Best Friends’ Billion Dollar Beagles

Screen grab from July 3, 2010

Have a look at this donation plea from Best Friends Animal Society and tell me what your impressions are.  Try to read it as John Q. Public might.  Here’s the takeaway that I got:

Best Friends and Pets Alive have saved 125 Beagles who were having medical tests performed on them in a lab.  Best Friends is taking those dogs who need the most rehab and is going to work with them for some indefinite period of time.  It costs $250 per dog, per day to get these poor dogs the care they need so please give generously.

Does $250 per Beagle per day sound right to you?  It doesn’t to me.

If JQP decides to clicky the link to donate, here’s what he’ll find:

Your contribution to the Best Friends Great Beagle Escape helps them get one step closer to families. To illustrate what your gift can accomplish, $500 provides overall veterinary care for 5 beagles; $250 gets one beagle to safety; $100 spays/neuters 4 beagles; $50 microchips 5 beagles with permanent ID; and $25 helps provide toys, leashes, and blankets! Any amount will help – we will use your donation in the area of greatest need!

Do these figures at all makes sense to you with respect to the “it costs $250 per Beagle, per day to take care of these dogs” claim?  They don’t jive to me.  As such, I wanted to see if I could find out any additional information about these 125 medically-experimented-on Beagles.  Enter the local rescue in NJ:

Thirty beagles from a now-closed testing laboratory in Warren County were taken to St. Hubert’s Animal Welfare Center on Friday afternoon so they can be adopted.

[President of St. Hubert’s, Heather] Cammisa said she was told by former AniClin employees, who helped load the beagles in crates for transport, that all but one of the beagles were “naive,” meaning they had never been used for testing. The one beagle that had been used in testing is not expected to have any health problems.

The adoption effort in New Jersey involves St. Hubert’s and four other animal rescue groups: Mount Pleasant Animal Shelter in East Hanover, Noah’s Ark in Ledgewood, Monmouth County SPCA in Eatontown and Animal Alliance in Lambertville.

So hold up.

Best Friends didn’t take 125 Beagles.  They took some lesser amount and several local rescues stepped up for the rest.  Will Best Friends be sharing the donations with these local rescues?

All but one of these dogs were never used for medical testing.  When I revisit the donation plea, I notice wording such as “…finally freed from life in a medical testing lab” and “There’s no telling what life in a laboratory was like…”  Yeah I guess there’s “no telling”.  At least Best Friends hopes no one would tell.  Or use the Googlie.

According to Ms. Cammissa of St. Hubert’s, the Beagles in NJ will be up for adoption next week.  This is as it should be to my mind.  Dogs are not rescued in order to be held indefinitely and used for fundraising purposes.  That’s not “rescue”.  Sure there are special cases that come along but I can’t see how these dogs would qualify as special cases.

The beastesses look to be young, healthy and well cared for.  They probably have no home life skills but hey, they’re Beagles, they can figure it out.  And it puts them on the same level with the average shelter dog who was picked up roaming the streets – they’ll need to be introduced to a new life and taught basic house manners.  Dogs generally do very well in these situations.  The sooner they get into homes, the better.

How soon will Best Friends’ Beagles be up for adoption?  Or will they be in “one step closer to families” fundraising limbo forever?

Anyone have any additional info?  What’s your take on this situation?

Added, 2pm:  I just spoke with a credible source who wishes to remain anonymous.  This person strongly believes all the Beagles will be adopted out ASAP and not kept around for fundraising purposes.  I’m very glad to hear that.  Further, as far as this source knows, Best Friends has not taken any Beagles as of yet.  They are all being cared for by Pets Alive and several area rescues.

Added, 7pmThis article says the dogs will be up for adoption shortly and that Best Friends will pay for their care:

All the animals were in good health, [Pets Alive Executive Co-Director Matt] DeAngelis said.


DeAngelis expected the dogs would be available for adoption soon. That’s led to a new greeting at Pets Alive: How about a beagle? How about two?

Utah-based Best Friends Animal Society has promised to pay the cost of caring for the beagles for the first four months. Pets Alive hopes to find new homes for the dogs during that time, but will continue to care for them if necessary.

I’m glad to see this report but it’s unclear to me if Best Friends will be paying the actual cost of caring for the Beagles or will they just hand over $250 per day, per Beagle, as their donation form requests.  Further, I don’t know if Best Friends is paying for the care of Beagles at Pets Alive only or at all the rescues who have stepped up to help.  And of course if BFAS receives more donations than are required for the care of the Beagles, I guess that’s where the “we’ll use it where it’s most needed” part comes in.

100 thoughts on “Best Friends’ Billion Dollar Beagles

  1. Hey there, aren’t you making too big a thing of all this? I mean, I saw Best Friends helped some other dogs, spending a Million dollars (actually, $238.75, but that’s close) and about a year ago saved 600 dogs from certain death (actually 320, but two other groups did a little of it, and Best Friends actually took in 6 dogs, together with all the publicity and donations).

    You and all those rescues are just jealous! You spend all your time feeding animals and scooping poop, and Best Friends spends theirs counting money.

    Did you know that some volunteers who sign up to help with maintenance at their Kanab Sanctuary are put to work making repairs and improvements at their Founders homes? Don’t you just wish you could get some of that?

  2. After reading about the Beagle rescue on the Pets Alive site, I still can’t figure out what part Best Friends played other than contacting Pets Alive and maybe the other rescues. Was Best Friends even there? Pets Alive is requesting donations for naming the Beagles, but far less than what Best Friends says they need.

  3. Pets Alive has custody of 90, and began marketing them yesterday.

    While the dogs “lived their lives in small cages” “in isolation”, “have never walked on grass”, and were videotaped cringing and shaking, Pets Alive says they’ll begin selling them off in a week.

    BTW, the “animal rights” organization De Angelis refers to is Win Animal Rights

    “WAR believes that grass roots direct action campaigns are the most efficacious way to achieve our ultimate goal of total animal liberation. . .We are unapologetic supporters of the freedom fighters that call themselves the Animal Liberation Front.”

    Which, of course, is ALF–the domestic terrorists and arsonists.

    1. BIG UPS TO WAR!

      I don’t agree with them. Hell, I don’t even necessarily like them. But they found out about all these animals locked in to starve in a bankrupt lab and they started reaching out to people to help save their lives and get them out. That was a very, very good thing.

      I really don’t care if the tip about the animals came from Saddam Hussein in hell, they’re still worth rescuing.

  4. I can’t imagine that the $100s in vet care is a daily expense, nor the $25 S/N, the $10 microchip, and the $25 for toys. Unless they are transporting each dog one at a time in private cars I can’t understand the $250 transport fee (which also wouldn’t be a daily expense). Which leaves, how much is the staff at Best Friends paid to take care of the few dogs that end up there?

