Background

Marketing specialists, military commanders, lobbyists, Animal Rights Activists and successful business men have several things in common. They are all prone to study and focus on the successful strategies of others if it furthers their goals and objectives. The best are good learners who believe it is important to know what and how their opponent thinks, recruits and functions. They also have a need to know how they can grow the size of their organization’s foot print.

Given my background and love for dogs, and the constant threats against them seen daily in our local communities, I was motivated to study this problem and write this article. This exercise caused me to learn more about the strategies used by our enemies and our competitors. My approach was to focus on learning what they do and how they use technology and information. It quickly became obvious that my efforts would require a significant investment of time and effort. My search led me to study different groups, each with well-developed aggressive working agendas. I became more convinced that I was on the right track when I learned that our enemy and our competitors both use the print and social media, TV and internet technologies. With these tools they reach wide audiences and many sympathizers. While the average person has little interest in learning what and how organizations grow or accomplish their objectives, for me it was key to understanding our enemy and our competitors. My efforts quickly brought to light that each were capable of taking a bad review, a negative report, a dog incident or a religious message to promote their cause or mar a reputation. I learned that both preferred to use the technical tools of the media because they could quickly adapt and alter their message in order to influence others and spread the “truth” as they see it.

This paper was aimed at understanding their goals in the context of the many combinations of methods they are willing to use. My efforts ultimately led me into the territory of four organizations, each a with different working agenda and target audience. The common denominator for each was their ability to adapt, combine ideas and carefully craft their messages. For these reasons I called this paper "The Changing Face of Our Enemy".

My first effort began with a trip to a conference of explosive detection canine handlers in Upstate New York. The conference was sponsored by the Department of Homeland Defense. My role was to speak about AKC’s effort to help develop a breeding program that would increase the supply of dogs needed by the country for explosive detection. The conference presenters focused on three recent terrorist incidents in New York City. We learned how ISIS was able to recruit and train these terrorists, change strategies and adapt their methods by using print and social media, TV and internet technologies. Most of the presenters were bomb detection experts who carefully explained how ISIS changes strategies in an effort to bring the fight to our shores. They described how the three terrorists came to America via the lottery system and how ISIS was able to recruit and train them by using the skills of other people who cleverly crafted ideas and slogans that successfully motivated these recruits. With this help, ISIS was astonishingly successful in their ability to deliver their message to a large pool of potential recruits. Imbedded in their plan was the use of digital technology and their ability to adapt their methodologies to fit a variety of changing targets. When applied to an audience of potential recruits, they were successful in offering them ideas for using destructive technologies. Their old strategy relied on training terrorists in other countries and sending them back to do their destruction. This was expensive and required boots on the ground in several countries. Their new strategy trains them in the US, in their home towns, thus avoiding having their passports identified. This change in strategy also made it more difficult for law enforcement officials to identify and track them. It also made their new strategy low-cost by only requiring the use of distance learning technology, print and social media and internet technology, all of which are well-developed in this country. By adapting and changing their old strategies, ISIS was able to train terrorists locally with little notice. With these changes, they were able to reach out and recruit three young men who were failures in our competitive society. Their focus was to find those who are consumers of propaganda and receptive to offers of valor, belonging and meaning. Their strategy was to convince them that they could put purpose and meaning back into their life. ISIS relies on the failed mind and those who lack self-worth. They seek out failures in the job market who are the ideal candidates as an ISIS asset. Their strategy is to offer each recruit the opportunity to help themselves regain their self-worth with a simple strategy that reaches large audiences of would-be terrorists who are easily motivated to become messengers of fear and destruction. The ISIS message is "you can do it; we can help".

In the past our government relied on the fact that our enemy would wear uniforms, carry signs and wave their flags. They intended to be noticed. This is no longer the case. With that said, the conference instructors offered many ideas about how our enemy recruits, trains and delivers destruction by quickly changing and adapting. For example, they wear street clothes in order to blend in and look like ordinary citizens. It gives them the cover they need to move quickly, change direction and update their skills without being noticed. This new approach speaks to their creativity and their willingness to adapt. When coupled with a well-developed plan and a propaganda strategy they are able to deliver an inspiring message of destruction and hate.

