Animal Cruelty - Page 3

[rpe]

Originally Posted by kaydee

I have worked professionally in animal protection for many years, and continue as a volunteer, so I have heard your type of comments many times before. (Although it is amazing to see groups accused of not using facts; the animal protection groups libraries are FILLED with original research, aggregated research, scientific comment, etc. Perhaps some just choose not to look.)

And I have heard the same many times. There is also much research, scientific comment, etc. to refute many claims of animal rightists.

I do not take them personally at all--they simply aggravate (and, in places, infuriate) me.

I don't get angry, but am continually surprised that PETA will kill animals with impunity (www.petakillsanimals.com) while preaching compassion. They will defend domestic terrorists and in the case of Bruce Friedrich, advocate violence. Same for the HSUS which has absorbed many former PETA members. They garner millions in donations but do very little hands on help.

You don't like "animal rights propaganda." I don't like "animal use propaganda." And I see a lot of that in your posts.

I see little fact in yours.

If you want to believe fur farms are good places to be animals, so be it.

If you want to believe that most grains are not grown to feed livestock, so be it.

Never said that. Some are better than others. Some should be closed down. Many animals would still die so vegans and vegetarians could eat. You can't have it both ways.

If you want to believe life on the end of a chain is appropriate for a dog, so be it.

This is a perfect example of using emotional appeal. I don't think life tied out is good for a dog nor do those fighting that legislation. But you wish to ban ALL tying out. Thats whats wrong. You're not basing it on any facts because there are none.

If you want to believe that vivisection is the only path to medical advances, so be it.

That depends. If scientists had better or more proven ways they'd use them. Instead of animal rightists pointing fingers they should come up with some so they can. They never have. All they have is meaningless talk.

If you want to believe that because we have the might to use animals, we also have the right, so be it.

Go tell every predator the same thing. That they have no moral right to eat other animals. That because they are natural carnivores or omnivores they should still go vegetarian or vegan. Its just not logical.

Again, I hope people simply do their own research, from multiple sources, search their own hearts, find room for compassion for all species, and do unto other beings as we would want done unto ourselves.

"Compassion for all species". Thats the biggest lie of the animal rights movement. Animal rights groups have a lot of success going after college students (as they did me) because college students are pretty easily manipulated. Its the same reason cults have success on college campuses. Lure them in without telling them the truth on what they're about. Most never take the time to learn.

[rpe]

Originally Posted by Mizelenius

I also did not know that spaying/neutering early could be potentially harmful. Could you elaborate on this? Our cat was spayed @ 3 months (we did not do it, the rescue did).

These studies are regarding dogs. I don't have any on cats, sorry. Personally I believe most pet owners should get their animals sterilized but the decision should be theirs and if they have any questions or concerns they should discuss it with their vet and make an informed decision.

Rather than give you a big list I'll give you a link to a page that has a list. This website is put up by a group that is fighting a proposed mandatory spay/neuter law in Calif. It has some good information

http://www.ab1634.com/index.htm

Also, this study has some interesting information -

http://www.acc-d.org/2006%20Symposiu...ession%20I.pdf

There are quite a few studies out there.

[Mizelenius]

Originally Posted by rpe

Personally I believe most pet owners should get their animals sterilized but the decision should be theirs and if they have any questions or concerns they should discuss it with their vet and make an informed decision.

Thank you for the links! We definitely would have spayed our cat, I just would have waited until she had been a bit older if being too young posed a risk.

[kaydee]

The lie of compassion. I love it! :

Boy, you sure figured us animal people out, rpe…

Nope, we don’t dedicate our lives and minds and energy to reducing suffering through education, research, and legislative reform. Rather, we troll campuses for unsuspecting innocents and turn them into—gasp!—pleather-wearing, sprout-eating radicals who worship at the altar of Ingrid Newkirk.

:

An accurate discussion of actual facts and issues related to how animals are treated in our society would be fine, but I personally am not seeing much of that here, so I think I’ll get back to my actual life now.

