Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
A New Year, A New Assault on Common Sense
I was going to write about something else the other day, then someone directed me to a quote from PETA (People for the "Ethical" Treatment of Animals) Vice President for Cruelty Investigations, Daphna Nachminovitch. Interestingly in the article she says she owns two "mutts" rescued from PETA - must be the two that survived, since their shelther euthanasia rate is again over 90%.
Ms. Nachminovitch, speaking for PETA, admitted that they oppose search and rescue animals; they oppose the tried and proven methods of training service dogs for the blind; and that only shelter dogs (with unproven histories and temperaments) should be used for guide dogs. Some quotes from the "horse's mouth:"
"...we oppose most seeing-eye-dog programs because the dogs are bred as if there are no equally intelligent dogs literally dying for homes in shelters, they are kept in harnesses almost 24/7, people are prohibited from petting or playing with them and they cannot romp and run and interact with other dogs; and their lives are repeatedly disrupted (they are trained for months in one home and bond, then sent to a second, and after years of bonding with the person they have "served," they are whisked away again because they are old and no longer "useful"). We have a member who is blind who actually moved states to avoid "returning" her beloved dog. We feel that the human community should do more to support blind people, and give dogs a break. A deaf person can see if a dog has a medical issue such as blood in her urine, a blind person living alone cannot, and so on."
I would venture to guess the PETA folks have never actually visited the training of service animals. Further, their suggestion that shelter dogs would somehow be trained differently for an important job is ludicrous. Service dogs for the blind must be able to keep their cool in ALL situations - screaming small children, fires and emergencies, etc. Yes, people are prohibited from petting them - because they are not pets, they are service animals allowing a disabled person the ability to interact in the world. But remember - to PETA the dog is more important than the disabled person.
Further, she gives no explanation for why she believes service dogs must be "returned" at retirement (they usually "retire" as pets of the disabled owner) or why it would require some individual she knows to have "moved states." Is this person avoiding auhorities? They do work for PETA, after all. I'd suspect this as motive before I'd believe it's about the guide dog.
What's truly shameful is PETA is still an "org," it's still not paying taxes on the millions of dollars it intakes each year, and spends to pass ludicrous laws - like ones that would outlaw the breeding and change the training of service dogs. Their new plan - not only can you not eat traditional red meat, or chicken, but now fish as well - their very own website now promotes the re-naming of fish as "sea kittens" so that people will be less likely to eat them. (I'm NOT going to do them the favor of linking to their site - but it's there.) If this is not a demonstration of wastefulness - the money YOU sent them to save that chained puppy is paying a web designer six figures to create the "Save the Sea Kittens" website, after all - I don't know what is.
And this is the real problem. People have no idea what they are REALLY paying for. How about their extensive PETAKiDS site - where you can get your 9 year old a "vegetarian starter kit." Here's part of that site: "Are there animals being held hostage at your school, commonly known as “classroom pets”...Do your teachers plan yearly field trips to the zoo ...speak up and let your teachers know that there are alternatives to animal exploitation. And don’t forget to recruit your classmates to help you tackle these issues!...Educate others! Use animal issues as topics for all your school projects. From book reports to posters in art class—we’ve got you covered."
That's right, all your child's propaganda needs are met (and paid for, and begging for more donations) at this one stop shop. And finally, I'd like to share this from PETA's own FAQ. This is the first question, and you'll notice that NOWHERE in the answer do they actually ANSWER the question - yes or no, do you oppose all pet ownership. And they'll never answer that question, not while they're still asking for your money...
"“Does PETA believe that people shouldn’t have pets?”
The earliest fossils that resemble the bones of modern dogs are about 12,000 years old, so we know that humans’ fascination with domesticated wolves began at least that long ago. About 5,000 years ago, Egyptians became the first to tame cats, whom they used to control the rodent population. Since then, the breeding and care of cats and dogs has exploded into a love affair, a sport, and a booming business. This international pastime has created an overpopulation crisis, and as a result, every year, millions of unwanted animals suffer at the hands of abusers, languish in shelters, and are euthanized. Adopting a cat or dog from a shelter and providing a loving home is a small but powerful way to prevent some of this suffering. The most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from breeders or pet stores, which contribute to the overpopulation crisis."
Ms. Nachminovitch, speaking for PETA, admitted that they oppose search and rescue animals; they oppose the tried and proven methods of training service dogs for the blind; and that only shelter dogs (with unproven histories and temperaments) should be used for guide dogs. Some quotes from the "horse's mouth:"
"...we oppose most seeing-eye-dog programs because the dogs are bred as if there are no equally intelligent dogs literally dying for homes in shelters, they are kept in harnesses almost 24/7, people are prohibited from petting or playing with them and they cannot romp and run and interact with other dogs; and their lives are repeatedly disrupted (they are trained for months in one home and bond, then sent to a second, and after years of bonding with the person they have "served," they are whisked away again because they are old and no longer "useful"). We have a member who is blind who actually moved states to avoid "returning" her beloved dog. We feel that the human community should do more to support blind people, and give dogs a break. A deaf person can see if a dog has a medical issue such as blood in her urine, a blind person living alone cannot, and so on."
