When Animal Welfare Became Animal "Rights" - and took your money with it

In American society there is an innate desire among many to stand up for those who cannot defend themselves. To help the little guy, to root for the underdog. In many arenas in society, this has resulted in very positive social change - the civil rights movement, voter registration initiatives, and widespread education for all children.

But in one arena, this desire has gone horribly wrong - and most of the general public isn't even aware it's happened. "Animal rights" has been hijacked by fringe extremists who are careful to hide what they've done. This insidious change has gone far beyond what the donating public has anticipated. The movement was initially responsible for positive change - more humane treatment for all animals, basic treatment for animals in laboratory settings, in factories and in farms as they are prepared for consumption. Multiple groups worked together to focus on these particular issues to effect truly positive change.

However, after acheiving positive and laudable goals, the movement was taken over. Rather than retain focus on true cruelty and humane treatment, a few individuals turned their attention far afield to a new target - ALL animals. This dramatic alteration in purpose - not publicized and actively hidden behind the traditional fund-raising campaigns - remains unknown to much of the public, including those who make donations to their efforts.

The reason for the public's lack of awareness is obvious. The current animal rights activists continue to rely on decades-old direct mailing techniques for massive donations. Certainly the original treatment of animals in labs and factory farms and product testing was, in some cases, abysmal. Even minimal standards of care were ignored and painful and unnecessary procedures conducted. The legitimate animal rights movement changed this, through years of fundraising and public awareness events. But instead of disclosing the triumph of humane standards in labs and factory farms, they must continue to hide behind it to ensure that donations continue.

After their initial acheivements of proper care and welfare and the ending of unneeded experimentation, the movement lacked direction. Of course there would always be a lab or a farm that didn't follow the rules - but by this point, the movement had become a PR and donation gathering juggernaut with millions of dollars and big-name celebrities making endorsements. The decision, made by the very few who had been attracted by the media spotlight and millions to spend, was to expand their target to anyone who used animals in any part of industry - and their definition of industry suddenly took on anyone who used animals.

Most of the public never realized this change in course took place. That's because they were deliberately misled into thinking it hadn't. Direct mailing campaigns remain the lifeblood of these organizations, and not one word or tactic changed to inform the public of the new direction of animal rights. After all, they knew animal lovers would respond to a plea for help that comes wrapped up in photos of rabbits undergoing painful medical tests, or puppies wearing heavy chains in small pens outdoors in a thunderstorm. It's likely that, given the changes we've made in animal treatment, that the animals shown on PETA mailings are either old stock photos of events that no longer take place, or are deliberate setups to encourage the public to continue to give to their "rescue" campaign.

Now I've written here already about PETA's idea of "rescue." With a 97% kill rate of the animals it "rescues" - I'd be happy if the state of Virginia closed their "shelter" immediately. It's nothing more than a death house, the very thing they rail against in other states.

But the real purpose of this topic is education on the funding of these animal rights groups. They continue to solicit donations based on the horrific treatment of animals, without ever disclosing to the public that their money in reality goes to lobbying. The public assumes, incorrectly, that their donation will go to the suffering animal they read about in their solicitation letter. What they don't know is that nearly all of their money - after paying for overhead - goes to things like billboards in Times Square, for putting down thousands of animals a year, and to PETA and HSUS' favorite topic - lobbying for restrictive laws against all pet owners. Yup, they lobby for restrictions against the very people who fill their pockets with donations!

These animal rights groups are now becoming incredibly fringe in their targets. The general public is starting to see how far out there these groups are; however, situations like Michael Vick's cruelty case come along and put them right back in the media spotlight, allowing them to solicit even more money and giving them ammunition for more restrictive pet laws. (The HSUS collected tens of MILLIONS of dollars after the Vick case - even though HSUS did not care for even ONE of Vick's dogs, and has instead begun using that money all across the country to support breed specific bans in towns, counties and states. Think that's what those donors hoped their money would be spent on?)

The original actions of these groups - the genuine support and desire to care for animals humanely made them welcome at all animal based events. However, in recent years, their radical and at times violent behavior, and increasingly bizarre belief system (poisoning animals at cat and dog shows because the animals are "better off dead" than in cages) has made them unwelcome even at pet fairs. Their new policy - to end all breeding of any animal, create a nation of vegans, and eliminate pet ownership - is still only known in the small communities of hobby breeders and farmers. These small communities don't have the money or lobbying power to get the word out to would-be pet owners about where their money is really going.

But perhaps they didn't hide their purpose well enough. Publicly espousing veganism of course demonstrates the desire to end the killing of animals for food. Poisoning show cats and dogs shows their desire to reduce the number of purebreds available for adoption to the public. And of course, killing 97% of the animals they take in (and this number doesn't account for the thousands more that never make it to their "shelter" in Virginia - who are just killed and dumped in dumpsters across the eastern seaboard) perhaps proves that it is PETA's desire not to *have* any animals available for adoption as domestic pets. Because that's their new campaign - no more sentient animals should be "owned" as slave pets.

If that sounds ridiculous to you, I'm glad. It should, because it is. Centuries ago, we domesticated animals - some of whom chose to tag along and become part of the human pack - and for better or worse, those domesticated pets can't survive in the wild anymore. We can't take our pets and put them outside and expect them to find dinner on their own. And it's time the animal loving public understood what's really going on behind these closed doors. Your money does not go to the sympathetic animal who is suffering. It goes to PETA taking out ads and to HSUS flying its CEO around the country to lobby for laws that will eliminate more pets.

Right now in the United States, we do NOT have more adoptable animals than we have homes for them. Shelters routinely import animals from other states and areas of the country to fill the need for adoptable animals. It saddens me - it sickens me - to know that over 80,000 of them met their death at the hands of PETA (in ONE year), who took money from thousands of pet lovers with the promise of caring for those animals - and it didn't even *try* to find them a home. The HSUS took in millions of dollars more - even after the US Department of Justice opened an investigation into where they used their $37 million in donations after Hurricane Katrina. The HSUS does not run a single shelter, does not even buy food for one animal. Their IRS status shows them as not a charity but a lobbying group.

Potential donors from around the world need to open their eyes to the truth. That suffering puppy, that rabbit in pain, is a lexicon to what the animal rights movement once was. They have served a noble purpose in the past, improving specific situations that caused harm and suffering to animals. They have turned their back on this purpose, choosing instead violent protests and threats, and passing laws in communities across the nation to limit our ability to not only choose the type of pet we want, but to choose any pet at all.

Read the fine print, use the internet, save your money or donate it instead to your local no-kill shelter that actually will use it to alleviate the suffering of animals. And for goodness sake, don't believe everything you read - when you see HSUS or PETA supporting a bill, know that you had better pay attention and you probably should oppose it, particularly if you love animals and want to continue to be able to own pets in America.