There are some really important bills coming up in our state legislature about animal abuse, and I want to write some letters to my lawmakers.

I’ve also got to prepare a display on how animal agriculture emits more greenhouse gases than all vehicles combined for an Earth Day event at my congregation.

Locally, there’s a hearing on a spaying and neutering measure that I am following eagerly.

And I still want to finish Michael Pollan’s the Omnivore’s Dilemma, which keeps beckoning from the bedside table!

Plus my cats need a little bit of playtime.

So there’s lots of real work to be done beyond refuting tired old myths (activists are terrorists), lies (animal activists work to ban all tethering), and distortions (animal activists hate pets! And people!) from those who apparently believe that human might makes right.

Ciao! :

[rmzbm]

Originally Posted by rpe

"Compassion for all species". Thats the biggest lie of the animal rights movement.

Can you elaborate on that? Really, I wanna know. :

[rpe]

Originally Posted by rmzbm

Can you elaborate on that? Really, I wanna know. :

An animal rightist saying they have compassion for all life is like a representative of a tobacco company saying cigarettes aren't addictive.

Think about this. If any of these organizations were really compassionate would they prohibit you from safely containing your dog while you're gone? Some do this by tying out, others by kennelling. Many do this and provide good homes for their dogs. Why then would animal rightists deny these dogs good homes? Why would they rather see them turned into a shelter (which is very cruel) or put to death? They assume all who do this are guilty of abuse when in fact they are not. Only a small number are. Most give their pets good homes.

Or how about the mandatory sterilizing of animals thats popping up in various cities across the country? If education is working and euthanasia rates are going down then WHY are they trying to enact measures which make it so hard for responsible breeders to breed? Breeders who breed for health first. In California there's an influx of sickly dogs from Mexico due to the animal rightist backed laws that make it hard for good breeders to breed. People getting less healthy dogs is a direct result of the efforts of animal rights groups. How is that compassionate?

Its already been shown they have double standards when it comes to animals dying for food. Animals die for vegans and vegetarians as well. But if its for them its okay? The pretense of compassion.

Not one of these groups spends a dime trying to fight banning of specific breeds.

If PETA were compassionate they'd at least make an effort to find homes for adoptable animals they take in rather than killing thousands every year. They'd never say violence was okay (Bruce Friedrich) nor would they give money to defend a criminal (Rodney Coronado).

Several months ago when there were snowstorms in Colorado and cattle were starving to death PETA was asked for help. They refused and preferred the animals die a slow, painful death to starvation. Compassion? No other group helped either.

If the HSUS were compassionate they'd help shelters, not charge for help and be directly involved in clinics. They were under investigation after hurricane Katrina for mishandling donated money. Many rescue groups were reporting that the HSUS did next to nothing and hampered rescue efforts. But they were there to collect the $$$.

They may be somewhat compassionate to animals but that doesn't apply to their fellow man. They put animals above humans.

These few quotes are not taken out of context and reflect the sickness of the movement itself -

"If you haven't given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species ... Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental." "Les U. Knight" (pseudonym), "Voluntary Human Extinction," Wild Earth, Vol. 1, No. 2, (Summer 1991), p. 72.

"We feel that animals have the same rights as retarded human nchild because they are equal mentally in terms of dependence on others." Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA, New York Times, January 14, 1989.

Audience member: "If you were aboard a lifeboat with a baby and a dog, and the boat capsized, would you rescue the baby or the dog?" Regan, "If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog." Tom Regan, "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs," speech given at University of Wisconsin, Madison, October 27, 1989.

[Expressing opposition to use of bug sprays] "Only a few of the million you kill would have bitten you." Dr. Michael Fox, Scientific Director and former Vice President of Humane Society of the US (HSUS), Returning to Eden, Fox publication

(If) these animals do have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then of course we are going to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up, and smashing windows. For the record, I don't do this stuff, but I do advocate it. I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation. And considering the level of the atrocity and the level of the suffering, I think it would be a great thing if, you know, all of these fast-food outlets and these slaughterhouses and these laboratories and the banks that fund them, exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate (applause) and I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows and, you know, everything else along the line. Alleluia to the people who are willing to do it.

