Dog owners have been
over-inoculated with the Animal Rights agenda, the result being
they have become immune to “AR stuff.”
Dog fanciers just don’t want to deal with it. They “don’t breed that
much” or they’ve “gone underground.” But the Animal Rights people
keep on keeping on and their success affects everyone’s daily life.
You don't think so? Well how about a 90% increase in the price of milk, eggs, and beef? The Calif. egg bill that passed
in 2008 is just one example that affected you in the grocery store.
But its not just PAWS. It is about who will make the laws that rule
our lives. Favor-seeking, corrupt, ignorant politicians almost
crammed California’s 1634 down our throats. Thanks to professional
lobbying groups PetPac, ASDA, ADOA, SAOVA and others, it didn’t
We need more individuals like Bob Kane and John Yates who can spot a
barracuda even when it looks like a goldfish. Bob Kane has retired, turning the reins over to Susan Wolf, a highly
respected, hard-working “dog person”. To support this formidable
force working for you on “Issue lobbying and to identify and elect
supportive legislators” go to
This info from the Cattle Network, courtesy of SAOVA, directly
reflects on the crisis in dog breeding.
Steve Kopperud has special expertise in
agriculture and food issues. Prior to joining Policy Directions
Inc., he was the senior vice president of the American Feed Industry
Association (AFIA) for more than 18 years, where he headed state and
federal government affairs programs, and was treasurer of the Feed
Industry Political Action Committee (FIPAC). Steve is also former
president of the Animal Industry Foundation (AIF), and chairs the
Farm Animal Welfare Coalition (FAWC).
Kopperud’s comments and analysis defining the animal rights movement
strategy in this Cattle Network interview below is a must read for
Jolley: Five Minutes with Steve Kopperud,
Senior V.P., Policy Directions
Kopperud has spoken to audiences in North and South America about
the threats to food production mounted by such well-funded
organizations as HSUS and PETA. At each appearance, Kopperud
explains the threats behind the recent successes of animal activism
and what is means to future of beef producers.
He tells a blunt and take-no-prisoners story about the very
effective but sometimes questionable public relations techniques
employed by animal activist groups.
Q. Steve, we know the animal rights organizations tend to be
well-funded, sophisticated communicators. Let's define them, first.
What are the organizations we should watch and what are their
agendas? Tell me about the size of their memberships and their war
A. Fifteen years ago we were confronted by about 150 animal
rights organizations, subject to infighting and competition. Today,
the movement is defined by the Humane Society of the U.S. and its
president, Wayne Pacelle. When Pacelle joined HSUS as vice
president, he declared he would create the “NRA (National Rifle
Assn.) of animal rights, and he’s well on his way. The organization
leverages its public image as a dog/cat, spay/neuter, pet adoption
group, positioning itself as “moderate” in comparison to the PETAs
of the movement. When you peel away the layers of public image,
you’re left with an HSUS agenda that is anything but moderate, and
not too radically different than that of PETA. You need only look at
the organization’s legislative agenda, the comments of some of its
officers, to see where HSUS would eventually hope to see animal
agriculture wind up.
HSUS claims to have about 10 million members – 20,000 per
congressional district – and has an annual budget in excess of $130
million. Through mergers with smaller organizations, HSUS has grown,
and under Pacelle’s watch, created the Humane Legislative Action
Fund (HLAF) not-for-profit association with no limits on its
lobbying activity – HSUS, by virtue of its 501(c) (3) status, is
limited by IRS rules to about spending 20% of its previous year’s
program spending on “advocacy,” so the HLAF is an important tool. On
the international front, Humane Society International works as an
arm of HSUS.
PETA continues to be the noisemaker; its apparent role is to keep
the issue in the press, thereby keeping it mainstream. Its income
each year continues to hover in the $20-30 million range, allowing
it to maintain its global network of offices and harassment.
However, PETA has so marginalized itself in policy discussions as to
be almost a non-player.
PETA continues to frighten corporate targets, major brands which
fear PETA will begin boycotts, pickets, disrupt annual meetings,
etc. PETA’s outrageous behavior and unrealistic demands enable
groups such as HSUS to contact the same target companies, offering
itself as the “moderate” group with which the company can work. The
company believes that by working with HSUS, it’s somehow protected
from PETA. Not so. The company is only protected as long as it toes
the line, issuing public statements about animal housing, care and
such. The worst thing any company can do is try to negotiate with
any animal rights group. It signals weakness and fear and sets the
company up as a perpetual target for other groups.
Farm Sanctuary, with a budget of about $1 million a year, operates
almost as an independent subsidiary of HSUS, acting as HSUS’s foot
soldiers on the ground in the various states in which HSUS has begun
referenda campaigns, etc.
Click Here for FULL INTERVIEW