    I really hate seeing, “…and other pets at risk!” and “…we will use your donation in the area of greatest need!” That is usually the out for not spending the money on the beagles, but on anything.

    Me, I wouldn’t donate to this.

  5. Sure, they are using a situation that is getting a lot of press to fund raise and want to use the money for whatever they need it for. I don’t really have a problem with that as long as most of it goes to help some animals. They do have a large facility full of rescue animals that need daily care.

    Best Friends always seems more legit to me than some other high profile animal organizations I could mention (HSUS and PETA obviously). I guess my question is – do you have some belief or evidence they aren’t using most of the money in some way for the animals? I know HSUS spends only a tiny portion on anything other than lobbying, staff salaries and PR campaigns (and often, only when they are called out publicly by Best Friends, like happened during Katrina) and PETA spends next to nothing on animals. Best Friends does do a lot of primary care for animals.

    We had a high profile german shepherd abuse case out here, it got a lot of press, people made a lot of donations in the name of that dog, way more than were needed to care for that one dog who basically needed food and a new home, and some expensive vet care initially. I made my donation for “wherever you need it” because that is just how fund raising works.

    I do think the $250 figure is deceptive.

    1. Alison, the reason I question the money is because they are asking for $250 per day per Beagle. They aren’t saying we need $250 so we can use $25 of that on a Beagle each day and the rest on some other animals or whatever other stuff we deem important. As far as evidence, I have only my own common sense that tells me there’s no way anyone could possibly spend $250 a day on a Beagle – I don’t care what situation the dog was rescued from. And these dogs seem to be in pretty decent shape. You say you feel comfortable giving to “wherever it’s needed most” but unless someone looks at the fine print, as it were, they are thinking their $250 is going directly to a Beagle.

    2. Alison, I fully understand your comment about that shepherd. However, this is something that’s very difficult to find out in general. After hearing several stories, I one day walked into Dogtown Headquarters at Best Friends Animal Sanctuary. Spoke with two people behind the desk, one named Juliet. I told them the caregivers said that a certain dog really needed a something. I asked them if I made a directed donation to that dog, would the money go there. After much hesitation, Juliet admitted that ALL money donations go directly to the General Fund.

      Previously, repeat visitors had told me they rarely donate money for a dog. Instead, they buy the item. Further, they either hand-deliver it, or send it directly to a specific caregiver, never to just Dogtown.

      Does this hold for that Beagle money? That would be harder to tell. Is Best Friends passing on some of that money to others who took in Beagles? Unless that happens and they publicly thank BF, we’ll never know for sure.

  6. They don’t have any beagles … but they need money for their care. Wow, guess they’ve noted that it works well for HSUS.
    How disappointing.

  7. $250/day sounds ridiculous. I’ve asked BF on their FB page for a response.
    Otherwise, it’s just standard fundraising that EVERY SINGLE organization on the face of the earth does. If they really give the money donated to the organizations actually taking care of the animals, I don’t see a problem.

    1. Count me out on the “everybody else does it so that makes it ok” hayride. But I agree that they should give the money donated directly to the groups taking care of the Beagles. Since BFAS mentions making use of the money “where needed”, I am not overly confident in that prospect.

      1. I just think everyone should be held to the same standard. And that every group accused of malfeasance should be given a chance to explain. Perhaps even before an accusatory post goes up.

  8. I don’t think they’ve ever recovered from the days that their followers wore robes and begged for money in airport terminals. They were the Process Church back then.

  9. Thanks, Shirley, for catching this obvious and careless error. We caught it, too, but the message was already on its way. We owe an apology to all concerned.

    The email should have specified costs of $250 per dog, instead of $250 per dog, per day.

    Here is the scoop: We budgeted between $25-30k from existing programs to cover the The Great Beagle Escape with the expectation that it would likely cost more. Among other things those costs include the transport and installation of 100 kennels at Pets Alive Sanctuary by our staff and volunteers, the salary for an additional Pets Alive staff person to help handle the day-to-day care of the dogs for the estimated four month duration of the operation, spay / neuter of the dogs, veterinary costs, Best Friends staff time both on the ground at Pets Alive and networking the dogs, food, meds, toys, and then the tear down and re-transport of the 100 kennels at the end of the operation. $30,000 divided by 120 Beagles is $250 per dog. Our mistake was that it is $250 per dog for the operation, not per day. We missed that in editing. We certainly did not intend to mislead anyone, and our whole team is very embarrassed about this error.

    We informed Pets Alive up front that we would endeavor to recoup our expenses, which will be earmarked for a future rescue. We also let Pets Alive know we would be passing along funding to other participating groups, the amounts dependent on how much this appeal brings in over actual costs. Providing grants to grass roots programs and rescues is quite a normal thing for Best Friends to do.

    We also anticipate receiving some support for spay / neuter and micro-chipping for the Beagles from a granting foundation so, we do expect to be able to share additional funds raised with Pets Alive, St. Huberts and other receiving rescues.

    We are honored and grateful to be able to help these dogs discover a new life and find their forever homes. We are also thankful for the wonderful work of Pets Alive and the incredible dedication from our volunteers and the volunteers from Pets Alive.

    Anna Gonce
    Senior Manager
    Community Programs and Services
    Best Friends Animal Society

    1. Thing is, Gonce, you’re part of a Satanic church that has put on a new wrapper and is pretending to be a moral authority. Your organization rides these bandwagons to make money the way that it did what the Moonies did in the 1970s to make money.

      What you are trying to do to exotic animal owners is immoral and wrong. I have trouble believing that this was an honest mistake and I have seen this kind of pretense before.

      Every time someone sees the “Best Friends” magazine or organization they should see “Process Church.”

  10. The email should have specified costs of $250 per dog, instead of $250 per dog, per day.

    So do you have any of the dogs or does Pets Alive have them?

    1. On the Pets Alive website it says 120 beagles were delivered to their location from the labs. Thirty of which were taken to Hubert’s Animal Shelter where they will be vetted, cared for, and adopted from their facility. The rest remain at Pets Alive to be cared for and adopted out. So that leaves how many at Best Friends…

  11. how many people read the “retraction” portion of the newspaper?? or any magazine..??

  12. yup..Process Church = Best Friends.. easy to research.. easy to connect. easy to get the real “scoop”
    as for the “mistake”.. LOL.. not.. was it a “mistake ” when the HSUS said they had Vicks dogs?? a “mistake ” when they said they had Faye ( not Fay)..cynical minds want to know..

    and when will that HUGE retraction be coming out.. you know the one on the cover page of BF mag rag??