I would venture to guess the PETA folks have never actually visited the training of service animals. Further, their suggestion that shelter dogs would somehow be trained differently for an important job is ludicrous. Service dogs for the blind must be able to keep their cool in ALL situations - screaming small children, fires and emergencies, etc. Yes, people are prohibited from petting them - because they are not pets, they are service animals allowing a disabled person the ability to interact in the world. But remember - to PETA the dog is more important than the disabled person.
Further, she gives no explanation for why she believes service dogs must be "returned" at retirement (they usually "retire" as pets of the disabled owner) or why it would require some individual she knows to have "moved states." Is this person avoiding auhorities? They do work for PETA, after all. I'd suspect this as motive before I'd believe it's about the guide dog.
What's truly shameful is PETA is still an "org," it's still not paying taxes on the millions of dollars it intakes each year, and spends to pass ludicrous laws - like ones that would outlaw the breeding and change the training of service dogs. Their new plan - not only can you not eat traditional red meat, or chicken, but now fish as well - their very own website now promotes the re-naming of fish as "sea kittens" so that people will be less likely to eat them. (I'm NOT going to do them the favor of linking to their site - but it's there.) If this is not a demonstration of wastefulness - the money YOU sent them to save that chained puppy is paying a web designer six figures to create the "Save the Sea Kittens" website, after all - I don't know what is.
And this is the real problem. People have no idea what they are REALLY paying for. How about their extensive PETAKiDS site - where you can get your 9 year old a "vegetarian starter kit." Here's part of that site: "Are there animals being held hostage at your school, commonly known as “classroom pets”...Do your teachers plan yearly field trips to the zoo ...speak up and let your teachers know that there are alternatives to animal exploitation. And don’t forget to recruit your classmates to help you tackle these issues!...Educate others! Use animal issues as topics for all your school projects. From book reports to posters in art class—we’ve got you covered."
That's right, all your child's propaganda needs are met (and paid for, and begging for more donations) at this one stop shop. And finally, I'd like to share this from PETA's own FAQ. This is the first question, and you'll notice that NOWHERE in the answer do they actually ANSWER the question - yes or no, do you oppose all pet ownership. And they'll never answer that question, not while they're still asking for your money...
"“Does PETA believe that people shouldn’t have pets?”
The earliest fossils that resemble the bones of modern dogs are about 12,000 years old, so we know that humans’ fascination with domesticated wolves began at least that long ago. About 5,000 years ago, Egyptians became the first to tame cats, whom they used to control the rodent population. Since then, the breeding and care of cats and dogs has exploded into a love affair, a sport, and a booming business. This international pastime has created an overpopulation crisis, and as a result, every year, millions of unwanted animals suffer at the hands of abusers, languish in shelters, and are euthanized. Adopting a cat or dog from a shelter and providing a loving home is a small but powerful way to prevent some of this suffering. The most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from breeders or pet stores, which contribute to the overpopulation crisis."
Thursday, November 13, 2008
My "Vision" for the New America
My vision starts a bit smaller to one of the problems the Obamas face sooner than later. I'd be willing to bet the President-Elect never imagined the amount of input and discussion that would be had over getting a dog, but here we are.
My concern is the pressure that massive lobbying groups, including HSUS and PETA, are able to put on Congress and state legislatures in order to impose their views on Americans who don't understand their true position. I want Mr. Obama to realize that HSUS is indeed nothing more than a lobbying body, that is run by a non-pet owner who is a vegan and thinks that everyone else should be like him. They recently spent millions of dollars - dollars that were donated by unsuspecting Americans who *thought* they were helping animals, not influencing an election - to pass Proposition 2 in California, which will increase the cost of food in America (which we can scarcely afford) and will increase the risk of food-bourne illnesses when we start importing chickens and eggs from countries that do not regulate their food and health as stringently as the U.S. does.
I want to make sure that Mr. Obama knows all this, and does the smart thing for his daughter, as well as helping "the little guy" who put him in office. Visit home hobby breeders. Learn exactly what breeds Malia will and will not have a reaction to. At the same time he and the public will learn that the majority of our pets - and we do love pets in America - come from people who lose thousands of dollars a year just for the love of a breed. They choose an animal that they work to perfect and improve and continue, so that any American can have the choice of whatever pet we want. The vast majority of home hobby breeders have animals raised underfoot, in scrupulously clean conditions, with genetic and other health tests run as the general rule. Shelter adoption is wonderful if you have no concerns about behavior or health; that is not the case here.
Home hobby breeders live in fear of anyone who comes to their home - not for fear of their conditions, but fear of who will be at the door, trying to stop their breeding programs. Extremist members of groups like HSUS and PETA target breeders by damaging their property, filing false complaints, and trying to gain access to their homes through deceit. I am a cat breeder; NOT a business owner, but a home hobby breeder with a small breeding program that costs me thousands of dollars every year in money I will never recoup. I do this because I love this breed and I want to see it continue in good health. These extremists are causing Americans who are breaking no laws to live in fear. I want Mr. Obama to know that he does not want one of his first acts to be to align himself with these groups, who have been lying to Americans for decades to line their coffers and now are pushing legislation around the country (including Chicago and Illinois) to legislate the home hobby breeder, and indeed all breeding, out of existence.
