SB303 Committee Speech

May 202009
 

Here is what I said to the judiciary committe on SB303A:

Good afternoon Chair and members of the committee. 

 

My name is Roland Sonnenburg and I run a successful studio animal training business and have trained animals for hundreds of films, television shows and commercials. I have degrees in philosophy and physics with graduate work in animal science. I am a published author on animal ethics, care, and training, and have provided consultation and expert advice to National Geographic, Guide Dogs for the Blind, the Disney Company, and countless vets, trainers, and owners.

 

In candor, most of us here today are not objecting to SB303A per se.  We are objecting to a larger picture of which SB303 is only a very small piece.   Two sessions ago, OHS sought police officer status for its humane agents. That bill failed because OHS agents were not trained to the same level.  Now, by passing SB303, OHS will ensure that their agents are trained to the same standards, so next session they can rationally attempt to achieve police status.  Down the hall they are already pushing another bill that will grant them the power to obtain search warrants.  These are each incremental steps toward completing their original objective of having full police powers. I am deeply appreciative of the important work humane officers do. I have donated my time and money to help OHS, and absolutely believe they should be empowered to educate and investigate and assist animals in need, but when it comes to obtaining warrants, seizing animals, or making arrests, these are actions that must only be undertaken by genuine law enforcement personnel.

 

There are two important reasons why OHS should not have a private police force:

 

First, while there may have been a time when humane officers were innocent and caring individuals with no agenda other than helping animals, that is not the case today. The humane society sells dogs and cats.  They call it adopting or placing, but the simple fact remains that they take in a great deal of money each year in exchange for the animals they sell.  This creates a conflict of interest with them having the power to go into people’s homes and seize their dogs. We have broad reaching, vague, and subjective laws like, “every dog must have continuous access to adequate exercise.” This means that any time a humane society wants to seize a particular group of dogs, they can simply assert that the dogs did not have continuous access to the outdoors. Time after time people have claimed that they were providing excellent care to their dogs, yet the Humane Society seized their dogs asserting neglect, and a few days later these same dogs are being sold and they are not underweight and appear to have been well treated and socialized.  Of course the Humane Society kills the less cute ones and the entire event is publicized to generate sympathy and donations.   Many times Humane Officers starkly threaten people with criminal charges if they do not turn over their dogs and the terrified people relinquish their property under duress. This is nothing more than extortion and neither our governor nor the DPSST should sanction such behavior. Every serious animal lover has at least one friend who has been targeted by humane agents and lost their animals and had their lives ruined. In many cases they are later vindicated in court, but it is too late and their animals are gone. OHS may claim that they do not behave this way, while many private owners will claim they do.  But it genuinely does not matter. What matters is that no private group should have the power to get a warrant, enter someone’s home, seize the person’s property, and sell that property. Not only have you created a private police force, but also that force has a financial incentive that is directly contrary to impartiality.  It is not possible for Humane Societies to simultaneously generate revenue by selling dogs and have officers empowered with deciding whose dogs will be seized. 

 

The second issue is that while Oregon Humane is not officially associated with any Animal Rights organization, the private individuals who work for OHS are often committed to the Animal Rights ideal. Just a few moments ago, the director of OHS went out into the hall to confer with the Oregon director of HSUS. You must understand that the animal rights movement believes NO animal should EVER be captive, and they have stated over and over again that they are willing to infiltrate, lie, terrorize, burn and even kill in order to achieve their goal.

Many people who would like to be here today were afraid that if they speak publicly the people you want to give more power to will target them and seize or kill their animals and terrorize them.

You must understand that these people are not interested in helping animals—they are committed to animal RIGHTS. Rather than try to tell you who these people are that we do not want in our homes, let me simply share with you a few words from the presidents and leaders of HSUS, PETA, ADL, and other AR groups:

1.      …. going onto their farms, releasing their animals and burning the place to the ground, that’s morally justifiable, in our opinion…—–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

2.      Arson, property destruction, lying, burglary and theft are ‘acceptable crimes’ when used for the animal cause.—–Alex Pacheco, PETA

3.      Animal liberation…is a war! It is an all-out bloody war….—–Robin Webb, Animal Liberation Front

4.      I don’t think you’d have to kill — assassinate — too many … I think for 5, 10, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.—–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

