Critic speaks against HSUS
Tom Hennessy, Staff columnist
Article Launched: 10/13/2007 09:38:22 PM PDT
In late August, following the defeat of AB1634, an Assembly bill calling for mandatory spaying and neutering of dogs and cats, I ran an interview with Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States.
He touched on a variety of issues, including his critics. Patti Strand, director of the National Animal Interest Alliance, asked me to publish her rebuttal to the Pacelle article. The rebuttal was delayed several weeks because of a death in her family.
NAIA is based in Portland, Ore. I take neither side in this debate, but note only that there are deep divisions in the animal rights movement.
Her rebuttal is as follows:
Wayne Pacelle is correct to rank the NAIA as one of the most prominent critics
Patti Strand is the director of the National Animal Interest Alliance. of the HSUS. We wear that label with honor, many of our members believing HSUS is corrupt to the bone. This corruption comes down to three major elements.
First, HSUS allows its financial supporters – ordinary, animal-loving Americans – to believe it spends an enormous annual tax-free budget of $123 million on caring for animals, when its real agenda is passing extremist legislation.
Second, HSUS calls itself a mainstream advocacy group, hiding or downplaying the fact that it has an extremist agenda. HSUS is all about promoting vegan diets – no meat, no dairy – and ending traditional human-animal relationships across the board, from agriculture to biomedical research.
Third, HSUS constantly engages in deceptive propaganda, half-truths and outright lies in well-funded media campaigns to win its political and legislative battles. But they are not held accountable for their tactics because they are a nonprofit group that enjoys political free speech protections.
NAIA believes it is our responsibility, as animal experts and proponents of true animal welfare, to point out the facts. What qualifies us to know fact from fiction? NAIA is rapidly becoming the nation’s leading advocacy organization for animals and the people who actually care for them.
Our members include individuals who interact with animals regularly in a wide variety of settings. We are pet owners, farmers, researchers, animal trainers, biologists, sportsmen, animal caretakers, dog and cat breeders and enthusiasts, educators and entertainers.
Our members have earned their credentials by working with, and in many cases living with, animals, not by reading philosophical treatises or emotional propaganda. We support the responsible, traditional and humane use of animals in agriculture, biomedical research, education, leisure and recreation, entertainment and companionship. We support and advocate reasonable, effective and enforceable laws that ensure the humane treatment of animals and provide penalties for animal abuse.
We support the rights of others to disagree with our views but not to employ defamation and propaganda to force their views on others. To recognize HSUS’ deception and sit idly by would be to shirk our responsibility not only as animal experts but as citizens; for we believe the HSUS is destroying the mainstream animal protection movement.
The shelter issue
Mr. Pacelle also seems baffled that anyone would go after HSUS for not having shelters because as he stated, “We never said we run – local animal shelters.” This is vintage HSUS. They call themselves a humane society and then blame the public for being confused.
By calling itself the Humane Society of the United States, HSUS rides into every situation on a “case of mistaken identity” – an identity that, oops, just happens to raise millions of dollars: the mistaken impression for many Americans being that it is a humane society rather than a giant propaganda, lobbying and fundraising machine.
When citizens notice that HSUS’ carefully crafted image is at odds with reality and say so, HSUS responds with another opportunistic spin, saying that their critics are just people “who don’t really care about animals.”
Using that logic, maybe humane societies around the country don’t really care about animal welfare either. Many of them have begun putting disclaimers on their Web sites urging their donors not to confuse them with the HSUS.
As Pacelle himself stresses, HSUS is a lobbying group. Instead of representing the humane values of the American public, the well-oiled lobby and propaganda machine of HSUS virtually assures that the voting public will be systematically deceived whenever they’re asked to vote on an HSUS-backed measure. The history of successful HSUS ballot initiatives is a history replete with after-the-event self-flagellation and revulsion by people who recognized later that they were duped.
To us it appears that the priorities of HSUS, as former employees have publicly written, are power and money, and that acquiring both justifies the means. That’s where the willingness to deceive comes in. These folks should make Pinocchio blush.
When HSUS sets out to do a ballot initiative, as it plans for next year in California, they don’t just come to town and start promoting their opinion. Nor do they publish a notice informing voters that as vegans they oppose the consumption of meat, dairy, and even eggs on their anti-farm ballot initiatives. Such a statement might raise questions by voters.
Instead, HSUS conducts sophisticated polling to uncover exactly which messages will work, targeting urban audiences who know little about husbandry and who just happen to live in the most populated areas where a media buy will go a long way. Then, they run one deceptive ad one after another, showing heart-wrenchingly gruesome images, often from foreign countries or showing practices from decades ago, even ones already illegal.
Worse yet, they promote half-truths in support of legislation that in many cases harms animals, even though these bills further the political goals of HSUS. The horse slaughter bill and most of the anti-farming initiatives fall into this classification. HSUS may counter that large companies do major polling and launch advertising campaigns too, prior to introducing new products – but there is a big difference.
The difference is this: When corporations market new products, the public at least recognizes that someone is trying to sell them something. And there are at least some laws that govern how much blue sky can be sold along with the product.
In the case of HSUS, PETA, and other fellow travelers in animal rights, the public only thinks they’re regulated and required to be reasonably truthful. The public doesn’t realize that political speech is far more protected than commercial speech. Thus, HSUS can say pretty much what it wishes and get away with it.