    They “owe an apology”?? how about a refund?? Yea sure.. when beagles fly..

    1. At first they collected their financing in soft drink cups in airport terminals. Now old widows like them better than they like their own family and they will their estates to them.

      It’s easy to play the retraction game.

  13. Just an FYI all – Best Friends is covering all the expenses for getting the beagles to Pets Alive, all their care there, an extra staff member to help, and also offered to take 30 dogs back to Utah. I’m all for crushing them in the Oreo debacle, and $250 a dog does sound a little off, and I will leave that to them to explain, but we should be clear that they are also covering all costs for the vetting of the dogs and altering.

    1. I am not for “crushing” anybody and I hope I haven’t given that impression. I just want to know the truth and I really resent all the spin put out there by the large animal welfare organizations. I find it misleading at best. This blog is just my opinion.

      I remain unclear on a number of issues:

      Does Best Friends HAVE (or planning to take) any of these Beagles and why would they offer to take 30 who needed special rehab or whatever they called it? How was it decided that 30 needed this special care?

      Were the 100 kennels transported from Utah to NY for these dogs? That makes no sense at all to me.

      How were these dogs kept intact and unvaccinated in the lab? Wouldn’t whatever study they were being used for have been regularly compromised when the males went off their food and spent their days & nights howling for the bitches in season? And the entire colony would potentially be at risk for loss if disease broke out which would flush the study down the drain. I am baffled on these issues.

      Finally, as far as the “oops – typo” explanation: In order to get the donation plea webpage to look the way it did, someone had to type in “per dog, per day” and then go back over it to make it a link and then go back over the “per day” part a second time to make it italics. And whoever was doing that for the webpage apparently had no clue that this was an outrageous figure and so didn’t question it. And whoever sent out the mass e-mail using the text from that page apparently didn’t catch it either. That may serve as a satisfactory explanation to some but I would guess, not to everyone.

      1. YesBiscuit, that’s a good point on the “typo” and the italics. Especially when you consider it was not done by a volunteer or a person who rarely does this like at a small shelter. The people in Anna’s building live right in the middle of DogTown, they do this often and are intimately familiar with what’s reasonable. It would have been trivial to at least follow the email message I received from BFAS with an immediate correction.

        HOWEVER, no such email has as yet arrived.
        AND, your original link (to has NOT been corrected.

        Perhaps they will fix that later, if the donations are high enough…or people yell loud enough.

      2. Ahh…it did happen. Another email just came in from BFAS.
        “We do want to clear up a mistake we made in the email we sent on Friday to announce the rescue and ask for donations: that email stated that our costs for this rescue would be $250 per dog, per day. This is incorrect, and should have read $250 per dog, period. We are truly sorry for the error.”

        Now, let’s see if they correct your original link.

      3. Three words for exfriender here: Michael Vick’s dogs. Just about a million dollars for special psychiatric care for four dogs. When will you ever be able to make a score like that again? This is a lot more lucrative than begging for spare change at airport terminals.

      4. @Tom: a million dollars for 4 dogs? No, you are completely incorrect.
        The (not quite) “million” was for ALL the Vick dogs that went to several different organizations and for generalized, not “psychiatric” care, whatever that might be (in point of fact, most of the dogs needed little other than decent food and treatment and some training before they could go on to the rest of their lives). A little research will lead you to the court document which specifies the amounts and organizations. It was the COURT that ordered the less-adoptable dogs to BF. Does truth matter to you at all or does hatred of BF justify any lie.?

      5. EmilyS, you are quite right, in every way. I didn’t respond directly to Tom, as he was so far off the mark that it wasn’t worth trying. While there were many issues that later came out in the care provided those dogs, wild and baseless accusations like his serve only to turn people away from real issues.

  14. The explanation they gave is pure nonsense. I have seen them inflate the costs of things just to get in more donations. They are outright liars. They spend more of your donations on making more money than on animal care. Did you never notice the slick mag they put out? It used to be twice a year but they realized they could get more money in every time they sent it out so it now goes out 6 times a year. Looks nice, doesn’t it? Every wonder how much it costs? A mag like that is not cheap. They are all spin doctors and most of the spins only include a small amount of truth. They know how to play on your sympathy for animals. Wise up people and give your money to a place that will use it better. Support your local shelters and rescues.

      1. This is not most magazines. If you donate to BF you donate to the printing of the mag. I would rather see that my money goes to helping animals than making more money for BF. Give to you local shelters and you can watch your money at work: helping animals, not supporting the Founders.

    1. I don’t remember off the top of my head if Best Friends participated in puppy mill raids and asked for greatly inflated “costs of care” from the victims of the raids, but that is par for the course.

      Asking for donations to pay for inflated expenses related to this project gives the public the false impression that the laboratory was taking poor care of the animals. Someone here also seemed to get the impression that the owners of the laboratory were going to just walk away and let the animals starve.

      Best Friends has also taken a stand against the ownership of exotic animals, so I despise them just for that. They can’t do enough good to make up for what they attempt to do to our rights to our private property, our privacy, and to choose what pet is best for us.

  15. From Wikipedia:

    The Process, or in full, The Process Church of the Final Judgment, commonly known by non-members as the Process Church, was a religious group that flourished in the 1960s and 1970s, founded by the Englishman Robert DeGrimston (originally, Robert Moor) and Mary Anne MacLean. It originally developed as a splinter client cult group from Scientology,[1] so that they were declared “suppressive persons” by L. Ron Hubbard in December 1965. In 1966 the members of the group underwent a social implosion and moved to Xtul on Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula, where they developed “processean” theology (which differs from, and is unrelated to process theology). They later established a base of operations in the United States in New Orleans.

    They were often viewed as Satanic on the grounds that they worshipped both Christ and Satan. Their belief is that Satan will become reconciled to Christ, and together will come at the end of the world to judge humanity, Christ to judge and Satan to execute judgment. Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor of the Charles Manson Family trial, comments in his book Helter Skelter that there may be evidence Manson borrowed philosophically from the Process Church, and that representatives of the Church visited him in jail after his arrest. According to one of these representatives, the purpose of the visit was to interview Manson about whether he had ever had any contact with Church members or ever received any literature about the Church. As a result of a lawsuit, the publisher of Ed Sanders’ book The Family agreed to remove the chapter about the Process from this book.[citation needed]
    In April, 1974 Robert DeGrimston was removed by the Council of Masters as Teacher. They renounced The Unity, his exposition of the above-noted doctrines, and most of his other teachings. DeGrimston attempted to restart the Process Church several times, but he could never replace his original following. Following DeGrimston’s removal the group underwent a significant change in orientation and renamed itself the Foundation Faith of the Millennium. Further changes in both name and focus followed, and the organization eventually became the Best Friends Animal Society, which is now one of America’s best known animal welfare rescue groups.

