Martosko has questions. We’ve got answers.

21Nov/1019

Martosko has questions. We’ve got answers.

Yesterday, David Martosko of HumaneWatch published five questions for his followers to ask Wayne Pacelle at the HSUS town hall meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska. The answers are readily available at the HSUS website, Wayne Pacelle's blogs, and in related websites.

Using these materials, I have taken the liberty of putting together some answers that Wayne Pacelle or another HSUS employee might give to Mr. Martosko's questions. Please note: I do not work at the HSUS and have not run these answers by anyone from that organization. These are simply my answers based on reading their materials.

1. “In 1980 at HSUS’s annual meeting, the group made it official policy to – and I quote – ‘pursue on all fronts … the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals … within the full range of American life and culture.’ Is this still HSUS’s goal? If you’re trying to give so-called ‘rights’ to cows, pigs, and chickens, why wouldn’t that completely destroy the entire livestock industry?”

The HSUS works to get protections for animals. It is not so much a question of animal rights as human responsibility. Humans have the responsibility to treat animals humanely, and this includes animals raised for food, which are by far the largest percentage of animals used by humans. Unfortunately, we do not always treat farm animals humanely. This happens in two ways. First there is treatment that everyone agrees is abuse, such as what the HSUS and even a USDA inspector has uncovered at multiple slaughter plants. People were kicking calves and ramming them with electric prods, or using forklifts to move cows. Despite such violations of the Humane Slaughter Act, people at these plants were treating animals this way on a routine basis. When an inspector tried to report it, his managers demoted him and kept the plant open. In this case the laws on the books were clearly not working, and the HSUS stepped in to help bring this situation to the attention of state and federal authorities.

Second, there are standard operating procedures in industrial agriculture that are legal but which the HSUS and the general public see as inhumane. These include the intensive confinement of veal calves, pregnant pigs, and laying hens in cages so small they can't turn around and cannot perform any natural behaviors such as rooting, nesting or perching. Most people understand that an animal needs to be able to move around and perform natural behaviors, but intensive agriculture denies these basic needs. They even deny that these animals have natural behaviors, despite the fact that they have evolved over millions of years, yet it has only been in the past few decades that we have seen widespread use of intensive confinement. This intensive confinement also leads to food safety problems such as the salmonella outbreak we saw from the DeCoster egg operations that sickened half a million people and led to the largest egg recall in our nation's history. When animals are that stressed, they are likely to get sick. Antibiotics are not the answer, as this has only led to new forms of drug-resistant bacteria that threaten human health. The HSUS sees the answer as getting the animals out of intensive confinement and into a housing system where they can move around and express natural behaviors.

The HSUS is not out to put an end to animal agriculture as many of our opponents have charged. Their purpose is to look out for the welfare of the animals in these systems. If the Humane Society of the United States were to ignore the welfare of over 1 billion animals killed for food each year -- by far the largest sector of animal use by humans -- then it would not be doing its job.

2. “Can you name a specific meat, dairy, or egg brand that you and the Humane Society of the United States have endorsed?”

Sure. The HSUS supports humane and sustainable farmers like Kevin Fulton, who arranged this town hall meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska. Kevin runs a pasture beef operation in which cattle are allowed to graze freely on a natural diet of grass, which cows were evolved to eat. The HSUS is also one of 30 animal welfare groups that supports the Certified Humane label. You can see a list of Certified Humane farmers and ranchers on their website. The HSUS also supports the new Global GAP animal welfare standards, implemented just last week by Whole Foods. Again, the HSUS is not out to end animal agriculture. Its purpose is to put an end to the worst abuses on our nation's factory farms.

3. “If you got a federal law passed that demanded a nation-wide switch to the kind of livestock production mandated by California’s ‘Proposition 2’ law, would you and HSUS be satisfied with your achievement and completely dissolve the animal-agriculture part of your organization?”

Certainly the HSUS would be thrilled to pass a law that switches the nation to a Proposition 2 type of livestock production. However, it would be irresponsible for the HSUS to ever dissolve the animal agriculture part of its organization. As stated previously, farm animals make up by far the largest percentage of animals used by humans in the United States. The HSUS would not be doing its job if it did not continue to look out for the welfare of these animals. That might consist of continuing to work for better laws to protect these animals. But it might also consist of working to see that current laws are being properly enforced. As we have seen with the Humane Slaughter Act, which the HSUS was instrumental in getting passed in 1958, our nation's laws are not always followed, and sometimes when they are not, people in charge look the other way. So the HSUS must continue to be vigilant in making sure farm animals are treated humanely and according to the law, and that the law is being followed on farms, at auctions, in slaughterhouses, and anywhere else humans are making widespread use of these animals.