In the HSUS world of “when did you stop beating your wife” politics, it’s basically Defamation For Dollars. They understand social marketing and use it to deceive the public into voting away their rights, their economic best interests, and tragically, the welfare of the animals the public thinks they are voting to protect.
Keep in mind that HSUS is planning a campaign in California that will affect the poultry, pork and beef industries. If it follows suit, it will harm not only California consumers but also the animals themselves.
Tougher for horses
As the American Veterinary Medical Association wrote earlier this week regarding the misguided HSUS campaign against horse slaughter. Efforts by groups calling for an end to horse slaughter, such as the Humane Society of the United States, have led to the closure of the three remaining processing plants in the United States.
Now, as the AVMA has repeatedly warned, horses are being abandoned in the United States or transported to Mexico where, without U.S. federal oversight and veterinary supervision, they are slaughtered inhumanely.
“The reality is, the HSUS has done nothing to address the real issue here, and, in fact, by seeking to ban horse slaughter, they have made things significantly worse,” says Dr. Mark Lutschaunigm, director of government relations for the AVMA. “If they really wanted to do something productive to improve the welfare of horses, they would address the issue of unwanted horses in the United States.”
And the half-truths and lies aren’t confined to pushing bad policies in the United States. Internationally, HSUS was refused entrance into the 2000 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, for filing false accusations about CITES member nations.
In the state of Washington, the HSUS-driven Proposition 713, an anti-trapping ballot initiative, was so misleading, the legislature voted to overturn it when it became obvious that the voters had been misled.
Floridians saw their pork industry – small as it was – wash out entirely because of the cost of equipment changes required by the passage of their anti-gestation confinement, Proposition 204, a measure designed to eliminate gestation crates used by farmers to protect the lives of piglets.
When the HSUS-inspired ballot initiative is forwarded next year, NAIA and its members will be proud to stand with California farmers.
Our membership includes veterinarians, wildlife biologists and other animal scientists, dog and cat breeder/enthusiasts, animal trainers, farmers, ranchers, and others with hands-on experience in animal husbandry and care.
We are fighting a David vs. Goliath battle here. HSUS has regional branch offices all over America and over $100 million to fight, mislead and deceive. We at NAIA are a small, mostly unpaid band of hard-working, hands-on animal people.
Truth, hands-on knowledge, understanding and fair mindedness make us proud of the company we keep. We are proud that many cities around the country call on NAIA for expert guidance to draft sensible animal laws. And we feel validated to be on the same side of the fence as state and federal law enforcement in the animal welfare debate. We are also proud to stand with the American farmer, the legions of dog fanciers, and others who are the real backbone of the mainstream animal welfare movement.
None of them engage in the systematic misrepresentation of issues for profit and power that we see occurring as standard practice in HSUS and other conflict fundraising groups.
Unfortunately, it’s the average, uninformed American citizen who winds up at the short end of the stick, thanks to the machinations of HSUS.
But I can tell you this: the animal welfare movement is onto them. And we’re going to keep digging in our heels and telling the truth in our loudest possible voice.
Tom Hennessy’s viewpoint appears Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. He can be reached at (562) 499-1270 or by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org
This post was copied from www.consumerfreedon.com , but originated with the Orange County Register.
Please read and heed the bottom line.
Posted On October 16, 2007
California Focus: The new animal-rights battleground
By: David Martosko
For instance, animal-rights activists this month began asking Californians for signatures on a proposed ballot measure that would give pigs, cows and chickens some of the same rights people enjoy.
If approved by voters, the California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act would, beginning in 2015, mostly prohibit the confinement on a farm of pigs, calves, and hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up and fully extend their limbs. Violations would be misdemeanors.
Because animal-rights protesters are generally loud, obnoxious, uncompromising or naked (and sometimes all four at once), we tend to equate them with the colorful but harmless characters hoisting cardboard signs along the Venice Beach boardwalk.
But the animal-rights movement is far from harmless. And since California seems to be the current animal-rights Ground Zero, it’s worth considering what the movement stands for.
Don’t confuse animal “rights” with animal “welfare,” a more mainstream movement concerned with puppy and kitten populations. Animal-rights activism is more about protest, pressure and raising hell than actual animal care. And the groups pushing the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act are decidedly in the “rights” camp.
Animal “rights” sees the institution of pet ownership, including seeing-eye dogs and police K-9 units, as a form of slavery. Hunting and fishing are incompatible with animal rights. Road kill, the philosophy dictates, should result in felony charges. And leather shoes, from Hush Puppies to Manolo Blahniks, are unforgivable.
But animal-rights activists aren’t just concerned with pet store parakeets and birthday-party riding ponies. Embracing their philosophy requires shifting meatless eating from a choice to an obligation. Products like beef, eggs, milk, even honey, are taboo. Who knew that an apiary was just a beehive-shaped San Quentin?
Animal-rights activists want to scrap our system of medical research, too. Most Californians would generally be glad to sacrifice lab rats (and yes, even the occasional monkey) to save our mothers, brothers, children, or neighbors. But animal-rights dogma holds that it’s simply unnecessary. Some activists have openly admitted that even if a cure for AIDS were to result from animal testing, they’d be against it. Activists may start out agitating for roomier calf, hog and poultry cages, but their real goal is the end of all animal agriculture, including small family farms.
