the buyer of the English bulldog puppy has failed to add that the veterinarian who was treating the puppy refused to treat it with aggressive antibiotics. He tried one mild anti biotic and when that did not work he tried another. I spoke to the vet and told him he needed to treat it with a more aggressive antibiotic. i even suggested the same one they use on human babies, which works. but for two weeks he refused and stayed behind the cough. Many puppies, especially bulldog breeds, are very susceptible to kennel cough. They are exposed to it in transportation via the airlines. even though the puppy had been vaccinated for kennel cough there are 130 different strains of the virus. "kind of like the common cold" in humans. there is no cure because there are many strains. Bulldogs move into pneumonia very quickly because of the short nose. If the vet would have treated the kennel cough aggressively it would not have gone into pneumonia. This puppy did no have to die. it is a victim of the veterinarian "following standard veterinarian procedure" which is not correct all the time. especially when you are treating bulldogs of any kind. He stayed behind the bacteria instead of getting ahead of it at the cost of the puppies life. The puppy was replaced with another puppy that was beautiful. Humane Society of Missouri did an inspection of my kennel. They found my facilities to be far above standard set by the Missouri department of Agriculture. The results of this inspection can be found at the prosecuting attorney's office in Webster county Missouri.

In address to the woman who adopted Frankie, He came to us from a breeder who did not want him anymore. Rescue dogs do not come to us in perfect condition. Like Frankie, they may have never been on grass or gone up stairs, or been on a leash. We do not have time to train them when we receive them. The veterinarian here did complete physical on Frankie before he traveled. this is a federal law. included in the inspection is looking at the teeth. i did not see any metal shavings nor did the vet reveal there was any. While in our possession he was not even near any metal. below is a picture of the facilities he was housed in. thank you very much for giving him a loving home but he is a rescue and when he arrived here he was a rescue with some issues that need to be addressed. all of which were minor.

the people who adopted the deaf puppy forgot to include the fact that they received over $1100 refund. We had also offered to replace the puppy or have them send it back for a full refund. after their puppy was diagnosed with deafness we had the other puppies in the litter checked and there was another deaf one. it was discounted and adopted by a loving home. We then spayed the mother so as not to have this genetic fault happen again. The Missouri Department of Agriculture inspects my facilities and the last inspection was 100% no violations.

Maybe you should check this out if you wish to see the truth!!
A Lawsuit that was filed against the HSUS by the Feld Corporation in the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia (Case 1:07-cv-01532-EGS). The allegations against the HSUS read like a criminal indictment, and they include the following: Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act; Money Laundering; Bribery; Obstruction of Justice; Mail Fraud; Wire Fraud; Illegal Witness Payments; Virginia Conspiracy Act; Conspiracy to Harm a Business; Abuse of Process; Malicious Prosecution; and a Fundraiser Held in Furtherance of the Schemes.

To further put the deviousness of the HSUS in perspective with regards to how it attempts to subvert and distort the truth, you should also consider the fact that Eight Members of Congress, including Five from Missouri, have requested that the Department of Treasury address the "apparent improper activities" of the HSUS and its "tax-exempt status" And the response that Senator Lugar (Indiana) received is most germane because it confirms that the U.S Treasury's Inspector General for Tax Administration has initiated action in response to Congressional concerns about the potential failure of the HSUS to comply with the U.S. Tax Code.

SHOCK POLL: 90 Percent of HSUS Donors Are in the Dark

We’ve already established through public polling that the vast majority of Americans—you know, the regular folks who are the targets of HSUS’s disclaimer-less, deceptive TV ads—mistakenly believe that HSUS is a pet shelter umbrella group.

HSUS has replied by trying to draw a distinction between its members and the average American. Wayne Pacelle recently told the Associated Press that “HSUS donors understand its role" (reporter's paraphrase).

It turns out Pacelle could hardly be more wrong.

We conducted an online survey of HSUS supporters and received some shocking results. Here’s the bottom line, from a survey of 1,010 self-identified HSUS donors, who answered "yes" to the question "Have you ever donated to the Humane Society of the United States?":
■ Just 1 percent of HSUS's donors list "farm animal protection" as their primary reason for supporting the group.
■ Seventy-four percent of donors give to HSUS to either help pet shelters or reduce the number of animals euthanized each year.
■Ninety—yes, 90—percent of HSUS's donors were unaware that it gives just 1 percent of its budget to local pet shelters.
■Knowing HSUS's non-support of shelters, 80 percent of HSUS's own donors think the group “misleads people into thinking that it supports local humane societies and pet shelters.”
■Nearly 50 percent of HSUS's donors say they are less likely to support the group now that they know HSUS gives so little to local pet shelters.

This evidence should leave no doubt that HSUS relies on misconception—the notion that it’s a real “humane society.” Most Americans—and we can now say most HSUS donors—believe that HSUS is mostly about supporting pet shelters.

HSUS needs this false perception to raise the hundreds of millions it collects. The poll clearly shows that half of donors would be less likely to give now that they know how little of their donations goes to local pet shelters. HSUS must hope they stay in the dark.

Wayne Pacelle can no longer claim that HSUS donors “understand” what HSUS is up to. And all the rhetoric about how HSUS is clear about what it does not only seems like a cop-out, but it comes across as blaming the victim. After all, more than 85 percent of the animals in HSUS’s manipulative ads are cats and dogs.