    So, Best Friends started as the Process Church, which is a splinter group from Scientology. Fascinating.

    1. Pretty whitewashed I would say.. if you do a bit more research you will find lots more about The Process Church of the Final Judgment ( the whole name for the cult) but really who cares.. religion should have nothing to do with this

    2. All things considered, knowing what has been going on, the belief system of a large chain of humane society franchises is crucial. I can tell you in layman’s terms what it means when you have a love child between Satan and Jesus: The religion is two-faced. It stands firmly on both sides of the fence and caters to whoever it wishes.

      You could also say that it yanks people both directions at once, or that it’s the worst of both worlds. They want the power of Satan and Christ, they want to be able to push and pull, and they’re more than a little confused. It’s still a strategy for sucking the life out of humanity.

      For some reason people are having trouble understanding what is behind animal rights activism. They put up a front. People see the front. They can’t resolve the contradiction between “it’s for the good of the animals” and the millions killed by the humane societies. The fact is that the contradiction is on purpose, as in running up the flags of Satan and Jesus on the same pole.

      A balance of forces would be a good thing if we approached it in an egalitarian manner, all humans being pretty much equal, our rights protected, acknowledging that we live in the real world, but the same balancing act can be used to force us to live on a knife-edge, treading a very narrow path doing the bidding of people who don’t care about our joy in life except to exploit it.

  16. Hi YesBiscuit,

    Matt from Pets Alive here. I don’t think BF is spinning in this case. I think they screwed up.

    Best Friends was planning to take the 30 Beagles who needed the most work to be adoptable. Because of the publicity (including from this blog), there is a tremendous demand for the Beagles, and we are all thrilled. Hopefully Best Friends won’t have to take that many back with them. 30 was an estimate.

    No…Best Friends is setting up rapid deployment pods throughout the country for stuff like this. To their credit, Best Friends has ALWAYS been there with people and funds whenever we needed their assistance, most recently when we brought back 70 dogs from a failed shelter in West Virginia. Conversely we try to help them wherever we can.

    The pods are a great idea and will be used by many organizations in many situations. They are a great idea and they’re not cheap.

    Can you BELIEVE these dogs were kept intact? I was absolutely STUNNED myself. They wouldn’t let us anywhere near where the dogs were kept, but I’m wondering if the dogs were kept apart by gender (in different areas or rooms or even buildings). They did seem in relatively good health, though their nails were long and they stunk pretty bad. Now, a few days later, it is obvious to me (and maybe I’m just imagining it), which dogs were experimented on and which were the control group. There are some that definitely seem like they need some mental and emotional rehab.

    And back to the typo. You have to remember that we had less than 24 hours to deploy, and there are always glitches that pop up. Usually they’re not this glaring (for example, we had to scramble for crates when we got there because there were some BIG @SS Beagles there. PetSmart to the rescue!)

    Best Friends is really, really good at improvising and getting stuff done fast. And BF and PA have worked to together for years now, months at a time. I trust Best Friends’ employees as if they were my own. In fact, I’m off tomorrow and the Best Friends managers on the ground at Pets Alive are sitting at my desk, touching my stuff and even using my personal walkie-talkie (yes, that’s how much I trust them).

    Look…you can’t get bigger without maximizing your media exposure. We aren’t that great at it. That’s why we are a $1 million a year charity and they are a $30 million a year charity. But they do give it back. In spades.

    I enjoy your blog and it’s one of the ones I read regularly.

    If anyone ever has any questions or comments you will never get the runaround from Kerry or me. You can always email us at info AT It goes to both of us.


    1. So you’re good enough to help them move the dogs but not good enough to look at where the dogs are kept? What are they refusing to let you see? At best that’s a dominance game.

      1. Sorry, I misunderstood. If I were the laboratory personnel I wouldn’t have let any of them in either.

  17. SOP in these rescues is that they are hostage situations. We will do whatever they want us to do until the animals are free.

    Then all bets are off.

    1. Then you’re going to turn around and badmouth the laboratories, aren’t you? Look at what Bill Smith has done to the Amish and other breeders in Pennsylvania. You want some of that action, don’t you?

      Hostages? They are going above and beyond the call of duty, at their own expense, to let you have those animals. They are exposing themselves as targets of AR terrorism, and don’t you even think of saying “black helicopters” like Amber did because this kind of terrorism against laboratories has been ongoing probably since before you were born. I respect the caring of the laboratory workers, who have nothing to gain and a lot to lose, a lot more than I respect an organization that gets free money when they do this with lax accountability.

      Your great adventures in humane rescue are either illegal attacks against legal businesses, as in “puppy mill” raids, or they are when you have extorted concessions from businesses that have more real concern for the animals than you do, otherwise they would destroy them to keep them out of your hands.

  18. Thank you Matt for offering a runaround free e-mail address. I’m sure you’ll get taken up on that. And thank you to everyone taking care of the Beagles. Don’t underestimate them. Whatever their lives before, I know they will do well in homes with families. That’s the Beagle way.

    My final word on the subject: If I was the head honcho at Best Friends, my choice would have been to send out a fundraising plea which said –

    “We are coordinating rescue for a bunch of Beagles. Please donate directly to Pets Alive and St. Hubert’s as they care for these dogs and get them ready for adoption.”

    FYI – The “typo” about it costing “$250 per dog, per day” remains on the BFAS webpage linked in the post as of 9 a.m. today.

    1. Hi Shirley,

      That webpage you are linking to is the web version of the email that was sent out. It is produced automatically when we create and send out an email by the program that we use to send out our emails.

      To my knowledge it may not be possible to alter that page. I will look into whether or not it’s something we can do. I also would be hesitant to do so, lest it then look as if we were trying to “cover up” the mistake.

      We did, as you may have noticed, send out a follow up email to our supporters explaining the error.


  19. No argument about the plea, except since they raise 30 times what we do every year I’m probably not the one they would ask for fundraising advice.

    This is difficult work done by dedicated people. Every single thing we do is scruitinized and second guessed by armchair quarterbacks with no other objective then to tear us down. Blue Dog State is a great example. It’s disheartening after saving these animals to read the distortions and downright lies. But once that passes the joy of saving the animals still remains.

    There are legitimate arguments and legitimate debates,even among the best of friends. Everyone thinks that Best Friends and Pets Alive are going to sever ties over disagreeing on Oreo’s Law. Well, duh, we save animals, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do together.

    We are battling the ASPCA on Oreo’s Law. We get animals from the Mayor’s Alliance all the time. That’s what this is about.

