I figured someone would come along and criticize the CCF. Actually, I agree that they are a lobbyist group that is being funded by industry in some cases, as in their campaign against MADD and to lobby for the fast food industry. They were actually started as a lobbyist for tobacco companies.
Does that make their overview of the HSUS incorrect? Or do you just want to criticize the messenger and assume anything they have to say is worthless? How about HumaneWatch? Would you say the same about them? What about their facts?
What I see about HSUS is that they take in an obscene amount of money that many donors believe is going to help companion animals and it just doesn't. To look at their ads and the wording on their donor cards, one would reasonably think their donation is going to mostly help dogs and cats. Nothing could be further from the truth, as evidenced by their expenditures.
To me, the very name HSUS is a deception to confuse donors into thinking they are somehow linked to our local Humane Societies, which isn't true. It's really not that much different from CKC (Continental Kennel Club) being confused with CKC (Canadian Kennel Club). HSUS is less of an animal welfare group and more of a lobby group to promote an agenda that many donors are in the dark about.
Anyone can feel free to criticize the sources I've used, but no criticism of HSUS's critics will somehow magically give the HSUS clean hands. The bottom line is that HSUS 'appears' top be an animal welfare group, but actually spends less than 2% of its money to support actual shelters and humane societies.
I posted this in another thread...
"In 2006, HSUS spent less than 2% of the money they took in to support actual shelters and humane societies.
Here is the wording from their donation form....
"Thanks to your generous support, we can continue to help dogs, cats and other animals at home and worldwide in 2008 and beyond. Your donation will be used to stop animal cruelty inflicted by individuals and institutions, to rescue and shelter animals during times of disaster, and so much more."
The above from this link, which is an analysis of the HSUS 2006 income tax return.
http://www.centennialsharpeiclub.org...ds%20money.pdf
Given their own words, wouldn't you expect more than 2% to be used on shelters and humane societies?"
IMO, it doesn't matter so much who is doing the criticizing, so long as they get their facts straight. If folks are comfortable with the HSUS and donating to them...fine....but many people are deceived by their marketing ploys and have donated money that went for uses other than what the donors thought. Just imagine what $100 million a year could do if it were actually applied to helping companion animals in this country. Some people are aware of the true agenda and donate and that's fine. For many others that are pulled in by slick commercials, the only word that fits what's been done to them is deceived and I have to wonder how many animals would have been saved had their money been applied as they thought it would be. Shameful...just shameful.