My vision is one without radical Animal Rights activists telling Americans that they cannot or should not have a certain pet. My vision is one where HSUS and PETA are forced to change their 501(c)(3) status to recognize that they are lobbying groups, rather than traditional non-profits. My vision is one where all Americans have their Fourth Amendment right to security in their homes, and their Constitutional right to privacy, respected and are not legislated into giving up things they love that violate no laws. My vision is not an America that has only feral and stray animals to choose from for pets, or worse imported animals from countries that have uncontrolled communicable diseases (which, if he did not know it, is happening *now.* "Overpopulation" is a myth created by these activists - the "overpopulation" problem is actually a feral problem that cannot be touched by legislation against breeders or even legislation against substandard commercial breeders [in common AR parlance, "puppy mills"]). In short, my vision is one where on this issue, the people on the ground are heard, not those with the most money.
I hope the Obamas will find the perfect dog for their family, be it pedigreed, purebred or mutt - but I also hope the President-Elect will consider the above information when HSUS-led legislation (like "Baby's Law") come to his desk. The AR folks may scream the loudest but there are many more of us out here who are watching and who do not agree with their extremist views on how we should or should not have animals in this country, but we can't compete with their budget. We the people are the ones who elected you, not the animal rights lobby, and I hope that will be remembered.
My concern is the pressure that massive lobbying groups, including HSUS and PETA, are able to put on Congress and state legislatures in order to impose their views on Americans who don't understand their true position. I want Mr. Obama to realize that HSUS is indeed nothing more than a lobbying body, that is run by a non-pet owner who is a vegan and thinks that everyone else should be like him. They recently spent millions of dollars - dollars that were donated by unsuspecting Americans who *thought* they were helping animals, not influencing an election - to pass Proposition 2 in California, which will increase the cost of food in America (which we can scarcely afford) and will increase the risk of food-bourne illnesses when we start importing chickens and eggs from countries that do not regulate their food and health as stringently as the U.S. does.
I want to make sure that Mr. Obama knows all this, and does the smart thing for his daughter, as well as helping "the little guy" who put him in office. Visit home hobby breeders. Learn exactly what breeds Malia will and will not have a reaction to. At the same time he and the public will learn that the majority of our pets - and we do love pets in America - come from people who lose thousands of dollars a year just for the love of a breed. They choose an animal that they work to perfect and improve and continue, so that any American can have the choice of whatever pet we want. The vast majority of home hobby breeders have animals raised underfoot, in scrupulously clean conditions, with genetic and other health tests run as the general rule. Shelter adoption is wonderful if you have no concerns about behavior or health; that is not the case here.
Home hobby breeders live in fear of anyone who comes to their home - not for fear of their conditions, but fear of who will be at the door, trying to stop their breeding programs. Extremist members of groups like HSUS and PETA target breeders by damaging their property, filing false complaints, and trying to gain access to their homes through deceit. I am a cat breeder; NOT a business owner, but a home hobby breeder with a small breeding program that costs me thousands of dollars every year in money I will never recoup. I do this because I love this breed and I want to see it continue in good health. These extremists are causing Americans who are breaking no laws to live in fear. I want Mr. Obama to know that he does not want one of his first acts to be to align himself with these groups, who have been lying to Americans for decades to line their coffers and now are pushing legislation around the country (including Chicago and Illinois) to legislate the home hobby breeder, and indeed all breeding, out of existence.
My vision is one without radical Animal Rights activists telling Americans that they cannot or should not have a certain pet. My vision is one where HSUS and PETA are forced to change their 501(c)(3) status to recognize that they are lobbying groups, rather than traditional non-profits. My vision is one where all Americans have their Fourth Amendment right to security in their homes, and their Constitutional right to privacy, respected and are not legislated into giving up things they love that violate no laws. My vision is not an America that has only feral and stray animals to choose from for pets, or worse imported animals from countries that have uncontrolled communicable diseases (which, if he did not know it, is happening *now.* "Overpopulation" is a myth created by these activists - the "overpopulation" problem is actually a feral problem that cannot be touched by legislation against breeders or even legislation against substandard commercial breeders [in common AR parlance, "puppy mills"]). In short, my vision is one where on this issue, the people on the ground are heard, not those with the most money.
I hope the Obamas will find the perfect dog for their family, be it pedigreed, purebred or mutt - but I also hope the President-Elect will consider the above information when HSUS-led legislation (like "Baby's Law") come to his desk. The AR folks may scream the loudest but there are many more of us out here who are watching and who do not agree with their extremist views on how we should or should not have animals in this country, but we can't compete with their budget. We the people are the ones who elected you, not the animal rights lobby, and I hope that will be remembered.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
PETA's True Colors
Sadly, PETA has revealed (or had revealed, though required by law to produce information at request as a non-profit, I'm sure they don't like to tell about this one) their kill rate at their shelter. Last year, PETA killed 97% of the animals that entered its shelter.