    I don’t agree with a lot of the fundraising tactics. I don’t think Pets Alive does ENOUGH fundraising. But there’s a line of trust with our supporters that we won’t cross. And that may keep us from getting too big.

    Getting tens of millions of dollars in donations changes an organization. Luckily we have people yapping at our heels criticizing us for every little thing we do, magnifying every mistake. We’re human, just like you.

    So we try to pick our battles, and Oreo’s Law was a good one to pick. Naysayers take your best shot, but when you want to stop trying to sensationalize and distort and start debating, come find me.

    The Beagle rescue was fantastic. One of my favorite mass rescues of all time. I will contact the BF management this morning and tell them about the home page.

    Thanks again Biscuit for keeping the debate going.


    1. And frankly, I think that the “beagle rescue” was the usual swindle. I don’t go for bashing laboratories. I am even more suspicious of those who sound like they might be doing good deeds in this rescue industry because they might have learned how to smooth things over better.

      I don’t like it when the person who I am talking with can always duck back to the cover of what they think of as a high, unquestioned moral authority, even if that authority wasn’t some greasy pinstripe from Chicago. Yeah, I guess that “greasy pinstripe” is its own ethnicity.

      Your organization may or may not be a good one. I have no convenient way of knowing. The industry that you are part of has killed and sterilized a lot of animals, which is a genocide that I do not think even the canine species can afford. This industry also sends rude men to pretend that owners of exotics are being cruel to their animals when those animals are in fine shape. Being part of that industry places you under suspicion and fails to make you moral authority, unless you subscribe to the theory that the worst of human beings become moral authority.

      I’m seeing a little too much smooth talking coming from the direction of the Process Church and I’ve seen the term “destructive humanity” in the tracts that the Process Church leaves in its waiting rooms. You are under suspicion because of the industry that you are part of and because of the company that you keep, Matt and Amber. I’m sick of being “under suspicion” for being a pet owner, for being a meat eater, for wanting to own a lion or a tiger, or for just being human, and that “suspicion” coming from groups that make a profit by being nasty to humans for being human.

      I am thoroughly sick of organizations that pretend to be humane but run the cruelty flag up the pole every time they want to do someone in. Those organizations should be jailed for fraud.

      1. Huh?

        We didn’t “rescue” the Beagles? What would you call it then? Relocation?

        YOU: I don’t like it when the person who I am talking with can always duck back to the cover…rant rant rant

        What? I’m sorry but it’s tough to debate people I can’t understand. I haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Now is about the time I regret opening my mouth to try to explain things because the crazies start to gather.

        YOU: Your organization may or may not be a good one. I have no convenient way of knowing.

        Uh, yeah, you kinda do. You can COME HERE and look around for yourself instead of sitting there on your high horse and criticizing everyone.

        YOU: The industry that you are part of…rant rant rant.

        I’m part of an industry now? Really? If you mean the no-kill movement, of which we are proudly a part, we haven’t KILLED any animals. No-kill, get it? And yes, we spay and neuter. No apologies for that.

        Not really sure what to say about the Process Church rant. I’m not a member, so I’ll let them speak for yourself. And I don’t think you’re under suspicion because you’re a pet owner — I think you’re under suspicion because you’re insane.

        YOU: I am thoroughly sick of organizations that pretend to be humane but run the cruelty flag up the pole every time they want to do someone in….

        You’re absolutely right. These Beagles were kept isolated in cages just barely bigger than them with metal sides so they couldn’t see any other animals or humans. They had smoke blown into their noses and stuff injected into them, leaving some with permanent scarring. They were in windowless buildings and have never seen the sun or walked on the grass or felt the touch of a human hand. But we are overusing the word cruel, and locking the doors when they left and leaving the animals to starve to death was perfect from the moral perspective you claim to hold.

        Please. Increase your dosage.

      2. Matt, altogether a well put reply. Unfortunately, as you suspected, it will not change him. However, it will give a few other more of a perspective on you; a good one, I think.

        Regarding Best Friends, I see them as a curious hybrid, quite unlike the other large orgs. Over the years, I have worked with many dedicated, hard working and talented people there. I have never denied that.

        However, many of their stories are far beyond just stretching the truth. Many times they are so focused on control that outside suggestions or assistance are not just ignored, but may be attacked.

        Earlier here, John Dunn indicated difficulty in changing that incorrect web page. It could simply be modified to explain the error, noting what was there so no cover up is implied. As for how to do it? BF has had network and web issues for years. Several friends, very experienced in those areas, offered several times to assist them for no charge, to fix issues and train some of their people. This was rejected without any discussion, and a large amount of donor money was spent instead.

        As for attacks, speak to some of the locals who used to try and help them, or many of the former employees who were driven away.

      3. Matt, you had the chance to take the high road with your reply and you blew it. I would encourage you and your friends to keep talking though, because we have a lot of ground to cover that you should have covered when you joined the rescue business.

        If you want to talk about sitting on your high horse and judging, there is probably not a laboratory anywhere that does not know in detail about the fraud that was perpetrated against Edward Taub’s laboratory in Silver Springs. The deed that put PETA on the map was a staged event by a person, Alex Pacheco, who had the power to make sure that the monkeys involved were well fed and in clean cages, and who staged some of his photographs.

        Since then laboratories have had no reason to give you anything. After all the things I’ve read about “rescues” and after PETA’s stunts I trust the laboratories before I trust the animal rescuers. This distrust also has a lot to do with rhetoric like you have just attempted to use against me.

        No, you didn’t exactly “rescue” the beagles. You found them new homes. Good for you. You saved the laboratory the trouble but you turn around and you badmouth them so they shouldn’t have given you anything and I applaud their decision to keep you out of the building. They can’t trust you, Matt. They cannot trust you or your organization. They also have no obligation to help me to protect my rights from Best Friends or Pets Alive unless I do something for them. If nothing else this would just be fair commerce.

        I am glad that you lost it and made comments about my sanity and my unwillingness to use neuroleptic drugs to make myself politically sane. That one is a keeper.

        The laboratory workers were the better people this time. They gave you the animals knowing that you would hurt them for it because they care about the animals.

