# HSUS Defends Wilkes County Massacre



## Rose Hutch (Feb 5, 2003)

Earlier this week, rescue groups throughout the country pleaded with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Wilkes County officials not to put nearly 150 dogs and puppies seized from a dog fighting raid systematically to death. Instead, they asked that the dogs be individually assessed and even extended offers of assistance, support, and resources. But HSUS refused, arguing that all the dogs should be killed, including puppies who were born after the seizure and posed no threat to public safety. Not content to simply embrace the killing, HSUS then one went step further. John Goodwin of HSUS attacked the animal lovers, claiming that they were “clamoring for media attention” and expressing annoyance that, in his view, no one is raising a “fuss” over the other 3,000 dogs this particular community unnecessarily kills each year.

Across the country, animal advocates, No Kill shelters, and rescue groups, as well as everyday dog lovers condemned the killings and Goodwin’s callous retort about it. Even those outside the humane movement were moved enough to share their overwhelming sadness and anger at the decision. Websites and blogs devoted to photography and other non-animal pursuits interrupted their focus to share their grief over the fate of all those dogs and puppies. 

In my own condemnation of the HSUS position, I wrote that Goodwin willfully ignored that many of the groups seeking clemency for the Wilkes County dogs—and the No Kill movement, more generally—have been raising a fuss over killing in U.S. shelters—a fuss opposed by HSUS which has often sided with these shelters. I also wrote that, Every time HSUS defends killing, their antiquated, regressive viewpoints are not only harmful to animals, they make HSUS more and more irrelevant to animal sheltering and more and more despised by those who truly love animals. And they become more out of touch with public sentiment. 

Finally, I argued that, Goodwin’s offensive claim that the advocates calling for clemency in Wilkes County were motivated by a “clamoring for media attention” is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. HSUS can only see this as a clamor for media attention rather than a clamor to save lives because that is how HSUS appears to operate. For HSUS, animals do not seem to matter unless they result in a headline and therefore donations for HSUS. For the rest of us, it’s the animals that count. 

Unable to ignore the loud and wide cross section of critics, HSUS has now issued a defense of the killing. Not surprisingly, HSUS takes no responsibility and offers little in the way of thoughtful analysis. The dogs and puppies whose lives were taken be damned, HSUS chooses to present itself as the wounded innocent in the whole affair—the real victims in it’s twisted view—by blaming the judge for the “order to [kill] the dogs,” even though it was HSUS which testified in court that the animals should be killed, and then defended the decision by attacking rescue groups and No Kill shelters for daring to question the mass slaughter. 

Hoping we’ll all forget about the puppies killed, HSUS also writes that, “No organization has done more to attack and harm the dogfighting industry than The HSUS.” Despite the “We’re Number 1” bravado, HSUS’ logic in support of the killing comes down to little more than this: According to HSUS, they had to call for the death of puppies who were born after the seizure, who have never known aggression, and who, in some cases, were raised by loving foster parents because some of the other dogs in the same seizure were aggressive. 

In making such a ludicrous argument, HSUS ignores the whole point of the criticism: it wasn’t a question of whether a dangerous dog should be put up for adoption no matter how hard HSUS pretends that is what this is about. It was a question of whether the decision that any of the dogs were truly dangerous was made after the dogs were individually and fairly assessed. It ignores that there were puppies killed who posed no threat to public safety, that there were rescue groups willing to provide needed support, and that HSUS has the enormous resources to intervene in a life affirming way, choosing instead to champion the dogs’ death. It ignores that the experience with the dogs in the case of Michael Vick undermined everything HSUS thought it knew about the nature of dog aggression. Like in this one, it was HSUS which led the call for mass killing of those dogs after Wayne Pacelle falsely claimed that “Officials from our organization have examined some of these dogs and, generally speaking, they are some of the most aggressively trained pit bulls in the country.” In fact, following their actual assessment, only one dog was deemed too vicious to save. In overruling HSUS, the court concurred that most of the dogs were rehabilitatable, an d two are now therapy dogs, bringing comfort to cancer patients. 

