From ANIMAL PEOPLE, December 2000:

Editorial--
Keeping P.T. Barnum at bay

Starting on page 13 is our 11th annual "Who gets the money?"
feature, outlining in statistical summary form where the lion's share, the
dog's share, and much of the rest of the money donated to animal
protection goes, how it gets used, and who gets paid what amount for
making the major spending decisions.
The numbers help in comparing charities, but are not the whole story.
Consider a seemingly simple matter: trying to compare the needs of
nine of the best-known care-for-life sanctuaries in the U.S. by measuring
their budgets against the numbers of animals they keep.
Best Friends has the most animals, at about 1,800, and may have
the most dogs and cats. But Best Friends does adoptions. DELTA Rescue,
with about 1,400 animals, almost certainly has more hard-case dogs and
cats in lifetime care.
Both Best Friends and DELTA Rescue also have farm animals, but far
fewer than Farm Sanctuary, which in recent years has usually had about
1,000, divided among facilities in New York and California.
Receipt of large numbers of hens from the Buckeye Egg disaster in
Ohio may have significantly boosted the Farm Sanctuary population in recent
weeks. The Humane Farming Association, however, may have almost as many
animals at just one location, the Suwanna Ranch in northern California.
HFA is the only sanctuary we know of which has accepted large numbers of
hard-to-handle emus: about 600 altogether.
Among sanctuaries for exotic species, Wildlife Waystation has the
most, at 1,200, distantly followed by Primarily Primates and Wild Animal
Orphanage, at about 500 each.
The Performing Animal Welfare Society has prominence and a budget
comparable to all of the above, yet had just 43 animals at the most recent
published count. But three of the PAWS animals were elephants, who
probably outweigh all the birds smaller than emus at all U.S. sanctuaries
combined.
Yet the Elephant Sanctuary at Hohenwald may have greater animal
care needs, pound for pound, with seven elephants.
No matter how hard we strive to present an informative statistical
portrait of each organization, readers must ultimately decide for
themselves which charities are worth supporting, and which appeals warrant
generous response.
We recommend skepticism. The frequency and urgency with which
charities solicit funding is often in inverse proportion to the
significance of their mission and the dedication of their personnel. Be
aware that P.T. Barnum, who said "There's a sucker born every minute,"
cofounded both the circus which bears his name and the Connecticut Humane
Society, which has long had about 10 times more money in the bank than it
spends to help animals.
The Barnum legacy is alive and pervasive.

How they fool you

Spotting a misleading appeal isn't always easy, but one tipoff is
misleading packaging--for example, a February 2000 mailing by the
International Fund for Animal Welfare, designed to resemble a U.S. Postal
Service Express Mail "flat rate envelope."
The mailer was labeled "Priority Express," with the words
"Extremely urgent: Please Hand Deliver to Addressee," and a "package
tracking number."
But no signature was required for receipt, and the printed indicia
where stamps would normally go revealed that it was actually sent at
nonprofit bulk rate.
Recipients found inside the package a second common misleading
device: an "International Opinion Poll on Animal Cruelty."
No serious poll would be sent in bulk, bundled with advocacy
material and a donation envelope. The poll was just a standard "reply
device," used to entice recipients to respond--and donate.
IFAW does, however, do the work it claimed to, in response to
the cruelties that the literature described. The misleading aspects of the
appeal were confined to the use of attention-getting devices.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund stretched credibility farther with a
September 2000 mailing that asked recipients to sign "A petition to the
106th United States Congress." The 106th Congress was already in its final
weeks, with little likelihood of taking up major new bills. The petition
form was attached to a donation envelope, pre-addressed not to Congress
but to the ALDF.
Reinforcing this reply device was a "teaser" packet labeled
"Warning: graphic photos enclosed." ANIMAL PEOPLE quickly established
that some of the 11 photos had already appeared in animal rights literature
as far back as 1980. One photo, another source informed us, originally
appeared in a 1947 textbook. Further, some of the photos were credited to
the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, suggesting that the
animals shown were never under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress.
At that, the ALDF misrepresentation may have been less flagrant
than in 1998-1999, when ALDF claimed in three different mailings that a
Special Prosecutor Program it formed in Portland, Oregon, "led to far
more convictions" for cruelty. The ALDF had yet to prosecute even one case
in Portland--and still has not.
ALDF founder Joyce Tischler told ANIMAL PEOPLE in late 1999 that
the erroneous claim about the alleged efficacy of the inactive Special
Prosecutor Program was made because she had not read the appeals that were
sent above her signature. Tischler apologized for the error in an early
2000 edition of the ALDF newsletter.
The apology was unique. The misleading claim was not. In April
and May 2000, for instance, the Phoenix-based Arizona Humane Society
asserted in newspaper ads that it "now finds more homes for dogs and cats
than any other organization in the U.S., and has for three years running."