5.      If killing is the only way to stop them, then I say killing them would certainly be justified.—–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

6.      In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action….—–Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front

7.      I don’t want to see another dog or cat born—–Wayne Pacelle, HSUS President

8.      I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself….I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

9.      I will be overjoyed when the first scientist is killed by a liberation activist.—–Vivien Smith, Animal Liberation Front

10.  Breeders must be eliminated….If you know of a breeder in the area, whether commercial or private, legal or illegal, let us know and we will post their name, location, phone number—–Animal Defense League

11.  ….keep your doggie or kitty friends away from mommy; she’s an animal killer!—–PETA comic book

12.  Businesses are terrified. They have no idea what I’m going to do next.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

13.  Hit them in their personal lives, visit their homes… strike hard and fast and retreat in anonymity. Craig Rosenbraugh

14.  I don’t approve of the use of animals for any purpose that involves touching them—–Dr. Neal Barnard

15.  The children are enjoying a lifestyle built on the blood and abuse of innocent animals….They are a justifiable target for protest.—–Robin Webb, Animal Liberation Front

16.  We will break the law and destroy property until we win.—–Dr. Steven Best

17.  We have a 100 per cent success rate. Whoever we choose to target is finished.—–Heather James

I know this sounds maniacal, but that is the point—these are not my words, they are the words of the leaders of a movement with millions of members and annual budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This is not conspiracy theory paranoia.  Last month the FBI stated, “Animal rights pose a significant domestic terror threat. To date, extremists have been responsible for more than 1,800 criminal acts and more than $110 million in damages. Currently, we are investigating approximately 170 such extremist incidents across the country,” and their members have been regularly committed of felonies in furtherance of their belief that no animal should ever be captive. Oregon must protect its citizens from these people, not give them police powers and invite them into our homes. The only people who should have such access are police and sheriffs who are accountable to the public, enforce all laws equally, and are not motivated by the above agenda.

Share
 May 20, 2009  Posted by at 8:57 am

In Support of Animal Rights

Feb 282009
 

I am feeling lazy today, so I thought instead of writing a blog I would let the Animal Rights leaders write it for me.  Since I have written several posts disagreeing with their agenda it seems productive to let them share that agenda in their own words.  In fairness, there are several different attitudes within the Animal Rights movement, so I have tried to select a few quotes from each of the major players so as to present a representative cross-section of their beliefs, and I am sure they would not all agree with every one of these quotes.

So, without further ado, here are the words of the leaders of the animal rights movement:

In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born—–Wayne Pacelle, HSUS President

I despise ‘animal welfare.’ That’s like saying, ‘Let’s beat the slaves three times a week instead of five times a week’.—–Gary Yourofsky, PETA

I don’t think you’d have to kill — assassinate — too many … I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.—–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn’t stand to let them go through that. I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

I would be overjoyed when the first scientist is killed by a liberation activist.—–Vivien Smith, Animal Liberation Front

Arson, property destruction, lying, burglary and theft are ‘acceptable crimes’ when used for the animal cause.—–Alex Pacheco, PETA

One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.—–Wayne Pacelle, HSUS President

If an animal has any rights at all, it’s got the right not to be eaten.—–Gary Franicione, legal scholar

….the only responsible breeders are ones who, upon learning about their contribution to the overpopulation crisis, spay or neuter their animals, and get out of the business altogether.—–PETA

Breeders must be eliminated! As long as there is a surplus of companion animals in the concentration camps referred to as shelters, and they are killing them because they are homeless, one should not be allowed to produce more for their own amusement and profit. If you know of a breeder in the Los Angeles area, whether commercial or private, legal or illegal, let us know and we will post their name, location, phone number so people can write them letters telling them ‘Don’t Breed or Buy, While Others DIE.’—–Animal Defense League

Even if animal tests produced a cure, we’d be against it.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

If killing is the only way to stop them, then I said killing them would certainly be justified.—–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

If that means going onto their farms, releasing their animals and burning the place to the ground, that’s morally justifiable, in our opinion…There were always innocent people who got hurt somewhere along the way but it was important that those who oppressed one group of people be stopped, and we don’t see the animal liberation struggle being substantially different from these other struggles.… A sustained campaign against a particular industry or a particular organization has the potential to be quite effective.—–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn’t make any difference to me.—–Chris DeRose, Last Chance for Animals

If you had to hurt somebody or intimidate them or kill them, it would be morally justifiable.—–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme.—–PeTA’s Statement on Companion Animals.