My second experience took me directly into an old but familiar area that we all know. It was the print and social media we all are exposed to in our daily news. This experience uncovered several media groups who were willing to deliver incorrect information and deliver it in the form of fake news to a large and unsuspecting audience called the American public. What was uncovered was their effective use of false messaging combined with questionable data delivered in a convincing manner using print and social media, TV and internet technology. With these tools, their goal was to influence legislation - not dog legislation, but gun legislation. Their effort began in early February, 2018. Their story had been widely circulated by the print and social media and carried by many TV channels. It was crafted to influence the public about guns and who should be allowed to own them. It began with a national headline that read “18 school shootings already in 2018”. When David Mastio, deputy editor for USA TODAY first read the story he was not convinced that in less than 60 days, “18 shootings” had already occurred at schools throughout America. His research uncovered some disturbing facts which had been omitted by the print and social media and the TV networks all of whom quickly ran with the story. In his USA TODAY article, Mastio uncovered the truth about the reported school shootings. He found that it was the Washington Post, CBS, and The (New York) Daily News who all reported that 18 school shootings had already occurred in January and February of 2018. Mastio questioned whether that many school shootings could have already occurred in such a short period. He was right. The media failed to check their definitions, instead they relied on fake news and then made a rush to judgement. They showed no interest in learning about the truth because it did not serve their intended purpose. Using a sensational story line and material that included the 19-year old who slaughtered 17 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, they successfully launched their fake news story. Mastio was not impressed, he continued to gather the facts and learned that the media had relied on some carefully crafted information that had been created and released by an organization called Every Town for Gun Safety, a known gun-control advocacy group responsible for spreading bogus statistics. What the media failed to report was that Every Town had included "any discharge of a firearm at a school, whether students were involved or not" to be a shooting. This meant that a wide variety of incidents would be counted as a "shooting". Every Towns' criteria was so broad that nobody had to be injured and that a "shooting doesn’t actually have to take place on campus but the bullet has to be somewhere on campus".

Mastio unmasked the fake news and those who were willing to distribute it. He began with a review of the definition of a “shooting” used by Every Town and then the incidents they counted as a shooting. Here are just three of the 18 incidents reported by Every Town that were used by the Washington Post, CBS, and The (New York) Daily News.

Example #1. In this case, Every Town reported that on Jan 3, the Lansing (Michigan) State Journal reported that a 31-year old “military veteran who suffered from Post-traumatic stress disorder shot himself in a school parking lot after he called the police and reported he was suicidal.

Example #2. On Jan. 10, there was a shooting, reported by the Desert Sun... "a gun was fired from off campus and a bullet struck the Visual Arts Building" at California State University – San Bernardino. Using Every Towns criterion, it counted as a shooting, no one was injured.

Example, #3. On Feb. 5, a shooting was reported in Maplewood, Minn. This incident involved a third-grader who by accident pulled the trigger on a police officer's gun while he was sitting on a bench. No one was injured but it was counted as one of the "18 shootings in 2018".

By successfully distorting the facts using questionable criteria and a misleading definition that would not be noticed by the average reader, the Washington Post, CBS, and The (New York) Daily News helped the advocates for more gun control to launch a campaign to limit gun ownership, shape legislation and influence school safety programs. It was not long before other media outlets quickly followed with similar fake stories of their own.

My third effort took me in yet another direction and this time it was closer to home. This scenario uncovered several strategies that parallel those just mentioned. It led me into the dog world and those whose purpose is to attack new owners. It was no surprise that many of the same tactics, methods and strategies just mentioned were used.