That doesn’t bother groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which doesn’t actually operate a single “humane society” pet shelter, or Farm Sanctuary, which views farms as prison camps for animals. They’re providing the money to get the “humane” initiative on the 2008 California ballot.
This isn’t the first campaign they’ve run in an effort to make common farming practices illegal. Farm Sanctuary paid a $50,000 fine for election fraud after a 2002 Florida campaign very similar to the one just launched in California.
Thanks to Farm Sanctuary’s fraud and deceit, Florida’s state constitution now includes a clause giving legal rights to pregnant pigs. The momentum from this illegal election victory provided momentum for a 2006 Arizona initiative that added veal calves to the mix. The California measure includes egg-laying hens.
Give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile. And in this case, the animal activists’ chicken proposals alone could triple the cost of supermarket eggs.
It’s possible to be a decent human being without signing a save-the-chickens petition. And kindness to animals – actual flesh-and-blood creatures – is a good thing. Volunteer at your local shelter. Adopt a cat. Get your dog spayed or neutered. Feed your fish. But recognize that extending human “rights” to animals is a truly crazy notion.
It’s possible to be so open-minded that your brain falls out.
THE REAL AGENDA The Animal Rights Movement is Hurting the Animals …
by LEE WALLOT
Reprint permission from Canine Chronicle, Dec. 1992
We have all seen them. The soulful eyes of dogs & cats imploring
us from behind the wire fences. The fluffy rabbit huddled in the
corner, its eyes closed against the pain of a seeping wound on its
side. The raccoon curled in death with its paw in a trap big enough
to hold a bear. We have seen them…in the mail delivered to our door,
in the magazines we flip through, on the television we watch in our
homes. We see them & our hearts twist in sympathy. We read the
messages: “Help us save them. Stop the torture. Write letters.
Phone your officials. Send money.” The messages beseech & we
respond, prodded by equal parts of compassion & guilt. We send the
money by the millions of dollars; we make the phone calls by the
thousands, & in doing so, we, like millions of caring humans before
us, have succumbed to the seductive propaganda of the animal rights
Emotion is the sword the activists wield & it cuts keenly to the
bone. Emotion impels action without thought & it drives the
adrenaline that shuts off the process of reason. Emotion is the key
that turns on the entire mechanical monster called the animal rights
movement. And it works. The leaders of this movement have
discovered a very important marketing ploy: The more a person feels
the propaganda, the less time he spends thinking about it. To the
truly dedicated, to the thoroughly indoctrinated, there is no room
for reason. There is only room to feel & to do, mindlessly but
heartily, as told.
“What is this?” you ask. “Sounds like a cult to me.” In a way, it
is. “No…more like brainwashing,
that also. “Maybe a political movement with social overtones?”
someone else suggests. Oh, definitely that, & more. “But what IS
it?” The question hangs in the air, begging an answer.
The animal rights movement is a philosophy based on the belief that
all animals are the equal of man, that man does not have dominion
over animals, that all animals are morally equivalent to him…even
rats & toads…& therefore are due the same rights as those held by
man. But what does this mean? At first reading, such a moral belief
often doesn’t appear totally wrong; in fact it is interpreted by many
as “the way it should be,” with maybe an innocuous extension of
animal welfare thrown in for good measure. Nothing could be further
from the truth. In fact, at a recent symposium put on by National
Alliance for Animals, two prominent speakers (both leaders in the
animal rights field) characterized animal welfare as “the enemy.” To
these two men, the goals of animal “welfare” not only differ from
animal “rights,” they contradict them.
To explain a complicated philosophy in as few words as possible,
animal welfare is concerned with the humane care & use of animals by
man. The animal rights agenda has only one goal: To end forever the
ownership & use of all animals, in any way, by human beings. They
want nothing short of a moral revolution that would change our food &
clothing, our entire relationship to the animal world.
Who are these people? Where did they come from? We hear the
names: PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), Fund for
Animals, HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), PAWS
(Progressive Animal Welfare Society), Doris Day Animal League. These
are only a few of the leading organizations in the animal rights
movement today. Animal RIGHTS? It is confusing because they have
all been thought of as animal WELFARE groups by the majority of the
contributing public. Thousands of people have sent millions of
dollars to them in the belief they were supporting the compassionate
use & well being of animals. What happened? Is this a new thing?
Not really. Although the takeover of moderate humane groups by the
animal rights activists is a relatively recent occurrence in the
United States, the philosophy of animal rights has been around for a
long time. In the late 1800’s, Edward B. Nicholson concluded in this
contribution to the animal rights literature that “animals have the
same abstract rights of life & personal liberty with man.” In the
same time frame, Henry S. Salt founded the Humanitarian League &
published Animal Rights Considered in Relation to Social Progress.
His Philosophy went so far as to imply that humans & animals should &
would ultimately participate together in a common government.
But throughout the 19th & most of the 20th century, these men were
part of a small fringe of philosophers…
campfires, thinking deep thoughts that were seldom understood by most
The people…the common man & legislators alike…were bringing into
being the concept of animal welfare. Then, as now, animal welfare &
animal rights were two entirely different things. The animal welfare
movement concerned itself with improving the life of animals through
humane treatment & responsible stewardship. They felt the animals
were here for humans to use in the natural order of things: For food,
for clothing, for pets, for work, for recreation, for research, but
always our dominion over the animals was to be tempered with kindness
& consideration, for their comfort & well being. They felt man had
an obligation by virtue of this higher position on the evolutionary
scale to use that higher power for the good of all, humans & animals
This welfare movement extended for a long time & the animal welfare
organizations attained both power & money from their supportive
members. They succeeded in getting many anti-cruelty laws passed &
were instrumental in making life better for millions of animals.
