The Humane Society of the United States is worse than I ever wanted to believe. How can the abolitionist approach by any means go together with the (not even) welfarist approach, as is suggested by Melanie Joy for instance as read in a reprinted article by hers on http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=2560. (The divergence here is really about how factually nonhuman animals are understood and politically defended.)
Anyway, the Humane Society:
An Open Letter to the Humane Society of the United States from United Poultry Concerns
HSUS outreach director sends pigs “raised like children” to slaughter
HSUS staffer Maxwell speaks of “moving 900 to 1100 fat hogs each week,” for which he is paid $1.04 a pound, and tells how he sees his job as expanding the market for “humane” meat.
Source: Omaha World Herald Oct 2011 10/19/2011
HSUS: Carving Out a Niche for Family Farmers One Campaign at a Time
I don’t think it’s necessary that the different sides get along with each other, when the point of the argument is irreconcilable. I think it’s more important to look for a consensus between people who are seriously concerned about animal issues, outside and inside of the pro animal rights movement.
Animal rights are as immediate a concern to many humans, as human rights are.
That you are concerned with animal rights issues, doesn’t mean that you are in any group or organization, etc. It doesn’t even mean that you feel represented by any existing approach to animal rights.
Still people within and without the “movement” can, as long as they are positively concerned, find common grounds on which they can
a.) reinforce and be mutually supportive and innovative about the practice of living an ethically responsible lifestyle as what regards nonhuman animal concerns,
and b.) people within and without the “movement” can find common grounds as what regards their attitude towards nonhuman animals, on which they can establish and grow a political fundament for phrasing a future full-rights-establishing-language of an animal rights law.