This effort focused on a simple strategy used by Animal Right Activity’s when they speak to new puppy owners. Their message is "it is better to neuter". The unsuspecting new puppy owner is not told that while it may be a convenience, spay or neuter must be weighed against the many possible health risks associated with the procedure. For now, let’s call their strategy the intentional lack of full disclosure. The rationale used to support this surgical procedure usually focuses on the "positive effects" on the behavior, health and longevity of the dog [4,8,9]. The ASPCA also supports this approach by reporting that as many as 83% of all males and females are neutered. Their statistic gives the impression that everyone does it, so it must be the right thing to do. Many Activist Groups embrace this recommendation knowing that the unsuspecting public can easily be led to believe there are benefits to spay/neuter. And once again, the devil is in the detail. A little research shows that while this surgical procedure may have some benefits, in many instances it is not in the best interests of the dog. There are a large number of veterinary research studies that show that there are some, small gains for a few, but this procedure must be weighed against its many health risks for others [1, 4]. For example, this procedure increases the occurrence of many disorders including those associated with joint disease, cancer and cognitive decline which is accelerated in aging dogs that have been neutered [10]. There is also a greater prevalence for immune disorders. Since the public does not read the literature, they are unaware of the life time risk to dogs or the potential for long term veterinary expenses their owners will incur. Here are other findings taken from several veterinary reports. The first comes from a 15- year study reported by a university teaching hospital that studied and evaluated the prevalence and risk of genetic diseases, both early and late onset and the effect on intact and neutered male and female dogs [1]. Their report stated that "breeds making up the Herding, Non-Sporting, Sporting, and Working groups were more likely to display an association with neutering for risk of certain conditions". A summary of their findings showed that neutering was significantly associated with an increased risk for males and females for cancers (hemangiosarcoma, hyperadrenocorticism, lymphoma, mast cell tumor, and osteosarcoma), ruptured anterior cruciate ligament and epilepsy [1, 4]. Despite the reduction in mammary and gonadal neoplasia, neutering is associated with increased prevalence of other cancers such as hemangiosarcoma, lymphosarcoma, mast cell tumors and osteosacaomea. [18, 4, 12, 19, 20]. Many orthopedic conditions were found to be associated [17, 4, 8,] especially in dogs neutered before sexual maturity [18, 4,19, 20]. A recent retrospective study by Hart et al. [9] highlighted the impact of breed risks associated with neutering in the expression of joint disorders. The Hart study mirrored other findings of high risk for Labrador and Golden Retrievers and some Terrier breeds [9]. Ballenger found that neutering reduced the risk of GDV, however it was highly associated with the increased risk for other disorders in some working breeds.

Elected officials are usually not given this kind of detailed information or told about these research findings when they are called upon to pass mandatory spay/neuter legislation. They are encouraged to pass laws and regulations not knowing they will cause harm to the dogs owned by their constituents.

My fourth scenario focused on the Humane Society of United States (HSUS) and their clever use of the many strategies also used by ISIS and the media. For example, HSUS is known to rely on the use of social and print media and TV to reach a large audience of willing patrons. Their strategy includes a series of carefully crafted messages which they combine with sad music, caged and sickly looking dogs with sore eyes, ribs showing from hunger and ribs showing. Using selected videos and powerful messaging they produce compelling images that successfully move large TV audiences to send money based on their sympathy for the animals shown that all appear to be in distress in their advertisements. Their media approach taps into a $100 million market of people willing to contribute in the belief that they will end what they see in the HSUS TV ads.

The facts about how HSUS uses the money they raise was recently brought to light when the Editor of Kennel Spotlight reviewed and reported on the HSUS tax return which showed that only 1 percent of the HSUS budget was spent on grants to support pet sheltering [6]. Research about the HSUS donor group also showed they were confused about where their money was being spent. The gap between donor perception and reality has also been well documented by others, and in March of 2014, then Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt issued a "consumer alert" about the funding of national animal charities like HSUS.>/p>

The tax return for HSUS showed that HSUS:

• Did not make a single grant to shelters in 6 states (Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Dakota)
• Spent nearly 5 times more in lobbying ($4.25 million) than in grants to shelters ($808,953)
• Spent $3 million on salaries of 13 HSUS executives – almost 4 times that spent on shelters
• Spent $69 million on fundraising related expenses.
• Spent 86 times more on its Ohio political front group in 2009 than it did on Ohio pet shelters
• In 2010, spent 32 times more on political efforts in Missouri than it did on shelter support

Data reported in the HSUS Schedule 1 of IRS Form 990 (2016) shows that the stated purpose of HSUS is to provide "shelter aid to reduce pet homelessness and save lives". Table 1 shows a list of the HSUS grants actually made by state which clearly shows the extent of their "shelter aid".