4. “Is there such a thing as meat that’s ‘humane’ enough that your ethics permit you personally to eat it? If so, where can we buy some? If not, what’s the difference between your group and PETA?”

Wayne Pacelle has not eaten meat for at least two decades, so he would likely choose not to eat meat of any sort. However, that is his choice, and not one he asks everyone to make, including employees of the HSUS. Nowhere is there a clause requiring HSUS employees to adhere to a certain diet. That is one difference between the HSUS and PETA, as PETA does require certain employees to adhere to a vegan diet. PETA also has a mission statement that precludes any use of animals by humans for any purpose. The HSUS has no such mission statement. Its mission is to celebrate animals and confront cruelty, which is what it does, whether cruelty occurs on a factory farm, at a puppy mill, or in an animal fighting operation, canned hunt, fur farm, or anywhere else.

5. "In HSUS's Articles of Incorporation – its founding documents – you'll find the following declaration: 'No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall consist of the carrying on of propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.' Has that been changed since 1954? If not, what on earth have you been doing all these years? Isn't your job to propagandize and influence legislation? Isn't that what Prop. 2 in California and Prop. B in Missouri were all about?"

The Humane Society of the United States does not do direct lobbying or campaigning for candidates for political office. It does have an affiliated 501(c)(4) organization, the Humane Society Legislative Fund, that works to pass animal protection laws at the state and federal level, to educate the public about animal protection issues, and to support humane candidates for office. The HSLF tracks votes by members of Congress on animal protection issues and creates a Humane Scorecard to inform voters who care about these issues.

The HSUS has also worked with coalitions such as Californians for Humane Farms and Missourians for the Protection of Dogs to help pass ballot measures in specific states. It is certainly not the only member of these coalitions. For example, Missourians for the Protection of Dogs was also supported by the ASPCA, Best Friends Animal Society, Humane Society of Missouri, Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, and Tony LaRussa Animal Welfare Foundation. It was also endorsed by over 150 veterinarians and clinics, over 160 Missouri businesses, and over 100 other animal protection charities. These initiatives have broad support in the states where they have been put to a vote, sometimes winning by a landslide as in the case of Proposition 2 in California, because they are reasonable, common sense reforms that most people want to see passed.

As you can see from this blog entry, which I put together in less than an hour, the answers to Mr. Martosko's questions are not hard to find. Unfortunately, Mr. Martosko's purpose is not to look for fair and balanced information about the HSUS, but to destroy the HSUS by any means necessary including slander and lies so that it cannot work for welfare reforms that might threaten the profits of those who fund HumaneWatch. My question to Mr. Martosko is: When are you going to stop waging a smear campaign against the Humane Society of the United States and join the rest of the country in embracing actual animal welfare?

Opinion post by AmyK

Tagged as: animal agriculture, animal protection, animal rights, animal welfare, certified humane, David Martosko, hsus, humane society of the united states, humanewatch, veganism, vegans Leave a comment

Comments (19) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

Kim E
November 21st, 2010 - 15:12

So, basically, you’re just regurgitating HSUS self-aggrandizing propaganda as fact? I think Martosko might be looking for something a bit more than that–you know, like honesty about the organization’s agenda and acknowledgment that their leadership is comprised of radicals and people with dubious connections.
Rescues-R-Best
November 21st, 2010 - 20:51

Ugh I think we’ve got a flea!
all4animals
November 21st, 2010 - 21:23

So, Kim, basically what you’re doing is what you do everywhere. Kvetch, whine and moan, because you don’t have a real life, and you just live to diss something you know absolutely nothing about. Did DUI Dave make you put that post up? I bet he did.
AmyK
November 21st, 2010 - 21:52

Oh, Kim. What could I say that would make you happy? That Wayne Pacelle is a radical? It’s just not true. If he were against all animal use, he’d be calling for an end to all cages, not just bigger cages for animals. The HSUS is effective because what it campaigns for is what most people want — reasonable, common sense reform. Its agenda is transparent. Just look at their website. Nothing is hidden. For you to continually question their motives and claim they are deceptive says much more about your level of paranoia than their positions on the issues.
Thoughtful Paws
November 21st, 2010 - 22:24

Now, now, let’s play nice. Kim E. has a right to voice her opinion. Unfortunately, that’s all she’s voiced — an opinion based on prejudice and myth and slander.