Ninety seven percent. That is a horrifying, unacceptable number by anyone's standards - let alone those who claim to love and protect animals. This is clearly evidence that the organization has no business running a shelter - and who are we kidding, this isn't running a shelter, it's running a euthanasia center. Ironic, isn't it, that they compared the Holocaust to those who oppose them - when it is they who are engaging in unspeakable behavior, killing animals at an unbelieveable rate.
And let's not forget the animals they kill before they ever make it to the shelter. Recall the two employees put on trial in North Carolina for claiming to pick up animals to adopt out of PETA's Virginia shelter - only to euthanize them and dump their bodies in a dumpster behind a grocery store. It certainly begs the question of how many other states they collect and kill animals in.
It is time in America that we wake up. We have embraced free speech so broadly that in this case, it is to our detriment. We have extremist groups, those who fraternize with terrorists (as PETA does when it supports ALF), who are targeting our children with their outrageous propaganda. When I see PETA claiming that others are abusing or mistreating animals, I want to scream from the hypocrisy. Even kill shelters give their animals a chance to be adopted, give them basic medical treatment, give them a chance at life. Yet PETA, who now posts billboard in Times Square to badmouth animal breeders (so your donation to "help the animals" instead paid for a billboard costing probably upward of $100,000), can't even be bothered to give them a vetting - they don't even make it *to* the shelter for care or adoption.
Spread the information far and wide. Ensure your college age children know the truth about PETA - they are another favorite target of the group, sending mass mailings to dorms with photographs of animals in horrifying, abusive situations. I begin to wonder if, as we have seen in the past, PETA is manipulating those photos to get the most dramatic impact. I certainly wouldn't put it past them - their literature contains so many lies, why shouldn't their photos?
Think back to before the Animal "Rights" movement became big bucks. I'm sure you all knew a dog breeder in your youth - you'd pick the breed, go to the house, which was always spotless, play with a litter of happy, healthy puppies, and select your new pet. Guess what? THAT STILL HAPPENS. But if you take PETA's word for it, every dog born is raised in squalor, filth, and has horrible genetic and infectious diseases. This isn't even close to the truth.
So please - check for yourself and get the word out. PETA KILLS ANIMALS - they admit it themselves, as their kill rate has gone from 80% to 97% in just 3 years. I hope you are as appalled as I am - now exercise YOUR free speech rights to make sure your friends and family aren't taken in by lies. Give your money to the REAL rescues, the local no-kills and the local rescues, even the local breeders who foster and take in animals of their breed to save them from kill shelters. (Yes, you read that right. Breeders quite often reclaim animals from situations that threaten them, at their own cost, because they love their breed and in fact all animals.) Learn the truth - then spread it around.
Ninety seven percent. That is a horrifying, unacceptable number by anyone's standards - let alone those who claim to love and protect animals. This is clearly evidence that the organization has no business running a shelter - and who are we kidding, this isn't running a shelter, it's running a euthanasia center. Ironic, isn't it, that they compared the Holocaust to those who oppose them - when it is they who are engaging in unspeakable behavior, killing animals at an unbelieveable rate.
And let's not forget the animals they kill before they ever make it to the shelter. Recall the two employees put on trial in North Carolina for claiming to pick up animals to adopt out of PETA's Virginia shelter - only to euthanize them and dump their bodies in a dumpster behind a grocery store. It certainly begs the question of how many other states they collect and kill animals in.
It is time in America that we wake up. We have embraced free speech so broadly that in this case, it is to our detriment. We have extremist groups, those who fraternize with terrorists (as PETA does when it supports ALF), who are targeting our children with their outrageous propaganda. When I see PETA claiming that others are abusing or mistreating animals, I want to scream from the hypocrisy. Even kill shelters give their animals a chance to be adopted, give them basic medical treatment, give them a chance at life. Yet PETA, who now posts billboard in Times Square to badmouth animal breeders (so your donation to "help the animals" instead paid for a billboard costing probably upward of $100,000), can't even be bothered to give them a vetting - they don't even make it *to* the shelter for care or adoption.
Spread the information far and wide. Ensure your college age children know the truth about PETA - they are another favorite target of the group, sending mass mailings to dorms with photographs of animals in horrifying, abusive situations. I begin to wonder if, as we have seen in the past, PETA is manipulating those photos to get the most dramatic impact. I certainly wouldn't put it past them - their literature contains so many lies, why shouldn't their photos?
Think back to before the Animal "Rights" movement became big bucks. I'm sure you all knew a dog breeder in your youth - you'd pick the breed, go to the house, which was always spotless, play with a litter of happy, healthy puppies, and select your new pet. Guess what? THAT STILL HAPPENS. But if you take PETA's word for it, every dog born is raised in squalor, filth, and has horrible genetic and infectious diseases. This isn't even close to the truth.