Table 1. HSUS Grants by State

State	# of Grants	Grants	State	# of Grants	Grants
Alabama	1	$1,100	Montana	6	$111,700
Alaska	4	$7,770	Nebraska	1	$10,000
Arizona	2	$2,000	Nevada	0	$0
Arkansas	3	$6,201	New Hampshire	0	$0
California	4	$8,500	New Jersey	2	$3,000
Colorado	5	$8,000	New Mexico	1	$500
Connecticut	0	$0	New York	2	$4,317
Delaware	0	$0	North Carolina	1	$2,000
Florida	1	$2,000	North Dakota	6	$108,184
Georgia	2	$6,250	Ohio	1	$500
Hawaii	2	$1,000	Oklahoma	3	$19,406
Idaho	5	$112,269	Oregon	1	$5,500
Illinois	4	$52,650	Pennsylvania	2	$9,941
Indiana	4	$56,000	Rhode Island	1	$500
Iowa	0	$0	South Carolina	3	$4,750
Kansas	2	$1,000	South Dakota	0	$0
Kentucky	1	$2,500	Tennessee	3	$26,775
Louisiana	2	$52,500	Texas	6	$24,458
Maine	6	$52,800	Utah	4	$5,000
Maryland	9	$11,975	Vermont	1	$2,500
Massachusetts	1	$500	Virginia	6	$25,009
Michigan	3	$4,625	Washington	3	$4,500
Minnesota	2	$4,500	West Virginia	6	$6,250
Mississippi	3	$14,100	Wisconsin	9	$14,996
Missouri	3	$4,000	Wyoming	1	$1,000

Conclusion

These four examples highlight how our enemy and competitors successfully target large and selected audiences of supporters who are willing to act. Misinformation, fake news and powerful messaging when combined with internet technologies have become their pathways to reaching new goals

These four scenarios demonstrate that by combining technologies with propaganda they are able to effectively reach the public and a large audience of supporters. The efforts of our government, Mastio and the Editor of Kennel Spotlight all serve as good examples of how to shine light on the truth. While honesty still works as a good defense, a better working model is a well-planned and executed offense. If nothing else, these scenarios demonstrate that we must adapt and change our use of technology and the media. We must become more flexible in how we apply them. We must learn to out think them.

References

1. Belanger, Janelle, Thomas P. 2017. Bellmore, Bannasch, Danika, Famula, Thomas, Oberbauer, Anita. Correlation of neuter status and expression of heritable disorders. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology 2017 4:6
2. Battaglia, Carmen, 2007, Anatomy of Breed Specific Legislation, Canine Chronicle, Ocala, Fl., pg. 196 -204.
3. Battaglia, Carmen, 2008, Ticket to Ride, AKC Perspectives, NY., NY. Vol. 21. No, 3., Sept, pg. 3-5.
4. De la Riva GT, Hart BL, Farver TB, Oberbauer AM, Messam LLM, Hart LA. 2013. Neutering dogs: effects on joint disorders and cancers in golden retrievers, PLoS ONE. 2013:8(2) e55937 View Article Google Scholar.
5. Duerr FM, Duncan CG, Savicky RS, Park RD, Egger EL, Palmer, RH. 2007. Risk factors for excessive tibial plateau angle in large-breed dogs with cranial cruciate ligament disease. J. Am Vet Med Assoc. 2007:231(11):1688-91. View Article PubMed Google Scholar.
6. Editor, 2017. Not Your Local Humane Society, Kennel Spotlight, Feb/Mar. 81, Issue 3, Monett, MO, Pg. 33-34.
7. Mastio David. 2018 There Have Not Been 18 School Shootings, USA TODAY, McLean, VA., Monday Feb. 19 pg. 7A.
8. Hart BL, Hart LA, Thigpen AP, Willits NH. 2014. Long-term health effects of neutering dogs. Comparison of Labrador retrievers with golden retrievers. PLoS ONE 2014:9(7): e102241. View article PubMed Central Google Scholar
9. Hart BL, Hart LA, Thigpen AP, Willits NH. 2016. Neutering German Shepherd Dogs: associated joint disorders, cancers and urinary incontinence. Vet Med Sci. 2016:2:191-9.
10. Hart BL. 2001. Effect of gonadectomy on subsequent development of age-related cognitive impairment in dogs. J AM Vet Med Assoc. 2001:219(1) a: 51-6.
11. Witsberger TH, Villamil JA, Schultz IG, Hahn AW, Cook JL. 2008. Prevalence of and risk factors for hip dysplasia and cranial cruciate ligament deficiency in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2008:232(12):1818-24.
12. Kurtis Effects of Surgicl Kustritz R. 2012. Effects of surgical sterilization on canine and feline health and on society. Reprod Domest Anim. 2012;47(s4):214–22.
13. Kustritz MVR. 2007. Determining the optimal age for gonadectomy of dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2007;231(11):1665–75.