  20. see Blue Dog State today.. lots about Matt and the beagles…Will you be prosecuting the lab owners for animal cruelty…as you wold if this were a “regular” rescues.. how do you know some of these animals “never felt a human touch” .. or “never walked on grass”..’ nor “seen the sun”.. these are emotional pleas that we see everyday from HSUS as they conspire to remove animals from our possession and ownership.. every rescue is the “worst we have ever seen”.. and “horrendous”.. while I have no doubts that these dogs needed new homes.. your pleas ring false when some of us who have been following “rescues” for some time see the same thing over and over again… and really “stuff’ injected into them?? not very scientific….they could have had water injected.. you and I are not sure .. so why mention it.. we all know why..I think people would be more sympathize ( those of us who know what is happening) if your please were more honest.. instead of the same verbiage every time a dog is “rescued”

    Again will these people be prosecuted/// will Pets Alive bring charges?? Will you have proof of your claims of no sun, never a human hand.. etc..and does that constitute actual cruelty?

    1. YOU: Will you be prosecuting the lab owners for animal cruelty…as you wold if this were a “regular” rescues (sic) …

      What’s a “regular” rescue? And how could I prosecute anyone? I’m not a prosecutor or LEO. Also the lab is in another state. Not to mention the fact that labs are exempt from animal cruelty laws. What’s your point?

      YOU: ‘how do you know some of these animals “never felt a human touch”

      Uh…I was at the facility and talked to workers and the vet that had been caring for them.

      YOU: .. or “never walked on grass”..’
      See the above. Also, see the videos.

      YOU: ”.. these are emotional pleas that we see everyday from HSUS as they conspire to remove animals from our possession and ownership..

      Huh? Are you saying these animals belonged to the lab and therefore DESERVED to be left to die there? WHAT?

      YOU: your pleas ring false when some of us who have been following “rescues” for some time see the same thing over and over again..

      Excuse me? Uh…here’s a thought. Maybe there have been more than one rescue?

      YOU: and really “stuff’ injected into them?? not very scientific….they could have had water injected.. you and I are not sure .. so why mention it…

      Oh, so injecting WATER into these dogs is okay. Hmmm. Why mention it? Because they told me the dogs were used for toxicity testing, meaning that they had liquids injected into them to see how long it would take for them to get sick. But yeah, maybe they just injected water into healthy dogs. That’s ok.

      YOU: we all know why..I think people would be more sympathize ( those of us who know what is happening) if your please (sic) were more honest.. instead of the same verbiage every time a dog is “rescued”.

      Um…please show me where the “verbiage” I used in this case was the same as any other case. Our supporters who aren’t insane actually want the details and want to be a part of what we do. And by supporters I mean the people who put on their Pets Alive T-shirts, come to the sanctuary and help with the animals we rescue.

      Many never make monetary donations. And we love them all.

      Have I stepped into an alternate universe?

    2. Excuse me, but WHY do these people need to be prosecuted? They relinquished the dogs. The dogs are alive, they are safe, they are not in terrible shape.
      Threatening prosecution sends a very negative message to any and every other lab to shut up and cover up. How will THAT help the animals?!
      Are we not even wise enough to know that we should not bite the hand that feeds us?
      Um, and this would be why puppy millers have no trouble getting thousands of dollars for their ill-bred minions. They are NICE to adopters!
      What goes around, comes around. If the animals come first, then each of us might wish to rethink our stance on several issues.

      1. castrating healthy normal dogs is OK.. but other forms of “abuse” are not??.. many times I have injected water into my own dogs.. to hydrate them.. and many times I have injected them with vaccines.. etc.. probably made from tests done on animals..I have to agree with Tom.. if the lab were really unconcerned about the animals they would have put them all down.. who did Pet Alive know about them?? And yes i would expect that any organization ( even in another state) would pursue cruelty charges against the owners of the labs or at the very least abandonment charges.. are labs allowed to abandon animals?? I think not..
        Lynn.. have been following any “rescues” of dogs other than labs?? MANY people are charges with cruelty even after “relinquishment” of their pets. Just because you “sign them over” does not mean you won;t be charges.. see the case of Mr Pang in Hawaii for a good example.. HSUS took his animals ( after the signed them over).. did not feed them for five days.. then videoed them and of course put it front and center on their website as a begathon.. then had Mr. Pang charged with “animal cruelty”.. ..
        so labs should ‘skate” while average citizens should not??

      2. Maybe I should answer why those people need to be prosecuted, but take it as a bit sarcastic.

        The laboratory should be prosecuted for letting those scrounges get near their dogs. When you give something up to those people they will punish you in some way or another. This helps erase the effect of the good deed that you did for the dogs.

        They want you to think that I am insane, even if they aren’t very good at stating that thesis, because I can analyze the transactions that actually go on here. This is the simple truth that is staring us in the face. They ask for a favor from a laboratory that they find out is closing. They get that favor then they turn around and abuse that laboratory in the media. This is defecating where they sleep, but I never claimed that they were the sharpest tools in the shed.

        It seems like a principle to me. When one deals with some people one may deserve to be skinned, if just a little, and it’s likely that the same people are going to do that skinning. That’s what Pets Alive has done to this laboratory.

        I think that’s the way that the rescuers see it even if they can’t admit it to themselves. There’s a definite “snickering into their sleeves” feel to all this.

    3. Thank you, Alice. This is exactly the swindle that Bill Smith of MLAR pulls and it’s exactly how Smith treats the Amish.

      They could have chosen the high road but if they did that would disable their entire program.

      1. yes it is true.. how many times have you seen HSUS or any other group that “rescues” pets say .. we would like to thank Mr Pang ( for an example)for seeing that he was overwhelmed and for giving us the opportunity to help these animals”.. I can tell you ..Never… that would not make for good press.. who would be demonized? Why would anyone send money? In the world of “rescue” there has to be a “bad guy”..even if it is just a little old lady who had too many cats.. circumstances are “unsanitary.. horrendous.. the worst we have ever seen .. on a scale of one to ten.. this is an eleven.. etc..”.. animals who have never.. take your pick
        1. had a human touch
        2. seen the sun
        3. been clean
        4. all of the above
        and are
        1.emaciated (said of some sight hounds who have been ‘rescued”)
        2. lying in knee deep feces
        3. swimming in urine
        4. have no access for food or water
        5 live in “cages
        6.all of the above
        The people who kept them are
        1. Cruel
        2. Abusive
        3. neglectful
        4. Uneducated
        5. Stupid
        6. Will turn out to be serial killers
        7 All of the above

        Mr Pang is just one example.. raided with official like “badges’ and threatened .. and maligned and more.. when all he did was turn for help..and he was trashed.. like many others.. by groups that need a scapegoat..and they always do.. how else would they get MONEY??
        The beagle incident is just one more in a long line of “rescues’ that could have been handled in a manner that was fair to everyone..not to mention.. and I don’t think anyone has.. how does this reflect on the animals rights stance that NO animals should be used in research.. another “notch in their belt” to keep legitimate labs from saving millions of lives both human and animal through research..
        I do not see any declaration from pet Alive claiming that although they have these dogs.. no inference should be made to ALL laboratory animals.. or is that on purpose??