The Arizona Humane Society adopted out 18,000 animals in 1999,
according to executive director Ken White, and over the preceding three
years probably did place more animals (circa 40,000) than any shelter
except the North Shore Animal League America, of Port Washington, New
York. But North Shore placed 25,768 animals in 1999, achieving a
three-year total of 79,797.
White promised to amend future appeals to make a more accurate claim.
Other organizations appear to have responded positively to ANIMAL
PEOPLE notice of inaccuracy. For instance, the American Humane
Association, whose appeals tend to be low-key and factual, in February
2000 mailed an appeal which described the July 1995 torture-killing of Duke
the Dalmatian in a Philadelphia suburb as if it had just occurred. The
mailing further claimed that the three convicted perpetrators "were
sentenced to up to three years in jail--and all ended up behind bars!"
In truth, the longest sentence given to any of them was 23 months.
All three were back on the street more than two years before the appeal
was sent.
The AHA did not respond directly to an ANIMAL PEOPLE inquiry about
the mailing, but apparently discontinued using it.
The Ark Trust in August 1998 promoted their "Red Alert" program,
which donates cage-cards to animal shelters in Los Angeles, San Diego,
and Austin, by asserting in a mailer that "hundreds" of animals per day
are killed in U.S. shelters by mistake. That would amount to a minimum of
73,000 such mistakes per year. ANIMAL PEOPLE could find record, however,
of only 26 animals being killed by mistake in the preceding 42 months.
The "Red Alert" campaign continues with much less flamboyant
rhetoric--and may be increasing recognition of the fatal mistakes that
shelter staff do make, as a record 16 cases came to our attention during
the past 12 months.
In Defense of Animals, by contrast, has never corrected appeals
which have wrongly asserted since 1989 that Procter & Gamble is
"spearheading a $17.5 million program to convince our legislators, school
children, and the public that tests designed to poison, blind, burn,
mutilate and kill thousands of defenseless animals are absolutely necessary
and humane," as stated in an IDA pamphlet called 50,000 Reasons To Boycott
Procter & Gamble.
ANIMAL PEOPLE most recently received that pamphlet from IDA in May
2000, almost 11 years after first advising IDA that the purported P&G
program had never existed.
What actually happened was that in 1984, P&G reached an agreement
with the late Henry Spira, founder of Animal Rights International, to
fund the development of alternatives to animal testing, and to phase out
animal testing as rapidly as the alternatives could win regulatory
approval. P&G kept the bargain, spending more than $100 million to date
in the effort. But when other activist groups called boycotts just as P&G
and Spira made their deal, P&G refused to concede anything to the others.
By mid-1989, PETA and IDA had so irritated then-P&G chairman John Smale
that he dashed off a three-page memo proposing a campaign to discredit the
animal rights movement. Someone leaked it almost immediately to Spira and
to news media. Smale's idea got no farther than his own office. Smale was
removed from that office soon afterward, and at last report was organizing
golf tournaments for General Motors.

How they fool the world

The most misleading appeals that ANIMAL PEOPLE sees on a regular
basis are those which misrepresent the sender. Over time, such appeals
can create an image for an organization which is sharply at odds with what
it actually does.
The Humane Society of the U.S., for instance, is not and never
has been a collective voice for all, most, or any other humane societies.
Neither does it shelter animals, adopt out animals, neuter animals, or
share funding with local humane societies. In fact, HSUS is an advocacy
organization representing just itself.
The American SPCA runs a medium-sized adoption shelter and
neutering clinic in Manhattan. But it is not, and never has been, a
collective voice for all societies for the prevention of cruelty to
animals--and it doesn't share funding with other SPCAs.
"Get a can and cover it with pictures of hurt dogs. People give
you money if they think it's for hurt dogs," a veteran panhandler advised
Mike Barnicle of the Boston Globe a few years ago. "The 'feed the family'
sign don't get you anywhere near as much as a picture of a hurt dog," the
panhandler said.
The recently released National Anti-Vivisection Society 1999
Financial Report & Program Summary confirmed the economic pull of shelter
work by noting that "the educational component" of a direct mail campaign
about vivisection brought returns amounting to 180% of investment--but the
"educational component" of direct mailings sent to benefit the NAVS
Sanctuary Fund brought returns of 420%.
Likely for that reason, many organizations which do no sheltering
have mailed appeals lately implying that they do run shelters or
sanctuaries. For instance, a recent Defenders of Wildlife appeal envelope
claimed, "Adoption papers enclosed."
An appeal envelope from The Nature Conservancy suggested, "You
don't have to be human to know the pain of a broken home." Ironically,
the TNC policy of purging all feral species from its property leaves
animals orphaned and homeless almost every day.
Concealing pro-hunting policies is another common ploy. A current
National Wildlife Federation mailing touts "The perfect gift ideas for the
children you love," inside an envelope showing 11 cute baby animals
enjoying a snowy Christmas. Nine of the 11 animals are of commonly hunted
and trapped species, but nowhere in the mailing does NWF acknowledge that
it is in fact the national umbrella for 48 state hunting clubs, and has
been ever since it was founded in 1936 as the intended unified voice of
American sport hunters.
World Wildlife Fund mailings omit mention that WWF was founded in
1961 to promote the interests of trophy hunters, through the doctrine of
"sustainable consumptive use," and still does. Responding to donor
inquiries, WWF even denies that it favors hunting. But WWF policies
consistently favor putting the lives of any but the most imperiled species
on the auction block, so long as at least some of the proceeds nominally
go toward conservation.
To further help readers sort out their charity choices, ANIMAL
PEOPLE issues a separate publication, The Watchdog Report, each spring.
Covering about 60 of the groups that send the most appeals, The
Watchdog Report includes less economic data, but succinctly describes
program, policy, and administrative aspects of each organization which
might significantly concern animal protection donors.
The Watchdog Report is produced and sold separately from ANIMAL
PEOPLE subscriptions, at $20 per copy, and is kept available all year
long.