In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It’s a war, and there’s no other way you can stop vivisectors.—–Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front

It doesn’t matter if there are people in there. They’re irrelevant! It doesn’t matter about the police. They’re irrelevant! It doesn’t matter about the high fences. They’re irrelevant! It doesn’t matter about the doors. They’re irrelevant! It doesn’t matter about the locks. They’re irrelevant! What matters is our brothers and sisters in there. Smash everything when the cops aren’t here! Get them out! We’ll sweep the police aside. We’ll sweep the government aside.—–Robin Webb, Animal Liberation Front

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 Bryand, animal ethics author

My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.—–JP Goodwin, HSUS

Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare separated by irreconcilable differences… the enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of animal rights… Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved.—–Gary Franicione, legal scholar and Tom Regan, professor and author on philosophy

Nothing is more violent and radical than what’s being done to non-human animals in our society.  If a researcher won’t stop abusing animals and is stopped physically, whether with the use of force, or is killed, I certainly wouldn’t lose sleep over that idea.—–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the theory of animal welfare… Animal rights means dramatic social changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to call ourselves advocates of animal rights.—–Gary Franicione, legal scholar

We are not especially ‘interested in’ animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn’t ‘love’ animals.—–Peter Singer, Animal Ethicist

We do not have the right to use animals for any real or perceived need, whether it be food, clothing, entertainment, medical issues.—–Janine Motta, NJ Animal Rights Alliance

Whatever it takes to stop someone from abusing animals is certainly morally acceptable.—–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

…no movement for social change has ever succeeded without ‘the militarism component’….Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out,—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

….we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

A burning building doesn’t help melt people’s hearts, but times change and tactics, I’m sure, have to change with them. If you choose to carry out ALF-style actions, I ask you to please not say more than you need to, to think carefully who you trust, to learn all you can about how to behave if arrested, and so to try to live to fight another day.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

Animal liberation, of which the anti-vivisection movement is a part, animal liberation is not a campaign. It is not a struggle. It is a war! It is an all-out bloody war, in which the countless hundreds of millions of casualties have, so far, all been on one side. How can we allow that to continue?—–Robin Webb, Animal Liberation Front

….they are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves.—–PETA

Ask your mommy how many dead animals she killed to make her fur clothes. Then tell her that you know she paid men to hurt and kill the animals. Everyone knows. And the sooner she stops wearing fur, the sooner the animals will be safe. Until then, keep your doggie or kitty friends away from mommy; she’s an animal killer!—–PETA comic book

Bank executives have had their yachts sunk behind their houses. Cars have been blown up; windows have been smashed; offices have been stormed. We’re tired of yelling at buildings — no one cares. We’re tired of yelling at executives while they’re in those buildings, and allowing them to go home and forget about us who are out there that afternoon — we’re going to their homes. We’re doing what’s effective. We’re shutting this company down.—–Lauren James

Businesses are terrified. They have no idea what I’m going to do next.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

But it is also important to stop manufacturing pets, thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive.—–PETA

Hit them in their personal lives, visit their homes . Actively target U.S. military establishments within the United States… strike hard and fast and retreat in anonymity. Select another location, strike again hard and fast and quickly retreat in anonymity … Do not get caught. DO NOT GET CAUGHT. Do not get sent to jail. Stay alert, keep active, and keep fighting.———-Craig Rosenbraugh

Humane care is simply sentimental, sympathetic patronage.—–Dr. Michael W. Fox, HSUS

I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don’t have any reverence for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a blank space where I am. This will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at least I wouldn’t be harming anything.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.—–Wayne Pacelle, HSUS President quoted in Bloodties: Nature

I don’t approve of the use of animals for any purpose that involves touching them – caging them.—–Dr. Neal Barnard

I don’t use the word pet. I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer companion animal. For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. 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 and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship ­ enjoyment at a distance.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

I think violence is part of the struggle against oppression. If something bad happens to these people, it will discourage others. It is inevitable that violence will be used in the struggle and that it will be effective—–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