There are a few reform options. HSUS could prominently put a large-print disclaimer on all of its ads that it is independent of local humane societies. (Right now, less than 1 percent of HSUS’s TV ads have a disclaimer—and it’s in small font.) HSUS could stop manipulating viewers with a disproportionate amount of pets. And HSUS could simply change its name, replacing “Humane Society” with something more appropriate. (The “Vegan Lawyers and Lobbyists Society”?)

HSUS won’t, of course. As regular readers already know well, HSUS wants to get rid most human uses of animals—most notably in agriculture. That’s not the goal of a cat-and-dog group—that’s the goal of a PETA-type group. It’s no surprise then that HSUS leaders cut their teeth in radical animal rights/liberation groups.

And that’s certainly not the goal of HSUS’s supporters. Which is why we’re going to make sure they find out the truth.

Full results (PDF):

1. What is the primary reason you support the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)?
■40% To help HSUS care for homeless dogs and cats in animal shelters and humane socities.
■ 3% To help HSUS's animal rescue team.
■ 15% To raise awareness about animal cruelty.
■ 34% To reduce the number of animals put down in shelters each year.
■ 1% To support HSUS's farm animal protection programs.
■ 6% To support HSUS's political lobbying for anti-animal cruelty legislation.

2. Were you aware that HSUS gives just 1 percent of its budget to local pet shelters?
■90% No
■ 10% Yes

3. Now that you know that HSUS gives just one percent of its budget to local pet shelters, do you think the HSUS misleads people into thinking that it supports local humane societies and pet shelters?
■ 6% Not at all
■ 13% Not really
■28% Somewhat
■52% Very Much

4. Now that you know that HSUS gives just one percent of its budget to local pet shelters, are you more or less likely to support HSUS?
■21% Much Less Likely
■26% Less Likely
■ 8% More Likely
■ 6% Much More Likely
■ 38% Neither

There’s a big gap between what HSUS does and
what the public thinks HSUS does. According
to recent national polling, 68 percent of Americans
think HSUS spends most of its money funding local
pet shelters, yet HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle readily
admits that only about 20 percent of HSUS’s efforts
involve pets. Further, HSUS donates just 1 percent of
its budget to pet shelters.
Is this perception-reality gap merely incidental, or is
HSUS consciously creating misperception? We have
new evidence that suggests HSUS’s ads are misleading
Americans. We asked the Campaign Media Analysis
Group (CMAG) to compile a report of all of the ads
aired by HSUS from 2009 to September 2011.
After analyzing the CMAG report, an appalling (although
not unexpected) discovery emerged: of the
28 ads aired over 20,000 times, more than 85 percent
of animals shown in HSUS TV ads asking for donations
are dogs or cats—many of which are behind
cages. When HSUS asks people to donate, it almost
exclusively emphasizes the care and rescue of pets.
What’s wrong with this? To start, HSUS gave 1 percent
of its $126 million budget to help local pet shelters.
At the same time, according to national polling, 71
percent of Americans mistakenly believe that HSUS
is a pet-shelter umbrella group. Fifty-nine percent
wrongly believe that HSUS gives most of its money
to local shelters, and 63 percent have been duped into
thinking that HSUS is affiliated with their local humane
organization. Similarly, 71 percent of animal
shelters say “HSUS misleads people into thinking it is
associated with local animal shelters.”
HSUS has retorted that its ads include a disclaimer
stating that HSUS is separate from local pet shelters.
However, our analysis of CMAG’s report found that between
2009 and September 2011, fewer than 1 percent
of HSUS’s television donation appeals include any such disclaimer. The CMAG report also estimated that HSUS spent over $11.2 million running more than 20,000 TV spots without a disclaimer. It’s fair to conclude that HSUS largely allows the proven misperception to stand unaddressed (while HSUS rakes in the cash).
Even HSUS’s Christmas merchandise focuses on pets. Our review discovered that almost 90 percent of HSUS’s “Everything Christmas” collection features pets, yet needy shelter pets will likely never see the proceeds made off of the pet-themed Christmas gifts.
If most of HSUS’s money doesn’t go towards pets, then why does HSUS focus on cute puppies and kittens? It’s not rocket science: More people like cute puppies and kittens, than animal-rights agendas. Imagine if HSUS’s ads showed videos of where the money actually goes: the organization’s pension plan, promoting a vegan agenda, and even more fundraising. We’re going to bet it wouldn’t have the same return.
HSUS seems very comfortable continuing to run ads in which children and celebrities ask you to donate money to save the cute dogs and cats flashing across the screen. With celebrity spokesmen and millions of dollars to spend on advertising, how are real local pet shelters supposed to compete?
Several local shelters have decided to change their names by eliminating the words “humane society” to help stop the confusion. It’s unfortunate that shelters need to go to such extreme lengths to distance themselves from the controversy HSUS brings to the “humane society” name.
Educating friends and family is a great first step to protect them from falling for HSUS’s emotional, misleading donation requests. Next time a loved one is thinking about donating to the cute puppies and kittens in HSUS ads, encourage them to instead donate locally where it can be assured the money will go towards helping needy pets, not towards some executive’s wallet or an animal-rights agenda.