So please - check for yourself and get the word out. PETA KILLS ANIMALS - they admit it themselves, as their kill rate has gone from 80% to 97% in just 3 years. I hope you are as appalled as I am - now exercise YOUR free speech rights to make sure your friends and family aren't taken in by lies. Give your money to the REAL rescues, the local no-kills and the local rescues, even the local breeders who foster and take in animals of their breed to save them from kill shelters. (Yes, you read that right. Breeders quite often reclaim animals from situations that threaten them, at their own cost, because they love their breed and in fact all animals.) Learn the truth - then spread it around.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Breed-Specific Bans, Mandatory Spay Neuter - What You Don't Realize
Right now there is an epidemic of both Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) and Mandatory Spay Neuter (MSN) in the United States. Keep in the back of your mind a common thing: both HSUS and PeTA leaders have stated, overtly, that it is their goal to have a nation of no pets. No animal should be "enslaved" to humans.
BSL refers to outlawing or having special regulations for certain breeds - the most obvious being, the large number of communities outlawing the ownership of so-called Pit Bulls (a misnomer actually applied generally to several breeds that "look like" a Pit Bull.) Now silly as that sounds, some of these laws are written with that phraseology: they name a number of breeds and tack on "or any breed which shares the physical characteristics of these breeds." This is often in response to pit bull attacks; unfortunately it is also starting to reach out to incredibly popular breeds such as the German Shepherd and Doberman Pinscher - by reputation alone, these dogs are forbidden in certain city limits.
MSN is just that, the mandatory spay or neuter demand at a certain age, often either 4 or 6 months. There is no differential for species, for breed status, for hobby breeders, for anything - spay and neuter EVERY animal by 4 or 6 months of age, or suffer per-day fines usually over $100. If there is an exception for breeders, they must pay costly fees (typically a $75+ "intact permit" for each breeding animal, plus additional "per litter" fees, as well as state or county licensing fees, which require them to forfeit their Fourth Amendment rights and open their homes at the whim of any law enforcement agency, any time).
These laws oversimplify a not so simple idea. They capitalize on the mistaken theory of rampant pet "overpopulation." When states are trucking in animals for their shelters from other states or countries, because they have more potential homes than animals, there is no "overpopulation" problem. This concept has been created and marketed by fringe animal rights organizations. Under this "theory," these laws are backed completely by groups like HSUS and PeTA. Those organizations put big money into lobbying and advertising and drumming up support for these laws. (They bring people and letters in from around the world, and then complain when the opposition does the same, but that's another story.)
Breed specific legislation, first off, makes no designation for dogs that are completely harmless. Bullie breeds, those commonly referred to by the public as Pit Bulls, when properly raised and socialized can make wonderful family pets. Most of these laws have no grandfather clause and no exception. The plain meaning? If you own one of the unlucky breeds, you either need to move, give your pet to someone outside city or county limits, or turn your animal over for euthanasia. Those are your only choices.
Now, most folks I know either can't afford or don't want to move. Some people are in homes owned by their families for generations. And many of them don't want to give up their pets, not when they know the city or county will immediately put them down. So, what do they do? They cannot offer anything in defense of their dogs to the municipality - no evidence of obedience training, show success, certified training, having a complete lack of history of unprovoked behavior - they don't matter. Think about what you'd do in this situation. The unfortunate reality? The dogs are let loose somewhere. They don't want them to die, but they have nowhere to take them - so maybe they will go out into the country, maybe they will just release them where they are and hope they can avoid being captured by Animal Control. Or, they will abide the law and turn the dogs in to be put down. What do all these things result in? MORE shelter deaths, be they from relinquishment or from captured, roaming dogs. And a roaming dog is going to become a LOT more dangerous than it ever would be as a loved house pet. Now, do you think this type of law works? Yes, if you advocate a no-pet nation, yes, if you don't mind roaming, potentially dangerous (starving) dogs, yes, if you advocate increased shelter deaths. You'd wonder who would align with that nightmare combination, but there HSUS and PeTA are, at the front of the line.
MSN isn't a whole lot different. These laws are, no exception, spay/neuter by age certain. This doesn't take into account the health needs of the animal. Dog breeders will tell you, they can't get many breeds certified for breeding until somewhere between 3 and 6 years of age. Beyond the needs of specific breeds, there are some breeds whose development will be stunted or injured if they are desexed too early in life. If they don't intend to run hobby breeders out of business, why do they require the end of all breeding stock through MSN? Again, who is propping these laws up? HSUS and PeTA.
And the worst part of all? The folks who don't have their animals spayed and neutered because they can't afford it, won't suddenly find $150 or more in their pocket to spay their animal. They risk fines of again, $100 per day and up. What is a person to do? You guessed it - they relinquish to shelters or release the animal to hopefully make it on their own. Studies bear this out. When counties have tried to implement this plan, their euthanasia rates skyrocket. They are suddenly intaking hundreds more animals, with no more room, and dealing with roaming, starving animals who again, may become dangerous and are certainly not vaccinated. So who supports MSN? Again, if you favor roaming potentially dangerous animals, more shelter deaths, and a nation with no breeding animals (i.e. no more pets) - this sounds good to you. Again, holding up the signs - HSUS and PeTA.