If an ‘animal abuser’ were killed in a research lab firebombing, I would unequivocally support that, too.—–Gary Yourofsky, PETA

If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can only be stopped in one way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally justifiable solution.—–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

I’m not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is nothing but vanity, human vanity.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

It won’t ruin our movement if someone gets killed in an animal rights action. It’s going to happen sooner or later. The Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front — sooner or later there’s going to be someone getting hurt. And we have to accept that fact. It’s going to happen. It’s not going to hurt our movement. Our movement will go on. And it’s important that we not let the bully pulpit of the FBI and the other oppression agencies stop us from what we’re doing. —–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

It’s not about loving animals. It’s about fighting injustice. My whole goal is for humans to have as little contact as possible with animals.—–Gary Yourofsky, PETA

My dream is that people will come to view eating an animal as cannibalism.—–Henry Spira

No strictly peaceful movement has succeeded in liberation, I think the animal rights movement has been restrained in its use of force, mostly because people in the struggle are often people of privilege who aren’t willing to risk losing that privilege. Violence has been a necessary component of every serious liberation struggle…Violence is not the only path to liberation, but likely an indispensable one…the Press Office would like to be clear on this matter: we support all the liberationists ­ from the graffiti artists and ALF liberator to the Animal Rights Militia, Justice Department and Revolutionary Cells.—–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

Our goal is to make breeding like drunk driving and smoking.—–Kim Sturla, Fund for Animals

Perhaps the mere idea of receiving a nasty missive will allow animal researchers to empathize with their victims for the first time in their lousy careers. I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

The bottom line is that people don’t have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats … If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind,—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to.—–PETA

There are about 2,000 people prepared at any one time to take action for us … The children are enjoying a lifestyle built on the blood and abuse of innocent animals. Why should they be allowed to close the door on that and sit down and watch TV and enjoy themselves when animals are suffering and dying because of the actions of the family breadwinner? They are a justifiable target for protest.—–Robin Webb, Animal Liberation Front

There are two main goals behind ALF actions. The first is obviously to remove as many animals as possible from fur farms, vivisection labs, and other areas of abuse. The second is to cause as much economic damage to these industries and persons as possible.—–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

Things are picking up…It’s not going to make this thing go away… don’t think you’re going to find anybody deterred…There’s a lot of people willing to die for the cause. —–Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League

Throughout the late ’80s, me and a handful of friends just like you people here, we started to break windows, we started to slash tires, we started to rescue animals from factory farms and vivisection breeders, and we graduated to breaking into laboratories . As long as we emptied the labs of animals, they were still easily replaced. So that’s when the ALF in this country, and my cell, started engaging in arson.—–Rodney Coronado, PETA fund recipient and convicted arsonist

To give a child animal products is a form of child abuse.—–Dr. Neal Barnard, Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine

We are not terrorists, but we are a threat. We are a threat both economically and philosophically. Our power is not in the right to vote but the power to stop production. We will break the law and destroy property until we win.—–Dr. Steven Best

We encourage others to find a local Earth raper and make them pay for the damages they are inflicting on our communities… Furriers, meat packers, bosses, developers, rich industry leaders are all Earth rapers.—–Craig Rosenbraugh

We have a 100 per cent success rate. Whoever we choose to target is finished.—–Heather James

We will be just as ruthless as any of our targets. We will go for the throat.—–Dan Matthews

Why should any one of us feel that ‘it shouldn’t be me taking that brick and chucking it through that window? Why shouldn’t I be going to that fur farm down the road and opening up those cages?’ It’s not hard; it doesn’t take a rocket scientist. You don’t need a 4-year degree to call in a bomb hoax. These are easy things, and they’re things that save animals: And so I want all of you in this room to, A) Question not just what is right and wrong, but what is effective, And B) why can’t all of us be doing it? I think the animal rights movement is strong – that’s my opinion. It’s time to start flexing our muscles.—–Kevin Kjonaas, Animal Defense League

Would I rather the research lab that tests animals is reduced to a bunch of cinders? Yes.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

…eating animals involves an intentional decision to participate in the suffering and death of nonhumans where there is no plausible moral justification.—–Gary Franicione, legal scholar