Martosko is clearly not looking for anything except weapons with which to assassinate the character of Wayne Pacelle and the HSUS. If he were serious about wanting a debate on the issues, he would honestly debate the issues, rather than making guerilla attacks with no opportunity to respond.

But Martosko does not engage in debate: he engages in attacks, in slander, in throwing rocks and slinging mud from the safety of his tightly controlled world. As Richard Berman pointed out when he described his company: “We always have a knife in our teeth.”

So much for rational discussion. Or truth. Or honesty.

Whether it’s a one-sided interview, a one-sided op-ed piece, a one-sided rant on the HumaneWatch blog, or a hit-and-run comment on a forum, Martosko insists on controlling the discussion so that opponents cannot call attention to the gaping holes in his arguments, so that he does not have to try to defend his indefensible claims.

But Kim, unlike HumaneWatch and its paid assassins, we don’t shy away from truth or facts. Can you show me where Martosko engages in an honest discussion where both sides were permitted to speak?

I welcome your response.
Kim E
November 22nd, 2010 - 03:18

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but at least I’m using my name and not hiding behind a pseudonym.
However, this thread is not about me. I am curious about one thing, though? If Pacelle and Fulton had nothing to hide, then why did they bar people from the meeting, even though Fulton personally invited everyone on the HW page to attend? Why so eager to obfuscate when approached with questions that, as you point out, should be simple to answer? Just curious.
Kevin H
November 22nd, 2010 - 05:42

They did not bar “people”, Kim, they barred the person interested in disrupting an otherwise informative meeting. No one in their right mind would allow him into any sort of open dialogue centering on animal welfare because his only intent is to use his industry funded CCF donations to impede progress on that front by whatever means necessary. Martosko has no interest in animal welfare, quite the opposite, and therefore has nothing to offer that discussion. As you can see by his own posts on his opinion fb blog, there were plenty of local farmers and vet students at the meeting, but Martosko’s ill intentioned presence was not, and should not have been, welcomed.
AmyK
November 22nd, 2010 - 05:59

Kim, you might want to check out the HSUS’s press release about this meeting. I don’t see how Martosko could have read this and think he was invited. http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/11/nebraska_farmers_town_hall_111910.html
Kim E
November 22nd, 2010 - 15:21

He registered. They sent a confirmation. How does that bar him from the meeting?
Kevin H
November 22nd, 2010 - 15:41

The recently discovered toner explosives found on cargo planes most likely had proper bills of lading…. I guess you think, in the future, we should let those through regardless of their destructive intent simply because they were properly registered? Great point, Kim. Solid.
Kim E
November 22nd, 2010 - 16:06

How does one even equate to the other? Care to explain your logical fallacy?
Kevin H
November 22nd, 2010 - 16:24

Just because something is properly registered doesn’t guarantee it’s entrance especially if it is a destructive or purposefully disruptive force i.e. Martosko, paid misinformer, at an HSUS sponsored animal welfare discussion. Want me to draw some stick figures for you?
Kim E
November 22nd, 2010 - 16:50

Oh, so when Kevin Fulton makes up stories about Martosko out of whole cloth it’s okay because he’s doing it for free? Gotcha.
So, Fulton made no invitation to “everyone” and had no list of six people that were to be denied entrance no matter what. Okay, I understand.
Revisionist history makes interesting fiction, but it doesn’t stand up well for a news story. How is asking questions considered disruptive when a meeting has been described as a “town hall” type of meeting? Doesn’t the format of the town hall meeting feature a question and answer session?
Cathy C
November 22nd, 2010 - 18:45

Kim, most registration systems send an automatic confirmation to anyone who registers. There is no way to tell the system, Do Not Register Person X. So when Martosko registered, he got an automatic confirmation. That’s all. Surely he also saw the HSUS press release referenced above. An entire press release that says you work for “a notorious public relations firm, masquerading as a non-profit organization and funded by animal-abuse organizations” ought to clue you in that maybe you might not be welcome. And if that wasn’t enough, Martosko wasn’t simply there to ask questions. He was there to disrupt the meeting as much as possible and behaved like an ass throughout the entire proceedings. You might say Kevin Fulton “makes up stories,” but I would take the word of a successful farmer and businessman over that of a drunk driver who gets paid to lie for a living anytime.
Shelley
November 23rd, 2010 - 11:55