They moved the care & use of animals from the dark ages of neglect
into the light of modern civilization…
most of us find ourselves today. We care about animals. We care
deeply. We do not want to see them destroyed in driftnets or
released from a cage & shot from 10 feet away by someone seeking an
easy & riskfree trophy. We care about our dogs & cats; they are as
much a part of our lives as other family members. We worked right
alongside the animal welfare societies to alleviate cruelty & teach
responsible care & use of our animals.
But in England, without our even being aware of it, something else
was happening. There was a dark thunderstorm rumbling on the horizon
as the animal rights people stirred in discontent. It isn’t welfare
we want for animals they growled. The animals are EQUAL to humans,
are equal, they intoned, we have no right to kill them to eat them or
to enslave them as research animals or imprison them in our homes as
If you wouldn’t do it to a human being, they warned, you should not
do it to an animal.
The rumblings became meaner & more threatening. The animal rights
people were moving from the solitude of their individual campfires
into small groups & the discontent that flowed between them fed on
itself until it erupted into violence. In 1962, the Hunt Saboteurs
Association was formed, followed in 1972 by the Band of Mercy, &
followed in 1976 by the Animal Liberation Front…or as we know it
today, ALF. The 80’s saw a frightening change in the expression of
the philosophy of the animal rights movement. It changed from the
persuasive words used by thinkers to the warfare used by terrorists.
Their agenda was not the humane treatment of animals. It was
exactly what the name says…Animal Liberation…the freeing of animals
of all dominion by man. Vegetarianism was…& is…the rite of passage.
Once a person could change his lifestyle not for health reasons but
because he believed it was morally wrong to eat the flesh of animals,
it is a simple step to acceptance of the total agenda that says all
use of animals, for any reason, has to end…Forever.
The animal rights movement as we know it today is not a movement
based on the love of animals. It is a moral & political issue that
reverberates with hate by its leaders for those people who do not
support the animal rights beliefs. It is a movement of fear &
intimidation, & its leaders have only one goal: to force the rest of
humanity to accept & live by the beliefs that only the animalists
deem acceptable for the rest of the world. Your ideas & opinions do
not matter to them. My beliefs & thoughts do not matter to them.
With a zealot’s fanaticism, they came to the United States & found
fertile soil for their seeds of hate.
In the early 1980’s, except for the formation of PETA that was
animal rights oriented from its inception, most of our animal welfare
societies remained committed to animal welfare. But something new
was in the wind. The polish & professionalism of big business in the
United States was being studied carefully by the animalists. They
needed money to carry on their work. Where was the money? In the
animal welfare societies, that’s where. And thus began a series of
the slickest corporate takeovers in the history of the United
States. One by one, the governing boards of the humane societies was
gradually changed, swinging away from animal welfare & swinging
toward animal rights. One by one, the bank accounts of those humane
societies were turned away from helping the animals to promoting the
money-raising campaigns of the animal rights leaders.
One such takeover is graphically detailed in an excerpt from “Who
Will Live, Who Will Die?” by Katie McCabe, The Washingtonian, Aug.
1986. It says, “along with his lobbying efforts on national issues,
McArdle (of the Humane Society of the United States…HSUS) coordinates
& guides local humane societies into taking a more aggressive animal
rights stance. On his desk during an interview is a letter from the
Peninsula Humane Society in San Mateo, CA, one of the country’s
organization in a minute).
“According to the Dec. 18, 1985 San Mateo Times, a `surprise coup’
at the Society by local activists forced the resignation of the
board’s conservative members, one of whom said, “I am resigning
because I do not agree with the philosophy of the extreme activists.”
The radicalization of local humane societies is a nationwide
phenomenon. Says PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk, “Humane societies all over
the country are adopting the animal rights philosophy (and are)
We mentioned the agenda with an ultimate goal. The animalists have
also set forth very specific sub-goals in which any success, no
matter how small, becomes another step toward the ultimate goal of
total abolution. Read the agenda printed below. It was written by
an animal rights activist & published in an animals rights magazine.
It is the world they are in the process of legislating into
existence. They have been telling us for years exactly what their
goals are, but we weren’t listening.
1. Abolish by law all animal research.
2. Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic & product testing,
classroom demonstration & in weapons development.
3. Vegetarian meals should be made available at all public schools.
4. Eliminate all animal agriculture.
5. No herbicides, pesticides or other agricultural chemicals should
be used. Outlaw predator control.
6. Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the
Department of Agriculture.
7. Eliminate fur ranching & end the use of furs.
8. Prohibit hunting, trapping & fishing.
9. End the international trade in wildlife goods.
10. Stop any further breeding of companion animals, including
purebred dogs & cats. Spaying & neutering should be subsidized by
state & municipal governments. Abolish commerce in animals for the
11. End the use of animals in entertainment & sports.
12. Prohibit the genetic manipulation of species.
(From “Politics of Animal Liberation” by Kim Barlett, Animals
Agenda Nov. 1987.)