But that is not what takes HSUS’ defense of the Wilkes County massacre to its extreme of obscenity. That is reserved for two of the most offensive claims ever to come out of HSUS. First, HSUS claims that we should not ask shelters to do a better job, because they will likely respond by doing a worse one. According to HSUS, if you “impose” the “burdens” of being humane on these shelters, “they may decline to intervene in criminal fighting cases, allowing the dogfighters to continue to operate.” In other words, HSUS believes we can’t ask more of shelters because if we do, they’ll just decide to be even less humane. If we accept this point of view, we can never expect shelters to be effective. We can never demand more from our government agencies. We can never suggest that shelters reflect, rather than undermine, our values. We have to accept that they’ll be killing indefinitely. And we have to keep quiet about it or they will be worse than they are now—a wholly unethical and self-defeatist mentality that is grounded in failure. A failure that HSUS seems to believe is permanent and unchangeable. 

Second, while HSUS claims to be a leader in stopping dog fighting, they champion the same attitude towar ds dogs that allows for such abuse—indeed, that perpetuates it: the idea that dogs do not matter; that their lives are of little value and are expendable. Their advocacy that the dogs should be killed undermines the entire principle which should be motivating their anti-dog fighting campaign. Dog fighting is horrible not only because of the pain and suffering of dogs, but because it kills dogs. And killing dogs is the ultimate betrayal—the worst thing we can do to them. To “rescue” them from the worst thing that could happen to them when they are being abused and then to turn around and advocate for that very thing to be done to the dogs makes no sense whatsoever. 

In its response to critics, HSUS is essentially saying that the killing of these dogs should continue because there are fates worse than death. And, sadly, too many people who should know better have adopted this point of view, even though it is patently false on its face; and is more so because it incorrectly assumes there are only two choices available: killing at the pound or killing at the hands of dog fighters. Working hard to end the scourge of dog fighting—and to punish the abusers—is not mutually exclusive with saving the lives of the innocent victims. In fact, the moral imperative to do one goes hand in hand with the other. 

I am not naïve. I understand that method of killing is important, and if we lived in a two dimensional world of shadows—if we lived in Plato’s cave—where the choice was nothing more than to be killed inhumanely or to be killed in a less brutal way, we would pick the latter each and every time. Although I have called repeatedly for the end of shelter killing, I have also supported efforts to abolish cruel methods of killing, as in the case of the draconian gas chamber—which shelters in North Carolina , the sight of the current killing, have refused to do. But that is not the choice presented, no matter how hard HSUS tries to pretend it is; nor how many times it repeats it in its statement of apologia. 

But even if it were true (it is not), while cruelty is abhorrent, while cruelty is painful, while cruelty should be condemned and rooted out, there is nothing worse than death, because death is final. A dog subjected to pain and suffering can be rescued. A dog subjected to savage cruelty can even become a therapy dog, as the Vick case showed. There is still hope. Whereas death is its total antithesis. It is the eclipse of hope. It is forever. Because they never wake up, ever. The worst of the worst—a fact each and every one of us would recognize if it was us facing death. 

That basic understanding is, in fact, the very underpinning of our criminal justice system in the U.S. where generally only one offense carries the death penalty because it is an offense not just in difference of degree, but of a difference in kind to every other crime. It is in a class by itself. Only the taking of a life is punishable by death. 

But in this case, even this argument by HSUS is a red herring. The choice was not, as HSUS contends, a choice between continued suffering at the hands of dog fighters or death at the pound. This was not the option the dogs faced. Once they were taken into custody by HSUS and Wilkes County officials, more dog fighting was no longer an option. The option was whether HSUS and Wilkes County officials would kill them or whether HSUS and Wilkes County officials would not kill them. Their choice is now well known: they chose to systematically put all the dogs and puppies to death, a choice they defend still. 

And so we come back to the first and primary principle of the humane movement: Animal shelters are supposed to be the safety net for animals, not an extension of the neglect and abuse they face elsewhere. Just as there are other service agencies which also deal with human irresponsibility, shelters—like the other agencies—should not use that as an excuse to negate their own responsibility for failing to put in place necessary programs and services to respond humanely, and therefore, appropriately. Imagine if Child Protective Services took in abused, abandoned and unwanted children, and then killed them. We should no more tolerate it for animals. 