Believe me, you don’t have to worry about prison. I’ve been there — it’s a doggle. You can put your feet up and recharge your batteries, and go back out there when you’re released and start all over again. You can go to education to read up. I mean someone, someone actually read up on electronics while they were in prison, and went out and started doing electronic incendiary devices. Use your time inside to teach yourself!—–Robin Webb, Animal Liberation Front

Come here when it’s dark, when there’s no moon, with people you can trust! There are individuals in there who need you to do that! But when you get them out, don’t leave the equipment or the building standing either! Smash it! Smash it! Smash it once and for all!—–Robin Webb, Animal Liberation Front

Here’s a little model I’m going to show you here. I didn’t have any incense, but — this is a crude incendiary device. It is a simple plastic jug, which you fill with gasoline and oil. You put in a sponge, which is soaked also in flammable liquid — I couldn’t find an incense stick, but this represents that. You put the incense stick in here, light it, place it — underneath the ‘weapon of mass destruction,’ light the incense stick – sandalwood works nice — and you destroy the profits that are brought about through animal and earth abuse. That’s about — two dollars. —–Rodney Coronado, PETA fund recipient and convicted arsonist

I maintain that we ought to abolish the institution and stop causing or facilitating the existence of more ‘companion’ animals.—–Gary Franicione, legal scholar

If they have me arrested, that’s good for me, bad for them. We have 75,000 members of our club who aren’t going to like it—–Dee Crenshaw

If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows. … Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.—–Bruce Friedrich, PETA

In a perfect world, we would not keep animals for our benefit, including pets,—–Tom Regan, professor and author on philosophy

It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership.—–Elliot Katz, In Defense of Animals

Liberating our language by eliminating the word ‘pet’ is the first step… In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA’s policy to oppose the keeping of animals as ‘pets.’—–New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance

Our goal: to convince people to rescue and adopt instead of buying or selling animals, to disavow the language and concept of animal ownership.—–Elliot Katz, In Defense of Animals

Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

Probably everything we do is a publicity stunt … we are not here to gather members, to please, to placate, to make friends. We’re here to hold the radical line.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

Property destruction is a legitimate political tool called economic sabotage, and it’s meant to attack businesses and corporations.—–David Barbarash

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 Bryand, animal ethics author

Today’s terrorist is tomorrow’s freedom fighter.—–Kevin Kjonaas, Animal Defense League

We should stop bringing more domestic animals into existence.—–Gary Franicione, legal scholar

We’re a new breed of activism. We’re not your parents’ Humane Society. We’re not Friends of Animals. We’re not EarthSave. We’re not Greenpeace. We come with a new philosophy. We hold the radical line. We will not compromise! We will not apologize, and we will not relent! … Vivisection is not an abstract concept. It’s a deed, done by individuals, who have weaknesses, who have breaking points, and who have home addresses!—–Kevin Kjonaas, Animal Defense League

When you’re a 20-something grassroots activist, and you’re deciding how to spend your time and money to make a difference, it makes a lot of sense to cause a million in damage with just $100 of investment. That’s a better return than any other form of activism I’ve been involved in.—–Rodney Coronado, PETA fund recipient and convicted arsonist

Animals for the most part just need to be left alone.—–Wayne Pacelle, HSUS President

That the “meat” of my body, or a portion thereof, be used for a human barbecue, to remind the world that the meat of a corpse is all flesh, regardless of whether it comes from a human being or another animal and that fleshfoods are not needed; That my skin, or a portion thereof, be removed and made into leather products, such as purses, to remind the world that human skin and the skin of other animals is the same and that neither is “fabric” or needed; That my feet be removed and umbrella stands or other ornamentation be made from them, as a reminder of the depravity of killing innocent animals, such as elephants, in order that we might use their body parts for household items and decorations——Will of Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

Deep down, I truly hope that oppression, torture and murder return to each uncaring human tenfold! I hope that fathers accidentally shoot their sons on hunting excursions, while carnivores suffer heart attacks that kill them slowly.Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disemboweled. Every rodeo cowboy and matador should be gored to death, while circus abusers are trampled by elephants and mauled by tigers. And, lastly, may irony shine its esoteric head in the form of animal researchers catching debilitating diseases and painfully withering away because research dollars that could have been used to treat them was wasted on the barbaric, unscientific practice vivisection.—–Gary Yourofsky, PETA

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.—–Les U. Knight

Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.—–Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA

The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration.—–Michael W. Fox, HSUS

Note: I have taken these quotes from various sources, and have done my best to verify them , but it is certainly possible that there are some mistakes, so if you see a quote that you believe is incorrect, please let me know and I will look into it immediately! And while they are, as quotes by definition must be, taken out of context, it is my belief that each of them is representative of the view of the speaker.  If there are quotes on this page with which the speaker does not agree, please let me know.