These are not my words. They are the words of the animal rights
activists themselves. THIS IS THE AGENDA the activists are seeking
to legislate into our lives & yet because they are so skillful in
separating (in people’s minds) the various parts of the agenda most
of us never see the total picture. The hunters think they are the
target. The researchers think they are the target. The dog & cat
owners are new to all this & are dismayed to find that they are the
target. Even more difficult to understand is that there are one or
more items of the agenda that many of us could agree with at least in
part, & this is the key to the seductive premise of the movement.
Work for one part of the agenda, even if you don’t agree with it all,
& you nonetheless enhance the chances of success for the entire
“Whew! Heavy Stuff,” you say. “But what does it have to do with
me?” EVERYTHING! Do you enjoy a steak now & then, or a roast
chicken, or a broiled trout, or an egg, or a glass of milk, or honey
on your toast, or a bowl of Jello for dessert? The animalists would
end the use of these things. (You are not a true rights person unless
you are a strict vegetarian, or even better a vegan…according to
their creed.) Do you like wearing your plaid wool coat or leather
belts & shoes, or silk scarves? The animalists would end the use of
these things. (They say sheep are embarrassed when we shear their
wool & it is immoral to kill silkworms to get their silk cocoons.)
Do you inoculate your children with a vaccine developed through
biomedical research? Do you hope research will find a cure for
cancer & AIDS? Do you live a better life because insulin, developed
through animal research, now controls your diabetes? Are you alive
because of heart surgery that was perfected through animal research?
The animalists would end all such further research. Do you own a dog
or cat? The animalist would end such ownership because they feel we
are keeping those dogs & cats in slavery for our own selfish
purposes. Do you like to ride a horse? Do you take your children to
the circus or zoo? Do you enjoy an exciting rodeo or horse show or
horse race? Do you hunt? Do you fish? The animalists would end all
these things. In fact they are already doing it through terrorist
attacks that include firebombings & the wrecking of laboratories, &
through laws that “sound good for the animals,” but are actually
eroding away the rights of human beings. Our freedom of choice is
being legislated away. The animal rights beliefs are, step by step,
being legislated into our lives by law. “Can’t happen,” you say?
Let me tell you, it IS happening. Now. And has been happening,
little by little, for years. If you don’t believe so ask the
biomedical researchers who have been hit with so many new,
restrictive laws (introduced by activists) that continuing their
research will cost us all billions more than it should. Or ask the
McDonalds restaurant owners who were the object of terrorist threats
& harassment because they dare sell hamburgers & chicken. In one
instance the terrorists even went so far as to leave live bombs in
trash cans while the restaurants were full of customers. Or ask the
outdoorsmen who have been fighting for years to keep their right to
hunt & fish from being taken away from them. And now it’s happening
to the owners of dogs & cats who are seeing oppressive legislation
being proposed all over the country that would eliminate the
reproduction & ownership of such animals.
The attack against the ownership of pets is being hidden under the
guise of a pet overpopulation problem, under the emotional sword of
all those puppies & kittens being killed at shelters all over the
country. But what you see & hear is not the truth. You see what the
activists want you to see…& the key called “emotion” is turned on in
“Millions of dogs & cats are killed every year in our shelters,”
the animalists cry. “It is an exploding problem that is getting
worse & can only be brought under control by high license fees,
breeding bans & mandatory spay/neuter laws!” they insist. And then
they show you pictures of barrels of dead dogs & cats in your
newspaper (as was done in San Mateo, CA & in Seattle, WA) & they kill
dogs on television (as was done in San Mateo & Seattle) with the
excuse, “They were going to die anyway. We just thought it was time
the public saw it.” When questioned by Ken Schram on Seattle
TV “Town Meeting,” Mitchell Fox of PAWS (Progressive Animal Welfare
Society) insisted that killing the dogs on television was an
effective form of education.
This is what they show you. This is what turns on the key of
emotion & gets that animal rights machine moving. What they do NOT
tell you is that caring, concerned people in the world…animal welfare
people, through low-cost spay/neuter clinics & through education,
breeders through selling their pets on spay/neuter contracts,
responsible owners through responsible stewardship of their pets…have
already made a difference. They do NOT tell you that in 1980, 20
million dogs & cats were killed in shelters but in 1990 the figure
had plummeted to 2.3 million with the numbers continuing to go
downward even now. From 20 million to 2 million in 10 years!
Obviously, the animalists realized they had to get their campaign
going now or else in a few more years there would be nothing to point
at in order to turn on that emotional key. The onslaught against our
pets is well-planned, well-organized & well financed, & it has left
the nation reeling in disbelief. “Take away our dogs & cats?” you
stutter nervously. “They can’t do that. All those ads we see &
end the overpopulation problem caused by puppy mills & irresponsible
breeders. At least I think that is what they mean. I take good care
of my pets. Those laws don’t have anything to do with me.” I only
have one response: Think again.
Let’s let Ingrid Newkirk of PETA explain it. At least she doesn’t
beat around the bush about the goal to end the ownership of pets.
She has said pet ownership is an “absolutely abysmal situation
brought about by human manipulation.
the word `pet’. I think it’s speciesist language. I
prefer `companion animal.’
