathetic independent media are constantly and consistently reviewing major strategic and tactical decisions, presenting alternative outside perspectives on what can and should be done.
This is perhaps the most important role of ANIMALS 24-7. Other media report the news of animal advocacy from around the world, including the partisan media of the big animal advocacy organizations, but no other media offer a comparably well-informed overview of what actions and campaigns really mean and are likely to accomplish.
(Trish Conner photo)
Please help to keep us on the job. Your donation of $28, $280, or $2,800 –– or any other amount –– is a donation toward helping the cause you most care about to avoid making further $28 million mistakes.
Thank you,
Merritt Clifton, editor, ANIMALS 24-7
P.S. – The nearly $28 million in HSUS, ASPCA, and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society payouts to animal use industries will not be entirely without value if animal advocacy leadership learns from the mistakes that were made. Please help us facilitate the learning process!
Please donate to support our work:
http://www.animals24-7.org/donate/
Related Posts
“The poor fish were the real victims,” tank owner says after fire
If pit bulls are not “devil dogs,” why not speak their names?
Groundhog Day hoarding cases showed need for Feline Fix by Five
98 alleged cockfighters busted; got only $50 fines & kept birds
“Return-to-field” = animal control neglect of duty, two cases allege
Roberta Kalechofsky, 90, interpreted Judaism in animal rights context
Dear Merritt.
I am a donor. Over the last 25 years, I have given over 1/4 of a million dollars to various projects to try and relieve animal suffering. I always stayed away from the big named organizations because of the fact that they all believe that they know better than individual donors how their resources will be spent.
I believe that not enough effort and energy has been expended to participate in the political process and public policy and so that is where I spent most of my money.. Clearly with out movement wide participation that was often wasted money but when it worked, it worked in big ways.
I have retired from working in electoral politics now. I have witnessed a few activists who contribute little wipe out years of investment in political support with just a few bitter letters of opposition. it broke my heart and my will to continue.
I have a considerable estate and I plan upon the death of my wife to give it to a charity. After contemplating how to distribute this largesse, I have decided that the most effective way I could help the animals was to give my estate to Planned Parenthood and ask them to use it to set up foreign chapters around the world.
I have never been impressed with the use that HSUS, PETA SEA SHEPHERD and ASPCA put their assets. They are top heavy, deaf and spend too much money on public relations and taking credit for the work of unsung heroes and organizations. I also believe that it is the existence of each human born that has the greatest impact on the suffering of animals.. I just felt this was a good time to allow others to ponder that decision.
And today I was told that I do not have a voice or can be considered a participant in animal welfare issues- this with 40 years in the field- because I am not vegan.
The divisions are palatable. The lines drawn. But I am sure the national orgs would never allow that statement to be made public because of loss of donations from their meat eating followers.
As a personal donor to HSUS and ASPCA, I can say that the losses sustained in court by all of these groups does not cause me to limit donations, but rather to increase them because they are pushing the envelope in order to affect change where less influential non profits turn and run. Only bold action and taking a stand for what is right will ever change the status quo and I applaud them for doing what has to be done in order to shed light on the evils that prevail in a society that fears to be the one leading the change.
I find it extremely ironic that many animal lovers are supporting animal rights groups who ultimately do not want us to have animals – even as pets. I also find it naive at best that people will continue to support groups who are using precious funds to pay huge salaries and for lawsuit settlements. How about give your money to groups who post where every red cent goes and who pay a reasonable amount to their employees? Are you donating to organizations who are using your donations to “help” themselves? I know of one organization that uses donations to build arenas/barns, buildings etc. on privately owned lands for the founder/executive that the non-profit rents rather than owns. Are you donating so a “founder” can collect rents while donations improve their property? How about your funds paying for privately owned animals to receive care – privately owned animals owned by employees or officers of the charity? You want to help animals?? Then look more deeply into these groups before donating money. Is the agenda animal welfare or environmental protection by elimination of our animal world as we know it? Just my opinion….
There is only one national animal advocacy organization, to my awareness, which has ever opposed keeping pets, even abstractly, and that organization––PETA––has always qualified that abstract philosophical position by urging that pets be adopted from shelters while a surplus of animals remain in need of homes.