Because ultimately it comes down to this: it doesn’t matter to the dog one whiff who is ultimately robbing them of their life—be it a dog fighting thug, a thug in a suit testifying in court that defenseless puppies should be killed, or a thug cloaked in the mantel of “animal control.” Killing is killing, and the tragic end remains the same, regardless of who is pulling the trigger. 

February 21, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

HSUS and PETA are not friends of dog owners. They are in bed with Animal Rights Lobbyists. 

The Animal Rights Agenda is not an Animal Welfare agenda. They are different. 

This does not surprise me at all about HSUS.


----------



## Keisha (Aug 1, 2008)

That was very well written and I agree wholeheartedly with it. PETA and HSUS disgust me almost entirely. I just don't understand why public perception is so favorable towards them.


----------



## lupina (Mar 4, 2009)

There's a perception that organizations such as HSUS and PETA are the good guys.

Have you read the Sports Illustrated article from the late Dec. 2008 issue on Michael Vick's former dogs? As with most things relating to Pit Bulls there was mass hysteria about them and I understand why citizens (incorrectly) thought they could not be rehabilitated. 

I wonder if those expert witnesses have any pets, and what credentials the people have who made the statements the dogs were vicious.


----------



## Laura H. (Feb 23, 2009)

Is this the Michael Vick case? I'm not familiar with the county.

I ask because I'm positive I read that most of the pit bulls seized at Vick's house were evaluated and placed in good homes. They also made him (Vick) pay for the maintenance of the seized dogs.

I'm not sure where I read that, but I'm sure I could find it again.


----------



## lupina (Mar 4, 2009)

Lara: I want to say Vick was in the Atlanta area. The SI article is 8 pages and is so moving. I mention it since at 1st the 'experts' wanted to euthanize the entire group, but in the end only one was found to be too aggressive.

When you read how nervous these pit bulls were, the way they shook in fear at humans...It takes a special person, with patience and compassion to rehabilitate any animal. The consensus of this article is that at best some of the dogs will improve, but never enough to be placed in homes.


----------



## Laura H. (Feb 23, 2009)

I agree with you, there's nothing worse than seeing an animal or child suffering. If I had my way there would be no animals put down, they would all have good homes, in a perfect world.

I know PETA has a lot of negative publicity, but I think there are still two sides to every story, here's a link I found looking up Michael Vick's dogs, there's even a YouTube link showing how well the dogs are doing in their new homes: This is part of someone's response:

Unfortunately yes, PETA did call for the euthanasia of the Michael Vick pit blls as did the HSUS.
You can check out http://blog.peta.org/archives/pit/ and http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/02/saving-pit-bulls-from-hsus-peta-michael.html
Fortunately they are doing well now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyCTcMcULZI and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIkfYzJaWNw
As you can see by my name I find myself fighting for the rights for these unfairly represented dogs. I had no doubt in my mind that these dogs could be rehabilitated.
Unfortunately PETA does support BSL
Something that me and PETA strongly disagree on
SavethePits


But I don't think the HSUS & PETA are "the bad guys" they've also done a lot of good. A lot of people disagree with me & that's fine, I abhor violence, but sometimes you have to do things to get peoples' attention, ie throwing flour on a fur coat. I'm sorry, I thought that was great. I know I'm off topic here, but anyone wearing fur today is asking for it.

I think Michael Vick lived in North Carolina, because we lived down there when this was all happening. He was QB for the Atlanta team. I'm not one hundred percent positive. I'll do some more searching on it.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

From time to time the true colors of the HSUS surface.


----------



## Laura H. (Feb 23, 2009)

That's why those poor dogs, the pit bulls have such a bad public perception. It's not the dog that's bad, it's the person who teaches it to be bad through cruelty.

Everyone on this board owns or has owned a German shepherd. That breaks my heart to hear that they are banned in certain areas as pets. IMO you can't find a more lovable, devoted breed. I've loved them as long as I can remember.


----------



## Laura H. (Feb 23, 2009)

I stand corrected, it was in the Atlanta area

Vick's former home in Ga. fails to sell at auction

this was a headline on a search


----------



## Keisha (Aug 1, 2008)

I thought the house where the dogs were kept were in Virginia. In the Michael Vick case that is. I had no idea that PETA called for those dogs to be put down







As anyone can see those dogs are doing fine now, which hopefully will show people that PETA is not the end all be all of animal wellfare or knowledge of how to handle animals.