Bruce Friedrich, PETA Vegetarian Campaign Coordinator, at Animal Rights 2001 National Conference in McLean, Va., July 2, 2001

And I've not even touched on how many of them have said in their own words that they'd like to see an end to all breeding and all pets.

Here's a picture of a flyer PETA has handed out to children. "Your Mommy Kills Animals". They have a similar one saying "Your Daddy Kills Animals". Its sick to go after children this way.

http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/...es/000101.html


This is always easier in a face to face discussion. lol

[rmzbm]

Thanks, I really appreciate the thoughtful reply! So, what then, is PETA's motive, in your opinion? Money? Or something more? I did hear about the situation with the cattle, that was very disheartening. I have to admit, I have a hard time following PETA...they contradict themselves at every turn. But, I'm really unsure where to turn to take the type of action many who contribute to PETA & the like WANT to take. Now, regarding your second paragraph - what do you mean? Who is prohibiting who from what? I wholeheartedly agree a yard dog, well loved & cared for, is way better off than a pound puppy! I don't believe, personally, in forcing anyone to spay or neuter. I think - for MOST - it's a good idea for sure though! Re: the comments there... : Nice. : Again, thank you for explaining a little - I'm still kind of sorting out my "stance" on this all.

[hanno]

Quite a thread:
I can't comment too much because I'm still high on new-mom adrenalyn and my emotions are wacky.
I think it is important to acknowlege that someone can carry certain values associated with animal rights without being part of, or even agreeing with any major organization.
I detest PETA, and those comics are BEYOND sick. I do not agree with them or any other organization who uses coersion, guilt, sexual enticement or anything negative to bring attention to their message. I do not agree with harassing people, ever.
I do love animals and value them as much as I value myself. I do not eat or use them to the very best of my abilities (the 'can't do everything, might as well do nothing' arguement is laughable).
My family does what we feel in our hearts is right FOR US and will share our thoughts freely. We would never be so vain as to declare that everyone ought to have identical values and I think this comes across to the people we interact with (at least in real life) and we tend to get the same respect we give. Online, it's a whole world of different and I often get misunderstood but sometimes it pays off and I get the opportunity to grow and learn and understand peoples' motivations a little better.

[rpe]

Originally Posted by rmzbm

So, what then, is PETA's motive, in your opinion? Money? Or something more? I did hear about the situation with the cattle, that was very disheartening. I have to admit, I have a hard time following PETA...they contradict themselves at every turn. But, I'm really unsure where to turn to take the type of action many who contribute to PETA & the like WANT to take.

PETA's motivation is simple (as is the Humane Society of the US) - end all animal ownership and use by putting animal life on par with human life using illogical and erroneous arguments.

What kind of action do you mean? Helping to stop abuse in general? I don't know of any organizations anymore that are legitimate animal welfare organizations. The HSUS used to be as did the ASPCA. PETA of course never was. Best Friends isn't either - they support many of the things PETA and the HSUS do.

You may want to check out your local humane societies or SPCAs. Neither are associated with the HSUS or ASPCA (thats in New York). Just be aware that more and more are being run by animal rightists. That hurts more than helps many animals.

Now, regarding your second paragraph - what do you mean? Who is prohibiting who from what? I wholeheartedly agree a yard dog, well loved & cared for, is way better off than a pound puppy!

Some people have dogs who are escape artists (all it takes is once), are fence fighters or they don't want their dog to charge the fence every time someone walks by. As an added safety measure the dog is kennelled or tied out while the owners are gone. People are trying to ban both. It won't stop abusers from abusing their dogs but it will force some law abiding people to turn in their dogs. Proponents of these bans aren't telling the truth when they say its so dogs can be with the family. Its just as easy to neglect a dog inside and they know this. So whats next? Home inspections?