None of these laws make sense. What DOES make sense, is low cost spay neuter. I am aware of cities who put in a voucher system, to ANY resident - not income based - and good people not only spayed and neutered their pets, they trapped neighborhood strays and got them spayed and neutered too. The number of shelter deaths plummeted. The county shelter, which before never had sufficient funding and could only hold about 30 cats - despite massive numbers of stray cat colonies - suddenly had enough money for a complete remodel, building a bigger and more humane shelter that could house the few animals coming in, in comfort while they awaited adoption. We have proof that this, and only this, is what reduces shelter deaths and relinquishment.
So why don't HSUS and PeTA step up and use their lobbying millions (in some cases, billions) to promote and fund low cost spay-neuter? It's the one thing we know works. Because, let's get back to it, their agenda is ultimately for animals to live free, unencumbered by the bonds humans put upon them. Please let your voice be heard - use the points from this post, be educated and open minded in the face of the propaganda and the "overpopulation" myth, and let the legislators know how specious the argument behind these laws is. When you see these laws, understand what their real impact is, and who is supporting them - I hope you will also realize that logic and experience tell us their only purpose is to create a pet-free America. And who wants that?
BSL refers to outlawing or having special regulations for certain breeds - the most obvious being, the large number of communities outlawing the ownership of so-called Pit Bulls (a misnomer actually applied generally to several breeds that "look like" a Pit Bull.) Now silly as that sounds, some of these laws are written with that phraseology: they name a number of breeds and tack on "or any breed which shares the physical characteristics of these breeds." This is often in response to pit bull attacks; unfortunately it is also starting to reach out to incredibly popular breeds such as the German Shepherd and Doberman Pinscher - by reputation alone, these dogs are forbidden in certain city limits.
MSN is just that, the mandatory spay or neuter demand at a certain age, often either 4 or 6 months. There is no differential for species, for breed status, for hobby breeders, for anything - spay and neuter EVERY animal by 4 or 6 months of age, or suffer per-day fines usually over $100. If there is an exception for breeders, they must pay costly fees (typically a $75+ "intact permit" for each breeding animal, plus additional "per litter" fees, as well as state or county licensing fees, which require them to forfeit their Fourth Amendment rights and open their homes at the whim of any law enforcement agency, any time).
These laws oversimplify a not so simple idea. They capitalize on the mistaken theory of rampant pet "overpopulation." When states are trucking in animals for their shelters from other states or countries, because they have more potential homes than animals, there is no "overpopulation" problem. This concept has been created and marketed by fringe animal rights organizations. Under this "theory," these laws are backed completely by groups like HSUS and PeTA. Those organizations put big money into lobbying and advertising and drumming up support for these laws. (They bring people and letters in from around the world, and then complain when the opposition does the same, but that's another story.)
Breed specific legislation, first off, makes no designation for dogs that are completely harmless. Bullie breeds, those commonly referred to by the public as Pit Bulls, when properly raised and socialized can make wonderful family pets. Most of these laws have no grandfather clause and no exception. The plain meaning? If you own one of the unlucky breeds, you either need to move, give your pet to someone outside city or county limits, or turn your animal over for euthanasia. Those are your only choices.
Now, most folks I know either can't afford or don't want to move. Some people are in homes owned by their families for generations. And many of them don't want to give up their pets, not when they know the city or county will immediately put them down. So, what do they do? They cannot offer anything in defense of their dogs to the municipality - no evidence of obedience training, show success, certified training, having a complete lack of history of unprovoked behavior - they don't matter. Think about what you'd do in this situation. The unfortunate reality? The dogs are let loose somewhere. They don't want them to die, but they have nowhere to take them - so maybe they will go out into the country, maybe they will just release them where they are and hope they can avoid being captured by Animal Control. Or, they will abide the law and turn the dogs in to be put down. What do all these things result in? MORE shelter deaths, be they from relinquishment or from captured, roaming dogs. And a roaming dog is going to become a LOT more dangerous than it ever would be as a loved house pet. Now, do you think this type of law works? Yes, if you advocate a no-pet nation, yes, if you don't mind roaming, potentially dangerous (starving) dogs, yes, if you advocate increased shelter deaths. You'd wonder who would align with that nightmare combination, but there HSUS and PeTA are, at the front of the line.
MSN isn't a whole lot different. These laws are, no exception, spay/neuter by age certain. This doesn't take into account the health needs of the animal. Dog breeders will tell you, they can't get many breeds certified for breeding until somewhere between 3 and 6 years of age. Beyond the needs of specific breeds, there are some breeds whose development will be stunted or injured if they are desexed too early in life. If they don't intend to run hobby breeders out of business, why do they require the end of all breeding stock through MSN? Again, who is propping these laws up? HSUS and PeTA.