----------



## Laura H. (Feb 23, 2009)

I should read more instead of "skimming over" he had a house in GA, but the dog fighting ring was in Virginia, we lived in North Carolina, about four miles from the Virginia border, that's why it was in so much of the local news at the time.

In April 2007, discovery of the elaborate dog fighting complex he owned in Surry County, Virginia led to criminal investigations by state and federal authorities, massive publicity, suspension from the NFL, and loss of promotional agreements.


----------



## Laura H. (Feb 23, 2009)

No, they're not (PETA, that is), but if you read the reason why they wanted the dogs put down, they thought the dogs would harm the public. They obviously should have done more research on it instead of issuing such a public statement as quickly as they did.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

PETA promotes Animal Rights not Animal Welfare. 

The right to be turned loose into the wild to fend for themself, the right to run free down a highway instead of being in a crate at a dog show, the right to fight, breed, and die without human intervention.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

PETA has been known to poison dogs at dog shows. They feel that it is better that these dogs die because they will probably be used for breeding. 

PETA has shelters. They do not advertise the dogs in their shelters. If someone walks in off the street looking for a dog they may adopt one out. Over 95% of dogs in PETA shelters are euthanized. They have also had members arrested for taking dogs in on the same day euthanizing them and dumping their bodies. 

PETA does not believe in pet ownership. They will do everything in their power to end pet ownership. They are not our friends. 

When I was a little kid, I had rabbit fur slippers. Was I "asking for it" too. I just bought a pair of leather shoes. I guess I am asking for it. Five chickens had to give up their lives to feed my dogs -- I am really asking for it.


----------



## Laura H. (Feb 23, 2009)

I know, there's a lot of things about them that I do not agree with, especially the part about pet ownership.

None of the things you listed are wrong, nor in any way are you "asking for it". I'm talking about people who wear fur, there was a thread about not knowing what your fur is or where it comes from. China is the leading exporter of fur & a lot of it is mislabeled dog & cat fur.

I did not mean to offend you. Of course a child asking for rabbit fur slippers is innocent. I wish I could say I were a vegetarian, but I'm not, I still eat poultry & I feed my dogs chicken, etc. I just have an issue with fur.

When I was younger I used to love veal parmesan, I had no clue where it came from. When I found out I could never eat it again.

Everything seems to be so much more out in the open than it was twenty-thirty years ago. People are so much more educated. I just feel that these animals (like the baby harp seals) that are killed just for their fur is horrible, they have as much right to be on this planet as we do. Sorry, there I go again. I'm just stating my opinion, it is not my intent to attack or offend anyone.


----------



## Keisha (Aug 1, 2008)

I didn't know very much about how PETA operates until the last eight months or so. For those more experienced, how likely is it that their agenda would actually happen? Like the no Pet Ownership thing. There's no way that would even happen right? 

PETA also offends me with their public displays. They are often blatantly misogynistic, rascist, the list could go on. Recently they dressed up as members of the KKK to protest a dog show I believe.


----------



## lupina (Mar 4, 2009)

Lara: Growing up Mom (northern Italian) used to make our 'favorite' dish for birthday dinners...Mine: Veal cutlets, lightly breaded and sauted in butter and olive oil, with fresh lemon squeezed over it. NOW...you couldn't get me to eat it...for the same reason as you! 

I understand your remarks on Fur coats. And I have to say I agree...up to a point. I've been known to make allowances...i.e. when you live in Switzerland and parts of Canada I can appreciate how a wool coat doesn't keep one warm on a cold winter's night. Down is a warm alternative which means Geese gave up their feathers. When I was 11-14 I had the warmest fleece lined sheep skin jacket (Marlboro Man attire) which mom found on sale for $20 at Macy's. We played outside a lot and I remember staying warm when other kids were freezing...

I've got to say, the stuff you've written tonight on PETA has my jaw dropping lower and lower. I'm ashamed for being ignorant on this subject. It's too important and animal rights only exist because individuals such as us take a stand for our 4 legged companions who can't speak for themselves.