        I note that too busy too reply Matt says that the dogs were “injected with toxic substances until they became ill” Really?? which ones? He is not sure but HE can tell which ones were “experimented on”.. Really??

        This kind of statement makes those of us who follow rescues very wary.. as we should be.. and as the rest of the public should be as well.. He makes the labs research seem frivolous.. Is it? Who knows…but as someone else said.. it sure sends a other labs.. close your doors.. let NO ONE in.. and destroy what you cannot use. how does that help animals..

  21. PS = I have a lot of work to do so I can’t participate in any more of today’s Looney Fest.

    Please carry on without me…maybe talk to your alternate personalities?


    1. It looks like the high road has just suffered from a mudslide. Thank you, Matt.

      If they are so correct and moral why are they abusive?

      1. People tend to take you considerably less seriously after you express concern that you may be under suspicion for “wanting to own a lion or a tiger”. Just sayin’. Keep going, though, you’re hilarious.

        Really, take a look at Tom’s website:

        “The deceivers have persuaded us that every pet lion, tiger, alligator, snake, and other exotic animal is a liability.” Yup. Pretty sure keeping lions is a liability.

        “Ending animal cruelty is a bad idea.” This is actually one of your bullet points. Holy shit, dude.

        “It also jacks up the price so that instead of five to ten thousand dollars a year to keep a generic tiger it can cost ten to a hundred times as much, and someone gets that money.” You seem really fixated on tigers.

        “Kim Carlton walked his pet tigers to the mall and let people pet them. I think that was a very good thing that taught people to be comfortable around animals that we live with. Were the children at risk? It was a good kind of risk.” Tigers again! And also… NO.

        “Ask the autistic child who comes out of his shell to hug a cheetah what that experience is worth.” I will. All one of them.

        “No pet tigers have ever broken loose and harmed someone off the property that they live on.” No, they usually kill people on the property they live on – a long and well-documented history.

        That’s just on PAGE 1, for God’s sake. You’re a tiger-obsessed animal cruelty cheerleader who needs professional help – BADLY.

      2. Jim, did you ever notice that attempts to end animal cruelty rebound badly against pet owners and that the endpoint is the annihilation of domestic and wild animals? Yes, it is a bad idea to try to end animal cruelty that way. If you want to end animal cruelty do something kind, stop worrying about what other people are doing and stop trying to beat them down.

        In re everything else, you’re really not helping your case. And thank you for reading my blog.

  22. Seems like I read somewhere that this lab went bankrupt … and instead of just locking the doors with the dogs inside, they turned them over to a rescue so in a way, it’s not a rescue in it’s truest sense, it’s an acceptance of dogs from one entity to another.

    I could be wrong with that information … will have to try to do some research tonight on it. Maybe it was BlueDog, but if my memory isn’t playing tricks on me, then the lab was doing a good thing.

    I wonder if in this day and current political environment if Pavlov would be so criticized? Probably … as he was known to shock a dog from time to time and chickens …

    1. Pavlov surgically moved the salivary gland to the outside of the dog and attached a tube to their face to measure the saliva. Although described as a minor operation, the visual would be ripe for distribution today I’m sure.

      1. oh goodness, yes, surely that would be quite controversial … forgot about that.

        Wonder if we’d have ever gotten to click and treat if he’d have been subjected to today’s moral’s?

        Interesting thought … no?

  23. “We were delayed as the previous owner filed a court motion to stop the beagles from “being given away for free” and wanted to sell them to another lab. A judge ruled in our favor….”

    This is from the main page of the Pets Alive site:

    1. That’s legalized theft. If the owner could legally sell them then none of the rescue groups had standing to sue them and suing them shouldn’t even be legal. Amazing what happens when you actually read websites. This is a lot worse than I thought.

  24. God. Small minds. Let me help you out here.

    1. That wonderful lab you keep praising planned electrical shock testing on the Beagles but then went bankrupt before they could start.

    2. They are in receivership, meaning that they no longer OWN the Beagles…the creditors do.

    3. Those same creditors were paying $60,000 a month for the beagles to be cared for.

    4. The receivers (Bank of America) tried to sell the Beagles to another lab. No one wanted them.

    5. The former CEO wanted more time to sell them, and the receivers didn’t want to keep shelling out $60,000 a month. There was no benevolence here.

    I honestly couldn’t care less about splitting hairs on whether this was a rescue. All of the beagles will likely be in forever homes while your think tank here is still ruminating over the color of the drapes in the HQ building.

    1. I wonder if they went bankrupt fighting you well-mannered people, or if it was the insurance costs which are through the roof because of terrorist activities.

  25. So BofA was the owner of the dogs?? Funny you would think they would want to recoup some of their investment.. but probably will write it off as they do short sales and foreclosures.. and now now here comes Matt telling us about the big bad lab that was going to SHOCK the beagles.. but didn’t get a chance to.. no one is praising the lab..But you are the only one trashing them.. was their research legitimate? Were they actually doing something to help mankind? I guess a better question would be.. what is Pets Alive stance on legitimate animal research.. Support.. or Oppose?

  26. Sigh.


    One more time.

    The lab was in RECEIVERSHIP. Bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy proceeding the assets of the bankrupt entity are distributed to the creditors.

    There is a judge that presides over the process and appoints a RECEIVER to keep track of stuff. A trustee if you will.

    The creditors were the owners of the animals. The (federal) judge was responsible for their disposition and Bank of America was paid to care for them. Ok. Next.

    The big bad lab WAS about to shock the beagles. At least according to someone who actually WORKED there.

    What is Pets Alive’s stance on Animal Research? Beats the hell out of me. I can give you MY stance on animal research — it’s largely outdated and unnecessary. There are complex computer models and AI programs that can be used instead. There are also in vitro methods which don’t thrill me and actually human testing where people are paid to inhale stuff and have it rubbed on their skin voluntarily.

    Google ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL TESTING and you’ll get plenty of info.

    Now I have to go make dinner and do some more work. This thread was really enlightening and I thank all of you for it. I am really, really surprised that there are so many of you that are this cynical about the work we do and this willing to defend and condone what is done to animals by labs like this one.

    Kind of makes me sad.

    1. Cynical about a fascist movement that is harming a lot of humans and killing a lot of animals? Perish the thought that I should have a problem with it.

  27. We being whom?

    They went bankrupt because the market for animal testing is shrinking and they are not real good business people obviously.

    And they didn’t pay to “fight” us. Sigh. It was a bankruptcy proceeding. Do you people have any comprehension skills at all?

    I honestly can’t believe I am sitting here answering your ludicrous notions that the bankrupt lab that locked the animals in to die was the victim here.