Recently, some Missouri state representatives met with leaders from the agribusiness community in order to address how to deal with Proposition B. Neither the public nor the media was invited, or even knew about the event until after the fact. What was said was kept secret, as was who attended and what was agreed.
I compare this secretive meeting between elected officials and special interests to the recent Townhall. The press was invited, as was most of the public. If one person was denied access, it’s because he had stated ahead of time his intent to disrupt the meeting. However, there were other people not particularly happy with the HSUS at the event, many of whom were able to ask questions and those questions and answers were published at large.
It is unfortunate that the HSUS is being used as some form of bogeyman by those who don’t like any animal welfare reform. But at some point in time it is a waste of time to continue to irrationality with reason, and to continue answering the same questions posted by the same people–questions where no answer is sought.
Provide specific, documented information, be reasonable, but if neither works with individuals, ignore the bait, and move on.
Shelley
November 23rd, 2010 - 11:56

Sorry, “continue to _meet_ irrationality with reason”
all4animals
November 23rd, 2010 - 21:18

The fact is, Martosko didn’t get in because he was belligerent and pretty obviously intoxicated from photos and videos I have seen of the meeting in Lincoln. I wouldn’t invite him into my home. And, as he knows nothing about animals, why would even want to attend, especially when he was most likely intoxicated, and potentially violent. He had to be turned away. It is unfortunate that Mr. Martosko is a lying slob who can’t get facts straight. Kim E. shows the quality of thought that goes into a Humanewatch thought. It’s not very high.
Erica
November 27th, 2010 - 12:24

I am interested in seeing the photos and video that you speak of “all4animals”….IF there is indeed proof that David Martosko was “belligerent and pretty obviously intoxicated” then show us the proof. Don’t just say from what you saw…show the links to the video and photos! My biggest problem with this whole thing – if you take David & CCF out of the equation – there are still issues that are revelant in regards to HSUS that need to be answered. Including why a not-for-profit is involved in legislation and supporting political candidates. Additionally, I continue to hear that the donors for HSUS ALL know & are aware of what the group is set up for (currently) and that those donors are supportive of their goals & publicly made agenda. Yet, I am hearing more and more donors saying exactly the opposite. And yet another problem I have is with the total difference in the number of donors, member, followers, etc coming from the powers that be at HSUS – where are they getting the numbers from and why does each person cite a different number when asked how many people support HSUS. But back to the fact that Mr. Fulton made an open invitation to anyone on the HW page, as already stated….why would Mr. Fulton not say at that point that David would not be welcomed? Why mislead David into thinking he was welcomed and then take away that offer at the door AND state that David was blackballed form the event from the getgo? When you send an RSVP – regardless of how the response is generated – the people hosting the event have instant access of the “list” of people who have RSVP’d and therefore could have AND should have contacted those persons and told them that they will not be welcome to attend regardless of the fact that they received an RSVP?
Thoughtful Paws
November 28th, 2010 - 15:15

My biggest problem with this whole thing – if you take David & CCF out of the equation – there are still issues that are revelant in regards to HSUS that need to be answered.

You’re right on this point, Erica, and that’s exactly why David Martosko and CCF were taken out of the equation. They were not allowed to disrupt a meaningful discussion of those issues, and the result was a successful, respectful discussion among adults.

Regarding Martosko’s being barred: I can understand the decision to bar someone who has no interest in finding common ground and is only there to disrupt the event and attack its sponsors, but if that decision was made in advance, somebody should have contacted Martosko to inform him that his reservation was rescinded. Was it a deliberate slight? An oversight? We don’t know.

However, this assumes that the decision to bar Martosko was made before his arrival, and not as a result of his questionable behavior.

Martosko reported that Kevin Fulton could not be reached for comment. What he didn’t report was that when he asked for that comment, Mr. Fulton was using the urinal in a men’s room. (This kind of behavior doesn’t shower Martosko with glory, and he’s lucky he didn’t get showered with something else.)

It bears noting that Martosko has not denied any of these very specific allegations. He’s made vague claims that Kevin is “spinning tall tales”, but has not denied any allegation except that he may have been intoxicated.

Nonetheless, there are strong indications that he was not behaving professionally — or even rationally — during this event.

Here’s a question… Since Martosko is so critical of HSUS for selectively releasing undercover footage of animal abuse cases, does this mean he will release all video he has taken of this event?