Concerning the claim that, “I know of one organization that uses donations to build arenas/barns, buildings etc. on privately owned lands for the founder/executive that the non-profit rents rather than owns,” this sort of situation needs to be looked at in the complete context of what is being done. For example, is the founder/executive also being paid a salary, or is the rent in lieu of other reasonable compensation? What exactly is being constructed, with what anticipated useful life? Most animal care facilities become liabilities rather than assets within a relatively short time, compared to the useful lives of homes and offices. The useful life of a barn or stable is usually only 20 years before repairs and renovations are required that cost more than building the facility in the first place. The useful life of habitats for birds and large carnivores tends to be shorter.
Certainly I have seen some scamming involving property arrangements in my several decades of monitoring nonprofit accountability, but much more often I have seen arrangements that were incompletely explained and easily misunderstood by donors who did not have the whole picture.
The HSUS was not involved in the original lawsuit against Feld Entertainment, but became involved only by its merger with the Fund for Animals, while the lawsuit, which spanned several years, was in progress.
I doubt there is any organization which has not made a mistake with respect to spending donor money to the best advantage. Small locals make decisions that result in loss of donor money and nobody outside the board of directors knows about it, because they aren’t going to put it in their newsletters. And their publicity chairperson, if they have one, certainly is not going to write it up and ask the local newspaper to publicize it.
But what the big ones do, especially HSUS and the ASPCA, will be reported by large media outlets.
As I see it, it is up to the donors to routinely follow the organizations they donate to.
We need both local organizations and national organizations to take on the problems too big for locals.
And we need objective reporters who can do in-depth research – Animals 24/7 comes to mind!
.
While it is true that HSUS was not involved in the original lawsuit against Feld Entertainment, it is also true that HSUS, after becoming involved, repeatedly opted to remain involved instead of separately settling, as the ASPCA later did, and filed follow-up litigation which had the same underlying weaknesses as the original case.
Regarding the preferred terminology for people who care about animals, I have used all of the above, but far prefer the term “animal advocate” or “humane advocate” to “animal rights activist.” It seems that, unfortunately, the latter term is viewed in a very negative way by much of the public–and that goes for the terms “feminist” and “environmentalist” as well. I’ve found that if I use this term they tend to put people on the offensive and fill their minds with stereotypes, and I likely won’t be paid much attention to.
People tend to also connect to the phrase “animal lover,” because many people consider themselves to be animal lovers. However, I’ve also encountered a few sport hunters who call themselves “animal lovers!”
Should animal charities listen to us? Of course they should, but I’m feeling a bit hopeless about the situation. We know, of course, that some groups are going to use offensive advertising and inflammatory statements whether we like it or not–and that us everyday animal advocates are going to have to deal with the fallout from our own colleagues and acquaintances when we do so. We know that many other organizations will refuse to acknowledge canine attacks, on both people and other animals–just flat-out refuse to acknowledge they exist.
Local animal welfare agencies, it would seem, would be more in a place to listen to their constituents, but that’s not always true either. Several years ago, I did a presentation to a board meeting of a local county animal shelter on the subject of their meat-heavy fundraisers. I passed out information from Animal Place and outlined how they could easily replace their meat-based meals with mainstream-appeal foods like pasta marinara. I got a lot of smiles, nods, and “I’ve never thought of that”‘s, but when the info was mailed out a couple months later for their annual fundraising dinner, what do you think was on the menu? Chicken. Steak. Just like always. In the ensuing years, this particular humane society has actually increased their meat-based fundraisers. There’s been a raffling of an enormous meat smoker, a steak fry, and even a pig roast–all in the name of helping animals.
OK, eating meat is still the mainstream, but what about protecting kids and pets from dog attacks? A few weeks ago, I sent a polite email to the humane society mentioned above about an annual off-leash event they have for dogs. While I enjoyed the event, I witnessed some very risky behavior. Think toddlers squealing and running as multiple large-breed dogs barrel closely past them. That’s a recipe for serious injury. And, a couple brought in a dog who was displaying unmistakably aggressive and predatory behavior toward other dogs–like the running toddlers, this was completely ignored. In my email, I outlined some simple ways a tragedy could be prevented–like putting an age limit on attending children, and having someone well-versed in dog body language patrolling the crowd with the power to evict any aggressive animals. This email wasn’t even acknowledged–no reply at all.
Finally, I’ve noticed another problem with some local animal welfare organizations is that they are very difficult to get a hold of–we’re talking no online presence or a badly maintained one that is never kept up, and messages left on voicemail that are never, ever returned. This is not a way to help your constituents.
We could wipe out companion animal murders in the US in less than ten years if the national orgs would be willing to change their fundraising direction – but into the foreseeable future the death and suffering of companion animals will continue to be the inventory of widgets needed to raise money. In the “Arms of an Angel”…..