    Have a great night.

  28. Tom…

    Do you know what a fascist is?

    If you did you would know that it is impossible for us to be fascists.

    This was fun for a little while but now it’s getting kind of sad.

  29. Matt DeAngelis Says:
    July 6, 2010 at 8:11 pm
    I am really, really surprised that there are so many of you that are this cynical about the work we do and this willing to defend and condone what is done to animals by labs like this one.
    I would guess that the overwhelming majority of people (I would say “everyone” but I know that would be inviting trouble) are relieved and happy to see these dogs out of the abandoned lab and into rescue on their way to permanent homes.

  30. FYI all,

    I would consider moving an animal’s glands outside of their bodies abuse. If it was done today in an FDA approved lab it would be perfectly legal and acceptable.

    But it would still be morally wrong as it was then.

    1. I certainly consider it abuse as well Matt. There is no place for animal testing anymore it is unjustifiable. I’m not sure what a ‘true rescue’ is but I think this scenario would fit any definition of just that.
      There is no way these dogs would of had the quality of life they deserve if sold to another research lab. You RESCUED them from inevitable abuse and neglect. They will have a greatly improved quality of life thanks to your organization and others involved.
      All politics aside, the future of these beagles is much brighter now and they are deserving of it. This should ultimately be a happy ending.

      1. I didn’t ask if it was right or wrong.
        I could have guessed the answer on that without asking that question. Which I didn’t.

        I wondered if we would know as much as we do about how the mind and body works in reference to learning principles if Pavlov and others who were studying similar things had they been subjected to the same mores of today.

        Things could have been quite different … and not so good for dogs and other critters … maybe even kids.

        Would we have Ian Dunbar the same way we do today? Would we have Susan Garrett?

        Maybe someone else would have just noticed?

      2. Susan, of course we learned more due to those animal experiments. Human medicine also learned a considerable amount from the Nazi human experiments. The issues are not black and white, but are ethical and moral issues as to the relative cost and benefit of any such experiments. Questions that should be addressed in the light of day, and not hidden behind walls or politicians.

        So, the answer to your question is obviously “no”, but that does not prove anything here.

  31. Your theories about “substitution” for animal testing don’t hold water Matt. But at least it give us an idea about where you are coming form as far as animal RIGHTS are concerned..There is plenty of “info” all right… none of it scientific.. plenty from PETA though..
    “according to some one who worked there “.. wow now that is real evidence of coming abuse.. could it be from a disgruntled worker who lost his/her job?? $60,000 pr month per dog is $500 per dog.. that is not of money to NOT feed and abuse dogs.
    you miss the point Matt.. many of us a happy to see the dogs in new homes.. it is how they get there that is disturbing.. your comments and accusations about abuse,, no sun.. no grass.. etc.. all lead to people thinking that ALL labs are like this.. and I can see by your personal comment that you believe this to be true..however many of us support animal research as we all know it SAVES LIVES.. and not only human ones.but animal lives too..I would hate to think that my vet was operating on my dog after only being “trained’ an a computer model.. in fact if I knew that I would change vets…
    Have a great dinner I know i will .. steaks are on the grill.. dogs are standing by

  32. “I would consider moving an animal’s glands outside of their bodies abuse. If it was done today in an FDA approved lab it would be perfectly legal and acceptable.

    But it would still be morally wrong as it was then.”

    says Matt.. well now that about says it all..thanks for letting us know your stance on valuable animal research that has saved millions of human and animal lives.

  33. Matt,
    It is a waste of your energy to respond to people who are mentally disturbed. I really appreciate your passion. Keep up the good work, and please, take care of yourself, and don’t waste time on folks who just want to fight.
    Thank you, and God bless.

  34. I’m confused or else I have the poor reading comprehension skills.

    Is there a link where I can get credible verification of the claim that the lab(?) “locked their doors” and left the animals alone to starve. I’ve heard of “foreclosed” animal owners being locked out of their property and PREVENTED from caring for the animals. The story being presented here just doesn’t sound right.

  35. If you guys are wondering what Best Friends did for the Beagles, let me tell you, briefly:
    Best friends coordinated the ENTIRE beagle rescue operation and paid for it as well. The beagles were physically located at Pets Alive and were adopted out from there, but Pets Alive did not pay for the costs of the beagles’ housing, care, food, medical, etc- that’s what Best Friends did.
    To come up with the $250 I would imagine that they are including in that number the price it cost them to obtain and transport the beagles, hire extra staff to care for them, build dog-runs for them in one of Pets Alive’s horse pastures, feed them, and provide medical care for them. Doing all of that wasn’t easy, and for those of you who are so livid and foul towards these animal organizations, why don’t you all go take a look at PETA, if you want something to freak out about:–five-years-after-PETAs-Piggly-Wiggly-dumpster-incident

    1. Your problem is that you are another cult that is trying to gather money at the expense of humans and animals, to their extreme detriment. Come back and talk to me when you have started helping us to preserve our right to own dogs, cats, and other domestic and exotic animals. Until then you will be hated.

      1. In other words I am quite certain that Best Friends puts on these spectacles to legitimize its attempts to control animal ownership.

    2. E, what you say may be true, or may not, in whole or in part. You never said how you “know” this, just that it’s a fact. Yes, a piece of it was mentioned by Pets Alive. But, BFAS has previously claimed credit for many things done by others. Nor has BFAS bothered to correct their original donation plea, cited at the top of this blog.

      In a BFAS internal email of Jun 28 to their staff, BFAS said in part, “It would be awesome if you could spend some time today and over the weekend posting to different on-line sites where there is a dialogue about the issue.” So, are you officially representing BFAS? Do you work there?

      In July of last year, other issues were raised about BFAS on the ASPCA community forum. A long defense, similar to yours, was posted by a Jennifer Connors, a supposed visitor to BFAS. However, she failed to cover her tracks. Her screen name was linked to a jamie_b01 email in Kanab, then identified as a daughter of one of the BFAS founders (Mahoney), and working at BFAS in Kanab. So, BFAS has a history of such posts on blogs.

      Further, few here are “livid and foul”, but are instead raising questions and discussing issues. With those terms, you are ranting against them simply as they said things that you didn’t like. PETA is already well known here, if you had only taken the time to look before yelling. Just because of issues with PETA, you’re saying we should forget HSUS and BFAS? What sense does that make?

  36. This all even before Best Friends began killing people with their “pit bull initiatives.” Well, just started to kill people. We are up to forty dead a year and thousands of animals dead because of pit bulls. I fully agree with the poster who said BFAS hates people. It’s so obvious. They seem to especially hate children.

Leave a Reply