For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding… There would be no
pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those
animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters & the
streets. You would have a protective relationship with them, just as
you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of dogs & cats …
decline, eventually COMPANION ANIMALS WOULD BE PHASED OUT & we would
return to a more symbiotic relationship… ENJOYMENT FROM A
DISTANCE.” (Emphasis mine.) Harpers Magazine, Aug. 1988.
Think about those words. “We would no longer allow breeding…” The
breeding bans impose this restriction. Those animals in our
homes “would have to be refugees from the animal shelters…” The
breed bans, if carried across the country the way the activist are
trying to do, would eliminate the breeders of purebred dogs & cats.
Therefore, the only dogs & cats left available to the public would
have to be from the shelters. There is one part of these breeding
bans that Newkirk does not spell out in this particular speech, but
it is a very real part of the animalists’ agenda. The breeding bans
call for the mandatory sterilization of all dogs & cats. The
activist will try to convince you that breeding ill still be allowed…
all you have to do is buy a breeding licenses. This however, doesn’t
apply only to those people thought of as breeders. Most ordinances
define any unneutered animal as a “breeding animal” whether that
animal ever reproduces or not, & you therefore MUST buy a breeding
license in addition to the regular license. Oh, & by the way, you
can buy that “breeding license” (at an exorbitant price) so your pet
will be legal; but only until the breeding ban is put into effect, at
which time no more breeding permits will be issued. Guess what,
folks! Your legally unaltered pet is now illegal because you can’t
get that “breeding license” anymore. And now every dog & cat in the
jurisdiction of that ordinance must be spayed or neutered BY LAW.
Maybe you can tell me…what is left to reproduce after all this is
“Not so” the activists protest. “That’s nonsense. We love
animals. Look at the millions we have adopted out over the years.
We don’t want to eliminate pets. We just want to stop killing
them.” Don’t you believe them! Look again at Newkirk’s quote. We
humans would be the `caretakers’
animals…animal rights people always show you their “companions” that
they have rescued…but only until such time as THERE ARE NO MORE. The
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has a prophetic motto
these days: “Until there are none, adopt one.”
There is an old cliché: Figures lie & liars use figures. Gross
exaggeration has always been the tool of animalists. It has been
wielded against biomedical researchers with regularity. For
instance, the director of the Washington D.C. office of the National
Anti-Vivisection Society has stated that medical research uses 70
million animals a year. He acknowledges that this figure is too
high, but claims he uses it in order to force opponents to refute
it. The real number of laboratory animals used is 17 to 22 million
animals per year, & although activists have manipulated the public’s
perception into believing most all the animals are chimps, monkeys,
dogs & cats, in reality 90 percent are rodents.
Not surprisingly, we find the same deception being used by the
activists in the fight to end what they call the “slavery” of our
pets. San Mateo, Calif. was the first county in the country to enact
a breeding ban & mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. (This is the same
San Mateo mentioned earlier, describing the Peninsula Humane Society
takeover.) The demand for the ordinance was primarily fueled by the
activists cry “10,000 healthy but abandoned dogs & cats were killed
in San Mateo last year.” Predictably, an outraged & uninformed
public recoiled in horror as the key named “Emotion” was turned on &
they demanded that something be done. The activists were only too
happy to oblige, & the ordinance became law. Imagine, however, the
shock the task force felt when they later went through the shelter
records & found out what that horrific figure really represented.
One thing should be kept in mind: There will always be those animals
at the shelters for which, sad as the truth may be, euthanasia is the
only moral or ethical choice. Those animals are not “healthy but
abandoned,” but are, in fact, “unadoptable” because of extreme age,
injury, disease, incorrigible behavior (i.e., aggression) or owner-
The task force tabulated the figures & found the following
breakdown: 6,500 cats were unadoptable; 800 cats were homeless; 1,470
dogs were unadoptable; 268 dogs were homeless; 9,038 total.
As in all their propaganda, the animalists had manipulated the
public into thinking these were mainly 10,000 healthy, adoptable dogs
dogs killed, when in reality the number of truly adoptable dogs was
only 268. A year later, when finally given the correct information
instead of the animal rights’ distorted propaganda, the San Mateo
Board of Supervisors overturned & struck down the breeding ban &
mandatory spay/neuter laws. By then, however, the damage was already
done. Everyone in the country had heard about the ordinance going on
the books; very few ever learned that the breeding ban & mandatory
spay/neuter part of it had been repealed. In the meantime, the
animalists exploded their campaign all across the United States,
touting the “foresight” of San Mateo as their flagship. At the time
this is being written (Aug. 1992) there have been over 100
municipalities across the country hit by the animal rights activist
demanding breeding bans, or at the very least, a new & extremely
expensive licensing fee structure for unaltered animals that would
eventually accomplish the same goal: The end of unaltered dogs & cats.
In their nationwide onslaught against the ownership of pets, the
animalists are using the same tactics as was used in San Mateo,
voicing the same questionable figures, using the same media hype,
turning on the key of emotion with the same pornographic litany of
death. Then there is the confusing duplicity of the animal rights
movement. PETA solicits donations from caring people by promising
that no animal will be turned away, that they are there to help
animals. Last year it came to light that PETA had killed 32 animals
at its “sanctuary,” 18 rabbits & 14 roosters. The rabbits had
been “rescued” from a schoolroom & the roosters were confiscated from
a private home. Ingrid Newkirk of PETA explained the killings by
saying “We will not overcrowd our animals. We really didn’t have
anything else to do. And so euthanasia was carried out with a great
deal of concern.” There is yet another example; this time the Humane
Society of the United States. HSUS, like all animal rights
organizations, is adamantly opposed to research that uses animals.