----------



## Laura H. (Feb 23, 2009)

Carla, I feel I've been taken a bit out of context; I have no issues with people like you say, who live in a cold climate & their very survival depends on keeping warm & hunting food.

I'm talking about the people who wear fur more as a status symbol, the thousand plus dollar fur coats. How many animals go into those coats that aren't needed for warmth like they might have been hundreds of years ago.

When we lived in NC my husband & I had our wills drawn. I left money & guardians for my animals, I also left $10,000 to PETA, something that I am beginning more & more to question. Like I said in a previous post, we're more education year after year.

I have to live with the "ridicule" from my family because of my extreme love for animals. My brother, for instance, if I say something like I could never eat a baby lamb, he'll make that for Easter. I have just learned to bite my tongue & live with it, I only discuss my animal views with other animal lovers









There was a thread on Facebook not long ago where someone posted something about the excess deer in the Metro Parks in Cleveland, where I'm originally from, being culled. Some people applaud that, my only question is why when we're faced with animal issues our only solution is to kill them? That's all I ask.

Okay, enough of this. I spent a warm, cozy night with my pups huddled up with me, it got COLD again up here. Right now the dogs are still in bed (sleepy heads) laying upside down, just giving me a sideways glance when I walk in the bedroom. I'll try to sneak in & get a picture of them.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Wow, 

First, I did not ask for the rabbit slippers, they were given to me. But it does not matter really. 

Animal rights does not equal Animal welfare. 
Animal rights can mean a dog can taking an owner to court for not providing a neuter surgery, or for making it eat kibble. 

Animal welfare ensures that laws are in place to protect animals from cruelty. 

Animal rights can be setting up a guardianship system, where the court system can arbitrarily decide that you are no longer your dog's guardian and someone else is. 

Animal welfare holds the owner of a dog accountable for its care. 
************************************************

There was once a fine herd of white deer in the grand canyon. A national treasure, some called them. The legislature determined to protect them and refused to allow any hunting of these deer. Within two seasons, the deer were all dead. They overpopulated and starved to death in the winter. 

Unless we choose to live with an abundance of the natural predators of deer, than we will need to thin the herd. Personally, I think hunting is a better way to do this than going in at night with a rifle and a scope and slaughtering them. But that is just me. 
**************************************************

Killing is not pretty. If you want to wear leather, or eat meat or foul then you are condoning the killing of those animals. 

Feeling good that you eat only foul and not hairy beasts like cows is not that much of a positive thing. When you think about it, A single steer can feed two families meat for a year. (Lots of people by a side of beef, have it processed and use it all year.) How many little chicken souls have to go to the Great Barnyard to provide the same? 

So whether you are killing to eat, or killing to wear the products, you are killing and killing is not pretty. It never has been. 

Generally, people do not want to watch these things suffer. Generally they strike to kill the animal and then do the job they are employed to do. 

I do not have a problem with people harvesting animals for their produce. I want for animals to be treated humanely in their life and to be slaughtered quickly when that comes to pass.


----------



## Laura H. (Feb 23, 2009)

I'm not addressing your entire post, because you apparently have misunderstood much of what I was trying to say.

I never said or meant to imply that I was "proud" of not eating hairy beasts like cows or even pigs, for me I just think it's healthier, JUST MY OPINION, which is what I was giving in my other posts.

You don't have to agree with me or I with you, but I think we're allowed to have our own individual ideas on even controversial subjects.


----------



## Laura H. (Feb 23, 2009)

BTW, I would never go through someone's else's post line by line to dissect the meaning behind it.

I respect other peoples opinions. Just as I would wish other people to respect mine.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I read your post one time and replied to it. 

I did not dissect it line by line. 

I am kind of frustrated with people who will eat chicken but not beef because they relate to the cow -- not saying that is you. In fact this conversation came up at my sister's house where she doesn't feel bad eating chicken but rarely eats beef. I do not eat veal because I do not approve of how that animal is treated during its lifetime, not that it is slaughtered. 

I do not eat lamb, but my dogs do. I do not claim to be a vegetarian or anti-animal products. 

So simmer down, I was not dissecting your post line by line, I read it remembered a bit of it and responded. 