And the worst part of all? The folks who don't have their animals spayed and neutered because they can't afford it, won't suddenly find $150 or more in their pocket to spay their animal. They risk fines of again, $100 per day and up. What is a person to do? You guessed it - they relinquish to shelters or release the animal to hopefully make it on their own. Studies bear this out. When counties have tried to implement this plan, their euthanasia rates skyrocket. They are suddenly intaking hundreds more animals, with no more room, and dealing with roaming, starving animals who again, may become dangerous and are certainly not vaccinated. So who supports MSN? Again, if you favor roaming potentially dangerous animals, more shelter deaths, and a nation with no breeding animals (i.e. no more pets) - this sounds good to you. Again, holding up the signs - HSUS and PeTA.
None of these laws make sense. What DOES make sense, is low cost spay neuter. I am aware of cities who put in a voucher system, to ANY resident - not income based - and good people not only spayed and neutered their pets, they trapped neighborhood strays and got them spayed and neutered too. The number of shelter deaths plummeted. The county shelter, which before never had sufficient funding and could only hold about 30 cats - despite massive numbers of stray cat colonies - suddenly had enough money for a complete remodel, building a bigger and more humane shelter that could house the few animals coming in, in comfort while they awaited adoption. We have proof that this, and only this, is what reduces shelter deaths and relinquishment.
So why don't HSUS and PeTA step up and use their lobbying millions (in some cases, billions) to promote and fund low cost spay-neuter? It's the one thing we know works. Because, let's get back to it, their agenda is ultimately for animals to live free, unencumbered by the bonds humans put upon them. Please let your voice be heard - use the points from this post, be educated and open minded in the face of the propaganda and the "overpopulation" myth, and let the legislators know how specious the argument behind these laws is. When you see these laws, understand what their real impact is, and who is supporting them - I hope you will also realize that logic and experience tell us their only purpose is to create a pet-free America. And who wants that?
Friday, August 24, 2007
Animal Law, Animal Rights, and Animal Welfare
Some of you may be surprised to find out there's such a specialty as animal law. It's a quickly growing area of rapidly changing law - as people consider their pets more as family members than, well, pets. The law traditionally treats animals as property - that's how the law evolved, prior to the extensive ownership of domestic animals as house pets. People had cattle and livestock and maybe a sheep herding dog or some barn cats. They were property, commodities to be bought and sold (as livestock still is).
Property is, I believe, still the best way to treat animals under the law no matter how personally involved they are in our lives. It sounds callous, but it's realistic. I have a reasonble expectation that my four year old child will someday have the capability to go to the bank, to earn money, to purchase groceries, to prepare their own food. I don't have that expectation of my cats. They will never have that level of independent sustainability. That's why most states won't allow you to leave money or property to your animals - they can't enjoy them. Don't just leave your property to your animals in your will - consult an attorney to instead set up a trust to care for your animals, working with someone who has agreed to use your estate to care for your animals in the manner you proscribe. A local attorney can tell you more about the particular laws, and they do vary state by state. (Transferring breeding rights is a more complex topic I'll get into later, and it can be covered by legal forms that are available through the author of this blog.)
Another thing folks don't realize is the vast chasm that's developed between those interested in animal welfare, versus those interested in animal rights. The animal "rights" contingent doesn't want animals treated like property - they want them treated like people, with all the same rights. They often ignore the irreconcilability of their own positions, such as how we should all eat vegan when the majority of the animal world is carnivorous or omnivorous. They advocate mandatory spay and neuter of all pets, when their real agenda is for none of us to be allowed to own pets and instead feel all animals should live wild and free in their natural state. Animal rights folks, you usually find just trying to change the law by raising money. Folks who are interested in animal welfare are the ones actually helping animals, working at the shelters, fostering, rescuing, giving money and time and effort.
For example, the Humane Society of the United States. If you live near your local County Humane Society - despite the name - they have not one iota in common. The HSUS does NOT help them, and is not associated with them. The HSUS is a huge political machine. Check their IRS filings, which are required to be public because of their tax exempt status. Of billions in assets, they gave a measly $6.6 million to shelters last year. It can cost half a million dollars to run ONE large scale shelter. So who did they really help? Well, here's a hint - three times that much was spent on legislative efforts, and even more than that spent on "strategic communication" - that's lobbying, to you non-Beltway folk. That means SIX TIMES the amount that actually helped animals, went to making up new laws. Is that really where you wanted your Hurricane Katrina donation to go?
Groups like PeTA have an even worse track record. PeTA maintains a shelter in their Virginia headquarters - with a more than 80% euthanasia rate. Two PeTA workers were tried last year for picking up adoptable animals from North Carolina vets and shelters, putting them down in the back of a van and throwing them away in a dumpster. Two more PeTA employees are currently being investigated for stealing a hunting dog, taking off its tracking collar and trying to dispose of it. They'll send you lots of pretty mailings with animals in horrible situations - but even less of their budget goes to actually helping one single animal. THAT is animal rights, not animal welfare.