Interestingly enough, HSUS is funding the studies of two chemical
sterilants for use in the sterilization of dogs & cats. The research
will include the killing & dissecting of about 40 dogs & 59 cats.
Truly, the animal rights movement is the mother of deception in its
most calculating & premeditated form. It takes a while to absorb the
ramifications of all this, doesn’t it? It takes time to recover from
the stunned disbelief most of us feel when first faced with the total
concept of this sinister movement. It takes time to shake off the
overwhelming feeling of helplessness that sinks in with the
understanding of the power of the many-tentacled animal rights
machine. It takes time.
But with time, understanding begins to grow, & with understanding
comes the realization that animal rights is definitely not concerned
with animal welfare. Its concern is with the advancement of its
political agenda. Nothing more & certainly nothing less.
“But what happens to the animals?” people are beginning to
ask. “The activists don’t want bigger cages; they want empty cages.
They don’t want better care of the animals in our meat industry; they
want no meat industry. They don’t want more responsible care for the
dogs & cats in our homes; they want no animals in our homes. What
about the animals?”
That question accurately reflects the true tragedy of this
movement. To the radical leaders, the animals’ welfare doesn’t
matter. To them neither do the wants & desires of humans who do hot
embrace their goals. If this movement succeeds, what a sorry state
life will be: The end of the human-animal bond, replaced
by “enjoyment at a distance.” This is what has angered compassionate
people the most. This is what hurts the animals the most. As
people, first by the hundreds & then by the thousands, discover for
themselves the true meaning of the animal rights movement, they will
stop supporting it with their money, their letters, and their help.
Most caring, thinking people find they could never support the
extremists’ goals & so they turn away, with pain in their hearts
because they no longer have a means through which to help the animals
anymore. Where do caring people who still want help to animal
welfare turn? There are still a few animal welfare organizations
that have not succumbed to the animals rights movement, but they are
hard to find & even harder to know for sure their governing boards
are not in the process of being taken over by the animalists. It is
a sad state of affairs with everyone losing, animals & humans alike.
Will the compassionate, moderate people who work for the animal
rights movement finally come to understand the hidden agenda of their
extremist leaders &, realizing the damage being done, will they rise
up & rebel? Will those of us who are truly concerned about animal
welfare find the courage to stand up & expose the hidden agenda to
the world? Will we be strong enough to turn back the tidal wave of
animal rights legislation that is already looming in front of &
towering over us? I don’t know the answer to those questions. DO
Once in awhile we find some interesting information posted elsewhere. In this case it is a post from Elizabeth Brinkley, sent to us on the Pet-law @yahoo groups list.
7 Things You Didn’t Know About HSUS
1. HSUS does not operate or have direct control over any animal shelter. Buried deep within HSUS’s website is a disclaimer noting that the group “is not affiliated with, nor is it a parent organization for, local humane societies, animal shelters, or animal care and control agencies.
2. Since its inception, HSUS has tried to limit the choices of American consumers, opposing dog breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos, circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, fur trapping and medical research.
3. HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere. Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends $2 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.
4. While most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes.
5. The current president of HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, is a former officer of PeTA.
6. HSUS is currently under investigation by the Attorney General of Louisiana in regards to the disposition of Katrina funds. HSUS has been under investigation by the FBI for their links to domestic terrorist organizations such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). One of their current officers, John P. Goodwin is a former member of ALF and a convicted felon for acts of terrorism related to animals.
7. HSUS consistently jumps on the bandwagon of any animal issue to raise funds even if they are NOT directly involved. Most recently they used the Michael Vick case as a major fund raiser, even though HSUS had nothing to do with the investigation or care of the Vick dogs.
And our own#8. Do you think that HSUS could be strongly behind this AB1634 that would force the cutting of your dog against your will and at the cost of your money? Bet on it.
Dear Californians who voted to defeat Prop 93. Thank you so much for your wisdom. Wait until there is another proposition that does not extend bad officeholders to shorten the terms of legislators reasonably. The people won, and will continue to win, with their combined wisdom.
Now, it is time to tell all your neighbors about AB1634.
AB1634 will not:
1. make pets healthier, 2. reduce the numbers of animals in the public shelters, 3. lower the animal control cost of government, 4. Contribute in any positive way to the California lifestyle, no matter which part of California you enjoy for a home.
1. increase the cost of animal control to the government, 2. increase the cost of licensing your pet, 3. Hugely increase the cost of keeping your animal intact as God made them, 4. decrease the rabies vaccination and licensing rate, 5. Increase the incidence of rabies through decreasing the vaccination rate, 6. Cause unintended distortions in growth of your pet due to the lack of sexually created hormones that stop the growth of long bones (due to the young age made mandatory for time of castration), 7. cause behaviour problems in pets, due to the lack of sexual hormone guidance associated with sexual roles, 8. Prevent you from obtaining the dog you want by forcing out competent, caring hobby breeders of purebred dogs, leaving only the mass produced dogs from commercial farms to be sold through pet stores, 9. Cost the state of California a minimum of $14 Billion per annum by year five after passage as animal related businessed dry up and blow away from lack of business, 10. Put groomers, trainers, animal transportation specialists, veterinarians, and dog and cat clubs out of work and existence, 11. forever alter the nature of the purebred dogs and cats, as it is the hobby breeders, through the shows, that select for the best possible breeding stock-by eliminating the hobby breeders and the shows, 12. Ruin the happiness of many families by creating a situation of fear of the animal control people and the police who will have the power to cite, arrest, and fine those who do not comply-Or just seize their dog(s).