Remember these groups are very smart - tobacco company smart. But animal owners are now slowly waking up to the threat these groups pose.

[rmzbm]

Originally Posted by rpe

PETA's motivation is simple (as is the Humane Society of the US) - end all animal ownership and use by putting animal life on par with human life using illogical and erroneous arguments.

OK...
Now maybe this is a stupid question...ut, um, what then? If they're not pets, what? Let them all run free? Assign them a social security number & let them join the workforce? Teach them how to help free their cousins at the zoo? I'm really : over where they're going with this then...
I mean, what's the answer, according to them? And why do they care...I mean if they GENUINLY don't care for the animals well being...why?
They're killing animals, not helping others...why the concern over them being "used" as pets?

[rpe]

Originally Posted by rmzbm

OK...
Now maybe this is a stupid question...ut, um, what then? If they're not pets, what? Let them all run free? Assign them a social security number & let them join the workforce? Teach them how to help free their cousins at the zoo? I'm really : over where they're going with this then...
I mean, what's the answer, according to them? And why do they care...I mean if they GENUINLY don't care for the animals well being...why?
They're killing animals, not helping others...why the concern over them being "used" as pets?

Thats not a stupid question. Essentially they want to spay and neuter all domestic animals out of existence.

"Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation"
(Ingrid Newkirk, PETA founder Washingtonian Aug. 1986)

"In the end I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether"
(Ingrid Newkirk Newsday, Feb. 21 1988)

"One day we would like an end to pet shops and breeding animals [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild"
(Ingrid Newkirk, Chicago Daily Herald Mar 1, 1990)

(Let me note here that dogs have been by man's side for thousands of years. That is natural for the dog.)

"Eventually companion animals will be phased out...." (Ingrid Newkirk, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Right" (symposium), Harper's, August 1988)

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic_
(Washington D C, PeTA, 1982). p. 15)

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear..... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic_
(Washington, D.C.: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 1982), p.15)

And last but not least, Wayne Pacelle, President of the Humane Society of the US. He's more dangerous because though he's every bit as devious and dishonest as Ms Newkirk, he's much more polished.

"How about pets, Wayne? Would you envision a future with no pets in the world?"
"I wouldn't say that I envision that, no. If I had my personal view perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don't want to see another cat or dog born."

Bloodties - Nature, Culture, and the Hunt T. Kerasote p.266

He's smart and goes on to say he doesn't think that will happen but it would be shortsighted to think he's not working for his personal beliefs. Lets not forget he's pushing hard in California for mandatory sterilizing.

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
— Wayne Pacelle, Animal People News, 5/1/93

[rmzbm]

But why? I mean, sorry for beating the dead horse...but HOW do they benefit from no more domesticated animals? Bizarre notion. :

[rpe]

Originally Posted by rmzbm

But why? I mean, sorry for beating the dead horse...but HOW do they benefit from no more domesticated animals? Bizarre notion. :

I honestly don't know how anyone could not be lesser for not having animals in their lives.

One thing I can't believe I forgot to mention about research is not only has it saved millions of lives but its also saved many animals. That research has lead to vaccines for feline leukemia, distemper, parvo and many other diseases. Its also led to more advanced treatments and surgical procedures.

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by hanno

I think it is important to acknowlege that someone can carry certain values associated with animal rights without being part of, or even agreeing with any major organization..

:

It's interesting how often these conversations, which start off addressing cruelty to animals, quickly veer off to talking about the tactics of a few large organizations. The original concern--animal suffering--gets lost. And it is that suffering that is the motivation for most animal advocates.

Do groups like PETA further this problem with some of their tactics? You betcha. (There's a really interesting New Yorker article on this at:http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/200...4_14_peta.html It's a long piece, but gives a fascinating, even-handed look at why PETA chooses to operate the way it does.)

But I also think it's far more comfortable for people to talk about how horrible PETA is than to think about how horribly billions of animals suffer at human hands.

But why? I mean, sorry for beating the dead horse...but HOW do they benefit from no more domesticated animals? Bizarre notion.