I kind of did have a problem with the idea of a little kid ASKING for rabbit fur slippers. Where would I get such an idea. So I HAD to clear that up. 

I have a huge problem with saying that someone who is doing something perfectly legal is "asking for it." But then I have zero tolerance for PETA and HSUS. 

I did not think that my post said you were a blankety-blank-blank for having an opinion, I just voiced my own opinion.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I guess I just don't see what was so upsetting about my post. 

The thing about the little chicken souls going to the great barnyard? I was making light of a rather grusome topic, that most of us are willing to live with but don't like to think about much. 

I will not stop eating meat. 

However, I can eat free-range chickens, etc. 

My point is that death will cause pain, hopefully very little. But the living conditions of animals to be harvested should be acceptable. We can do stuff there without PETA. We can choose what we buy. 

Once upon a time PETA may have been something necessary and good. I don't know. But at this point they are so extreme that if PETA has anything to do with a particular thing, many people write it off because they know that PETA is extreme. If there was a bill that I supported, I would NOT want PETA to put its blessing on it, because that would hurt. What happnes is that PETA finds something that makes sense and latches onto it, and then they push to include extreme measures to the bill, and then it is either not passed or the original intent is not what happens.


----------



## Laura H. (Feb 23, 2009)

Okay, we both misunderstood each other. 

"When I was a little kid, I had rabbit fur slippers.

I don't even know why the slippers became such an issue, you never said how you got them, not that it mattered at all, you were a child. You never said how you acquired them, so why are you getting upset with me because I thought you asked for them & what would have been wrong with that anyway? Okay, we have that resolved









I'll just say this one more time, I have an problem with celebrities wearing fur, knowing full well they're going to be drawing attention to themselves, maybe that clarifies what I meant better; especially knowing what goes on at fur farms, etc. I guess I'm extra sensitive about fur since I just read about the new restrictions on the baby harp seal slaughter, how they have to wait 60 seconds before skinning them, argh, just can't wrap my brain around that.

And I also don't eat meat because of the growth hormones, antibiotics, etc. they inject. You sound very knowledgeable about the condition of farm animals that are food animals, I'm sure you're read about that too.

Okay, I'm simmered down, like I said I honestly do not want to offend or upset anyone, I'm hear to learn and hopefully make friends









I completely agree with you about food animals though. No matter what anyone wants, PETA included, people are not going to stop eating animals. But...their lives & deaths can be improved. I hate to think of animals suffering either.

I too buy range free chicken & only range-free eggs, at least you know those chickens are leading more of a "normal" life.

And like I said also, I have always been a PETA admirer, but I'm seriously starting to re-think that, I have to agree, they are definitely going overboard, they're making themselves a laughingstock, who will take them seriously now. I'll leave my money to ASCPA or a local shelter instead.

Phew...I hope that covered it all. Can we start over somehow


----------



## Laura H. (Feb 23, 2009)

I just thought of one more thing, I remember when I was a kid, having a "rabbit's foot" was a big thing, do you remember that?

It was supposed to be lucky, they were dyed in all kinds of bright colors. All the kids had one & I'm sure none of us sat down & wondered where they really came from. Children are innocents.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Oh my am I going to get creamed for this, but yes, only mine did not come from stores. 

Every time dad brought rabbit home from hunting, he would clean and cook it. We ate the rabbit, and he would give us the feet. Yuck!!!

They must have stole them back from us. 

We were poor kids, we ate everything my dad brought home, rabbit, grouse, phesant, etc.


----------



## Laura H. (Feb 23, 2009)

My mom & Grandma (who died in '95) used to eat pigs feet! I could barely stand to look at them, but they loved 'em.

One year at Christmas Eve my brother cooked up a big pot of them as a surprise for Grandma!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I suppose that if we are going to butcher an animal, all the parts ought to be rendered and used that are possible. 

No, I will not give my dog's bully sticks, YUCK! But I give them pig's ears, and pig skin twists. 

So I am glad that some people like pig's feet. It means that they are used, the pig would have been butchered anyway. I expect many of these pieces parts do land up in Purina's mystery "meat and bone meal."


----------



## Laura H. (Feb 23, 2009)

Another reason to switch to raw for the boys


----------

