The HSUS / Fund for Animals merger
Why should anyone be surprised?

Years ago, Wayne Pacelle was a protégé of the late Cleveland Amory, who founded the Fund for Animals. Mr. Amory had previously been an executive of the HSUS, and left it to form the Fund. When Wayne left the Fund to work on ballot initiatives for the HSUS, it was rumored that Mr. Amory felt betrayed. None of this really matters today. The Fund for Animals and the Humane Society of the United States are about to become one legal entity, perhaps called the HSUS Fund For Animals or some other version that combines the two identities. The real news is that the combined entity will be reorganized as a 501(C)(4), which means that it shall be able to put a lot more money into direct lobbying on issues that affect not only all Americans but wildlife users and managers from all around the world.

At present, it has been reported that the combined amount that can be spent on direct lobbying by the two groups is only about $1.5 million dollars. The combined budget of the new organization shall be $95 million dollars, with a proportionately higher amount of money to be spent on lobbying than was the case before the merger/reorganization.

Pacelle's expertise includes anti-hunting, anti-trapping ballot initiatives, and some legislation that has hampered the pork industry. He learned much about how to milk the American value system under Amory's tutelage, reaping huge donations for the Fund and later, for the HSUS, on cruelty to animals themes. Wayne Pacelle is young, charismatic, and a dedicated "true believer", a "power ranger" with marketing and public relations sophistication. His colleague at the Fund, Michael Markarian, was also tutored by the late Mr. Amory, and also shares these skills and extreme animal rights philosophy. Why should anyone think that the concept of merging these two organizations is anything new? This has probably been in the works for years.

The message in animal rights extremism is to convince the general public that wrongs are being committed by animal users, and that those wrongs must be legislated out of existence. All the incorrect, misleading, and yes, outright egregious falsehoods that are spread by animal rights extremists must be addressed and corrected - in print, on the Internet, and in direct messages to both the public and its elected representatives.

This has to be a sustained, consistent, coordinated effort on the part of all legitimate animal users and wildlife managers in the country. There is simply no other way that legitimate animal use is going to continue as a significant part of our cultural heritage and lifestyle. This is but a prelude to a culture war that promises to be violent before it is put to rest, because extremism breeds contempt for the rule of law. Animal users must convince both the general public and our legislators that human rights must always be defended and given priority, for the sake of the quality of life now and in the future.