Twelve good and resourced reasons should be enough to defeat this bill, don’t you think? There are many more, and if that isn’t enough for you then please comment and ask for more.
The main thing is to defeat this bill when it is slithered out of it’s cage in the Senate Local Governments Committee fairly soon. Then examine every other bill and stop taking this crap from unethical and downright cruel legislators who are so ignorant they cannot find their backsides with both hands.
And that may well include Mary Salas, Assemblywoman from Chula Vista, who deceitfully claimed she was probably going to vote against it, abstained so her vote would count with the majority, AND GAVE A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE PASSAGE OF AB1634 IN THE ASSEMBLY!!! En Garde, Mary. We are now a vote mower.
Tomorrow Californians go to the polls. There is more at stake than the next presidential candidate. At stake is the very integrity of the California legislature as the citizens want it.
Prop. 93 is purported to actually reduce the terms of office for lawmakers. And it will-AFTER IT EXTENDS THE TERMS OF TODAY’S INCUMBENTS FOR SIX HORRIBLE YEARS. Yep, that is what will happen. Those incompetent jerks will get to be re-elected for six years more in office. The competent ones will also, but they are not clamboring for Prop 93 passage. They are musing over the irony of having to leave it up to the people and hope they do not extend the terms possible for the jerks they have worked alongside. In a word, these honorable public servants are sacrificing their possible re-election to help rid the government of deadwood and poison ivy. Hats off to those who still have faith in the people!!!
Why are we interested in this proposition? LLoyd Levine, the source of push behind AB1634 is one of those being termed out. To retain the necessary influence to get it passed, he would then have to run for the Senate-and he can be defeated.
Now is the time for all PET OWNERS and dog and cat fanciers to get out and vote. Who can you give a ride? Who can you help get to the polls? What can you do to kill Prop 93? Who can you tell the real facts and get them to vote NO onProp 93? Answer those questions for yourself and then get to work doing it. Only your actions will make a difference in your life!.
Abraham Lincoln said,” To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.” Please do not give yourself room to think of yourself as a coward. Act now, and say, “I tried as hard as I could, and I made a difference.”
And all California shall be better for it.
As this nation rolls on to select another President, as the outgoing is termed out, there is another very important scenario at work on a lesser, but nationwide scale. It may have as much importance in the long run. Of course, in the long run, we will all be dead. What concerns this blogger is the nation, states and communities we will leave to our successors.
Lies and deceit are everywhere. Since this blog concerns the keeping of dogs, I shall stick to the lies and deceit concerning laws about pets. Fair enough?
First, there are the lies that spaying and neutering are the only way to control the pet population, based on the lie that there is “OVERPOPULATION”. The overpopulation lie has been firmly exposed by Nathan Winograd in his book Redemption. Read it or remain forever ignorant and unworthy of this blog.(or redeem yourself and just believe me wholeheartedly) The fault with sterilization is that it prevents any and all reproduction. But that is the goal of HSUS and PETA. In fact, their goal is sterilization of all mammals, not in the wild-AND THAT INCLUDES HUMANS!!!! And they want to start with Americans. That would be easy to see, if you studied them in the slightest extent and saw how they hate this great nation so much! Their tacit support of animal and eco terrorist activities and PETA’s actual monetary support speak for themselves.
This week HSUS took another step toward becoming just the better dressed and larger image of PETA. They released a video taken last November, showing rough and cruel handling of downed cows at a slaughter facility. This video was in their hands for four months before revelation!!! Once the United states Department of Agriculture became aware of it, they moved on the information within twenty-four hours. And in a statement, asked why it wasn’t revealed immediately. COuld it be that holding the information served HSUS in some manner to make their distorted point?
Nationwide, pet owners are under attack. People are having their dogs seized without warrants, violating rights under the fourth amendment. Remember the post in this blog about that? This is property taken from people illegally!! One lady is reported to have lost over thirty dogs, to an animal control that decided they did not like her, which were impounded in healthy condition. 13 of the dogs died, one of her prize dogs was attacked by another shelter inmate and lost a leg. Now how good are the shelters that allow that to happen?
And city by city, county by county, and state by state, this mandatory spay/neuter legislation is being introduced under false pretenses and damn outright lies! All this so the lawmakers for these bodies can say,”We care, see how much we care.” but in truth, it just means how ignorant, lazy and selfish they are. They want another point to get re-elected, and that is all they want. You hired them through the election process, didn’t you? Can you fire them the same way? You bet!
Los Angeles County has had mandatory spay/neuter for a couple of years. Los Angeles City just passed it yesterday. This is despite the fact that the budget for animal control in LA County increased by almost 300% because of it. Future headlines “Nation bankrupted by Dogcatcher Departments”.
Worse than that: How will we cope with the loneliness of not having dogs and cats-or any pets- if PETA, HSUS and stupid, ignorant and selfish lawmakers have their way? Can you answer that? Please try. We await your comments.