Reprinted from SignOn San Diego comments with permission of author
The following comments were posted on Sign-on San Diego regarding Assembly Bill 1634(Levine). It seemed that these were both local and germain to the issues brought to light by the bill. While the author no longer resides in the area, he still is as active as possible in Bahia Sur Kennel Club and has , perhaps, the strongest personal interest in the goals and perseverance of the club. We thank him for permission to cross-post.-ed.
I am a founding member of Bahia Sur Kennel Club of Chula Vista. This weekend we will produce our annual shows. If this bill passes we may very well find it impossible to have any further shows.
Bahia Sur has worked long and hard to raise the condition of all dogs in our community, as have most other dog clubs in the state of California. I happened to be president in 1995 when the Chula Vista Animal Shelter came under attack by the San Diego Humane Society. An ad hoc committee was formed by some socially active people and citizens rallied to improve conditions that had been allowed to develop due to the terminal disease suffered by the previous supervisor of the shelter. The situation became critical for the city when the newly appointed police Captain simply asked the humane society for advice on ranking the apparent problems as to order of correction. The humane society then brought in media to exploit the criticism of the situation. This in itself was simply aggrandizement by the humane society, and made this citizen aware of underhanded tactics sometimes employed by such organizations.
The resulting committee of both citizens and organizations was initially very enthusiastic and got a lot accomplished. However the ebullience of the first meeting at city hall was dashed when I reminded them that the shelter could never be a place of total joy, as the very nature of it entailed the end of the line for many animals. As reality set in, the group vowed to reduce the number of animals entering the shelter as well as making the shelter a much more efficacious adoption point, to bring to a minimum the number of animal deaths.
While not yet at the optimum point, a tremendous reduction of animal deaths has been achieved, and is still occurring. Those totals are reducing annually at the Chula Vista shelter and ALL OVER THE NATION as well as ALL OVER CALIFORNIA. This is despite the fact that the human population is burgeoning rapidly. The per capita animal death per human population is about 25% of the rate in 1995.
So why do we have this outcry and legislative effort? Two reasons: 1. the work for the shelter workers is one with no future. Killing animals takes a terrible toll in spirit and human optimism. Only the type of people you would not want to be neighbors to would thrive in such an environment, and 2. The animal rights organization of PETA and HSUS have cleverly increased their tax free dollars to the point they can safely create PACs and invest heavily in politics to advance their agendas. HSUS outspent the NRA in the last general election. I believe the zeal with which Lloyd Levine has pursued this bill’s passage is partly personal and of his own belief, and partly payback for campaign contributions, past or future. Isn’t re-election the goal of all politicians?
There are published quotes of Wayne Pacelle saying the goal is “one generation and out, that is what we want.” and PETA has always been for non-ownership of pets, since that is a form of “slavery”. Pacelle has also said there is no obligation to continue the breeding of purebred animals, as they are the creation of man. Such an attitude speaks only of his disdain of the accomplishments of his fellow man. And this attitude is rampant among the animal rights crowd-they hate both the country and mankind.
Yet, their tax exempt status continues. There would not be such proposed legislation, if their money were taxed. Nor would there be such legislation if their cause were recognized for what it is-a religion, complete with stated beliefs and goals. As such the traditional wall between church and state would shield us from this form of mass suicide.
Why mass suicide? The comfort of pets relieves much tension in life. Interaction with lesser intelligent species reminds us to be kinder, gentler and more forgiving. We all do that when our dependent dog or cat comes to us for solace, food, or just our company. Loss of these outlets for humane expression will drive up tensions within families and society. Violence may erupt in previously stable homes. Society will suffer.
And the loss of pet related commerce will diminish the incomes of everyone in the state. Further there will no longer be the good examples of pet keeping, as the responsible owners will meekly obey this lousy law and their pets will eventually disappear, never to be replaced due to higher driven costs. Society in California stands to disintegrate over this.
Big brother is screwing you!
Entry filed under: Uncategorized.