So what is all this lobbying about? Well, a lot of it is about animals having the same rights as you and I. It's meant to force us all to stop eating meat and dairy; it's meant to prevent us from choosing a particular pet based on our families' needs. If you live with an elderly and fragile parent, or with small children, can you imagine having no choice in the pet you want? You don't get to select a small dog with a calm temperament, or a cat that's not too active and won't trip someone - you get what your local pound has, which they usually will tell you, they can't predict temperament. I'm all for shelter adoption - if you don't have any particular needs to be met. But I'm also for free enterprise and choice - so to me, if you want a Borzoi or a mutt, a Turkish Angora or a domestic shorthair cat, you should be able to go out and get it. Animal rights folks don't think you should have that choice.
They also think we need to pass laws calling us "guardians" and not "owners" because the word guardian will take on a new meaning under the law, and subject owners to higher responsibilities. The fact is we already have sufficient animal cruelty laws on the books in every single state. They need to be enforced, is the problem. And if we don't have the money or ability to enforce them now, how will passing more stringent, invasive and expensive laws be more helpful to anyone?
Over the next few days I'll tackle topics like breeder registration, pet limit laws, breed specific legislation, and how you can help. You can also get updates, sample letters, and find out what communities need your support by subscribing to our partner yahoo mailing list, by sending an email to animalpetlaw-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. The more you learn, the more you'll want to help.
Property is, I believe, still the best way to treat animals under the law no matter how personally involved they are in our lives. It sounds callous, but it's realistic. I have a reasonble expectation that my four year old child will someday have the capability to go to the bank, to earn money, to purchase groceries, to prepare their own food. I don't have that expectation of my cats. They will never have that level of independent sustainability. That's why most states won't allow you to leave money or property to your animals - they can't enjoy them. Don't just leave your property to your animals in your will - consult an attorney to instead set up a trust to care for your animals, working with someone who has agreed to use your estate to care for your animals in the manner you proscribe. A local attorney can tell you more about the particular laws, and they do vary state by state. (Transferring breeding rights is a more complex topic I'll get into later, and it can be covered by legal forms that are available through the author of this blog.)
Another thing folks don't realize is the vast chasm that's developed between those interested in animal welfare, versus those interested in animal rights. The animal "rights" contingent doesn't want animals treated like property - they want them treated like people, with all the same rights. They often ignore the irreconcilability of their own positions, such as how we should all eat vegan when the majority of the animal world is carnivorous or omnivorous. They advocate mandatory spay and neuter of all pets, when their real agenda is for none of us to be allowed to own pets and instead feel all animals should live wild and free in their natural state. Animal rights folks, you usually find just trying to change the law by raising money. Folks who are interested in animal welfare are the ones actually helping animals, working at the shelters, fostering, rescuing, giving money and time and effort.
For example, the Humane Society of the United States. If you live near your local County Humane Society - despite the name - they have not one iota in common. The HSUS does NOT help them, and is not associated with them. The HSUS is a huge political machine. Check their IRS filings, which are required to be public because of their tax exempt status. Of billions in assets, they gave a measly $6.6 million to shelters last year. It can cost half a million dollars to run ONE large scale shelter. So who did they really help? Well, here's a hint - three times that much was spent on legislative efforts, and even more than that spent on "strategic communication" - that's lobbying, to you non-Beltway folk. That means SIX TIMES the amount that actually helped animals, went to making up new laws. Is that really where you wanted your Hurricane Katrina donation to go?
Groups like PeTA have an even worse track record. PeTA maintains a shelter in their Virginia headquarters - with a more than 80% euthanasia rate. Two PeTA workers were tried last year for picking up adoptable animals from North Carolina vets and shelters, putting them down in the back of a van and throwing them away in a dumpster. Two more PeTA employees are currently being investigated for stealing a hunting dog, taking off its tracking collar and trying to dispose of it. They'll send you lots of pretty mailings with animals in horrible situations - but even less of their budget goes to actually helping one single animal. THAT is animal rights, not animal welfare.
So what is all this lobbying about? Well, a lot of it is about animals having the same rights as you and I. It's meant to force us all to stop eating meat and dairy; it's meant to prevent us from choosing a particular pet based on our families' needs. If you live with an elderly and fragile parent, or with small children, can you imagine having no choice in the pet you want? You don't get to select a small dog with a calm temperament, or a cat that's not too active and won't trip someone - you get what your local pound has, which they usually will tell you, they can't predict temperament. I'm all for shelter adoption - if you don't have any particular needs to be met. But I'm also for free enterprise and choice - so to me, if you want a Borzoi or a mutt, a Turkish Angora or a domestic shorthair cat, you should be able to go out and get it. Animal rights folks don't think you should have that choice.
They also think we need to pass laws calling us "guardians" and not "owners" because the word guardian will take on a new meaning under the law, and subject owners to higher responsibilities. The fact is we already have sufficient animal cruelty laws on the books in every single state. They need to be enforced, is the problem. And if we don't have the money or ability to enforce them now, how will passing more stringent, invasive and expensive laws be more helpful to anyone?
Over the next few days I'll tackle topics like breeder registration, pet limit laws, breed specific legislation, and how you can help. You can also get updates, sample letters, and find out what communities need your support by subscribing to our partner yahoo mailing list, by sending an email to animalpetlaw-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. The more you learn, the more you'll want to help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)