Not sure precisely what you are responding to (I can't see all the posts here ) but most animal protection groups would like to see an end to the use of animals (wild or domesticated) as food, since they generally suffer horribly in food production.

They also would like to see an end to the homeless animal crisis (strays on the streets, millions killed in shelters every year).

There are some strict abolitionists (such as Gary Francione and, I believe, Joan Dunayer) who do clearly say that they believe, ideally, people should not keep pets (Francione has a post about this on his blog:http://garyfrancione.blogspot.com/20...esticated.html)

But really, hard-line abolitionists are in a minority in the animal rights/protection movement, and are not affiliated with mainstream groups like HSUS or PETA, which they consider far too welfarist. And they are correct, in that what most groups do now is work for incremental ("welfarist") reforms, such as spay/neuter campaigns (not banning pet ownership), or phasing out the use of certain egregious agriculture practices such battery cages, gestation pens (not prohibiting meat production).

That's why it is so amusing (and frustrating) to me, to see the animal use proponents accuse the mainstream animal advocacy groups of being hard-line. Because the same mainstream groups are getting reamed by the other side for not being hard-line enough! :

If people are interested in hearing about how these issues (abolition versus reform) are being discussed WITHIN the animal advocacy community, this issue of Satya magazine might be a good place to start: http://www.satyamag.com/sept06/index.html

It might also show how some of the charges leveled against mainstream groups are simply absurd.

[Mizelenius]

Originally Posted by kaydee

But I also think it's far more comfortable for people to talk about how horrible PETA is than to think about how horribly billions of animals suffer at human hands.

This is so true-- not just with PETA but activism in general. I do not like much of what PETA does, but it seems like people had a hayday and were full of self-righteousness (er, people I know personally) when PETA refused to help with the cattle. That is what bothers me about PETA, that their extreme actions help the mainstream feel OK with its choices and avoid the real issues. I have seen this time and time again regarding so many causes, not just animal rights.

[rmzbm]

Am I the only one who agrees with both sides here? :

[Danemom]

Originally Posted by rmzbm

Am I the only one who agrees with both sides here? :

Nope, I am very on-the-fence with this issue. That's why I haven't posted on here but have been following it. I am a meat-eater and don't see any problem with it despite my being devoted to animals and am appalled by animal abuse. I would love to see a lot of the farming regulations changed but I am not interested in being veg*n. I don't see a problem with giving dogs a "job" either. And I am quite fond of my pets and don't think they would be happy on the streets. But I don't like or agree with fur farming or anything of that nature that I think is completely unnecessary. I have a LOT of conflicting views on both sides. I think they are both stating their cases well though!

[rmzbm]

Originally Posted by Danemom

I think they are both stating their cases well though!

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by Mizelenius

That is what bothers me about PETA, that their extreme actions help the mainstream feel OK with its choices and avoid the real issues. I have seen this time and time again regarding so many causes, not just animal rights.

ITA!

Am I the only one who agrees with both sides here?

But here’s the thing—I don’t think there are just two sides!

There is a wide variety of views on what sorts of uses of animals are appropriate and ethical. And each one of us can make choices based on what we, personally, are comfortable with, based on the amount of knowledge we feet is sufficient to make such choices.

For example—

If you’re not sure about ending animal testing in medical research, perhaps you can simply commit to not buying cosmetics tested on animals (www.leapingbunny.org)

If you’re not sure about being vegan, perhaps you can commit to not eating certain kinds of animal products (such as those from farmed animals) or to reducing your intake of animal products.

If you don’t like PETA, don’t join PETA! Find another group that better reflects your values. Or don’t join any group, but simply work to make your everyday life more animal friendly (through what you eat or wear, by being a responsible pet owner, by doing your part to reduce conflicts with wildlife in your area, by writing to lawmakers and the media, etc.)

There is no need to view animal protection as a choice between two extremes. Too often, framing the issue that way makes it easy to simply not get involved (because neither option seems a good fit).

[rpe]

I agree with Kaydee that one doesn't have to choose between two extremes. My ONLY contention here is to not support animal rights groups like PETA and the HSUS and to be very careful in supporting any group should you choose to. Carefully consider all angles. Some who call themselves animal rightists are really animal welfarists.

Originally Posted by kaydee

But I also think it's far more comfortable for people to talk about how horrible PETA is than to think about how horribly billions of animals suffer at human hands.

The problem with that is part of your statistics include things that aren't abuse like tying out and kennelling. Also not taken into consideration is the animal rightist wish that all animals be sterilized which can cause more health issues than if they were intact. So you see, animal rightists really aren't as compassionate as they want you to believe.

Of course also not counted are the billions of animals that are treated very well by humans. That is never mentioned because it doesn't help their agenda.

But really, hard-line abolitionists are in a minority in the animal rights/protection movement, and are not affiliated with mainstream groups like HSUS or PETA, which they consider far too welfarist. And they are correct, in that what most groups do now is work for incremental ("welfarist") reforms, such as spay/neuter campaigns (not banning pet ownership), or phasing out the use of certain egregious agriculture practices such battery cages, gestation pens (not prohibiting meat production).

The HSUS and PETA are not animal welfare organizations but animal rights organizations. It can be difficult to educate people in part because they are VERY good at spin and deception. They are definitely working toward the elimination of pets and other animals. They are also certainly after prohibiting people from eating meat. Its in their older literature but they've since then wised up. They're smart and realize that young people are the easiest to manipulate and start there. After all, who doesn't want to help animals?

In California for example, the mandatory spay/neuter law (by 4 months) makes it extremely difficult for responsible breeders to get a permit. Commercial breeders and puppymills are already licensed and it won't affect them. Its the small breeder that is the backbone of maintaining health in the various breeds.

In Louisville, KY and Albuquerque NM the HSUS lobbied hard for what many call anti-pet, anti-owner laws. The HSUS spends very little of its money directly helping animals. Most is spent on salaries, soliciting for more money and lobbying for laws that hurt good people and their pets. They've also lobbied hard for laws that hurt small farmers.

For more on how animal rights groups (including the HSUS) are deceiving you regarding pets -
http://www.saveourdogs.net

That's why it is so amusing (and frustrating) to me, to see the animal use proponents accuse the mainstream animal advocacy groups of being hard-line. Because the same mainstream groups are getting reamed by the other side for not being hard-line enough! :

Its our responsibility to give humane care to animals but that doesn't by definition involve going vegan as these groups claim.

It might also show how some of the charges leveled against mainstream groups are simply absurd.

But references, documentation and their actions show they aren't absurd but true. While there are legitimate animal welfarists out there the mainstream groups are not among them. PETA and the HSUS have morphed into organizations dedicated to removing animals from our lives.

People should read satyamag.com in addition to reading critiques of animal rightists. On satyamag.com (which I do read from time to time) there are articles which show animal rightists (not to be confused with welfarists) DO want to ban the eating of meat. The HSUS as well has adopted a vegan policy. They assume a position of moral superiority when its not something they have.

Charles Griswold, Jr., professor of philosophy at Howard
University, wrote in the Washington Post:

"The animal rights movement illustrates the incoherent nature of a moral passion become immoral by virtue of its extremism. In the name of the laudable quality of humaneness, the use of animals for food, clothing and medical experimentation is prohibited. Research that could save your child's life, or save you from an excrucitating disease, is declared unethical. The
result is inhumanity toward man."

For additional information on animal rights groups -

http://www.consumerfreedom.com
http://www.activistcash.com (has profiles of various groups)
http://www.physicianscam.com

People should know that the above 3 websites are maintained by those who have a vested interest in fighting animal rights groups. Keep that in mind when reading them. It doesn't mean the information presented isn't true but one must always keep in mind the source when reading anything whether you agree with it or not. I put up those 3 sites because its a lot easier than listing a bunch of links with information scattered all over the place.