Share
 February 28, 2009  Posted by at 10:18 pm Tagged with:

Oregon HB2470 First Legislative Session Summary

Feb 272009
 

 

For three hours we heard testimony on this bill, and there were some interesting points raised on both sides.  I thought it might be useful if I posted a summary of what I observed.  This is not an objective report-it is my biased perception… If you want objectivity, go to this link and listen to the whole session yourself:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/archive/archive.2009s/HCP-200902231500.ram

Representative Hovey opened the session with some insightful remarks about how everyone present shared a common goal of ensuring that all the animals in Oregon were “treated correctly.” He also immediately clarified that he and the other legislators recognize that this bill is flawed, and that their intention is to use this bill as a starting point and refine it over the next few months…  This is a very important point-I think he listened politely to what everyone said, but in essence he knew going in that he was going to assemble a team to revise the bill and resubmit an amended version later in the session, so all of the objections were not perceived as opposition so much as suggestions… He also explained that the bill was his idea, but that he sought advice from the “humane society” when drafting it.  (We really need to get people to understand that HSUS does NOT speak for animals or informed animal lovers!)

Scott Beckstead of HSUS sounded fairly reasonable. He asserted that HSUS does not oppose captive animals and in fact they support good breeders.  It almost sounded like he believes this.  He also asserted that HSUS does donate some money to shelters and does in fact now own several shelters and that anyone who claimed the HSUS did not help animals was uninformed.  Never mind that they only did these things in what seems an obvious ploy to allow people like Scott to say things like that…

Sharon Harmon of OHS asserted two primary points:

  1. All this bill would do is ensure that every dog in Oregon can “stand up, turn around, and lie down…” Somehow she missed the rest of the bill, and thought that it was absurd that anyone would object to a bill that did nothing more than ensure that every dog can, “stand up, turn around, and lie down!” My question is this-since the CURRENT Oregon laws requires that every dog have “continuous access to an area with adequate space for exercise necessary for the health of the animal,” how would a law requiring LESS improve anything?
  2. We in the dog community have failed to police our own for many years and are obviously unable to take care of the puppy-mill problem. Of course, OHS is the largest humane society in the state, with a large annual budget and a large staff and numerous volunteers, so if “we” have failed in the last ten years to eradicate puppy mills, I think OHS has to accept a significant portion of the culpability.

 The most interesting thing to observe was the unmistakable distinction between the people opposing the bill and the people supporting the bill: experience. 

 The people supporting the bill were mostly enthusiastic animal lovers with relatively minimal hands-on personal animal experience.  The gist of their argument seemed to be that horrific neglect is in fact horrific (they showed lots of pictures). In general they presented moving testimony concerning some of the atrocities committed by unscrupulous or insane animal owners.  Most of their examples seemed to make the opposite point of what they intended: story after story about how well our current laws work and how horrid animal abusers are routinely stopped and their animals seized every bit as surely before HB2470 as they would be after.  There were a few particularly puzzling comments:

  1. A lady who had owned a single dog that she bought in a pet store was very unhappy that her dog died from immune mediated hemolytic anemia at age six and somehow attributed that to the breeder whence she came. Here is a person who has owned one dog, never bred a litter, and is so uninformed about basic dog care that she likely contributed to her dog’s death by overvaccinating, but she is pleading tearfully with the legislators to listen to her advice on what laws should be passed to regulate dog breeding.
  2. A lady asserted that many heartless breeders debark their puppies without sedation… (obviously this is simply untrue)
  3. One vet explained how much his dog enjoys his 30 minute walk each day, and I had to laugh thinking about the hours upon hours of exercise, training, socializing, grooming, and care that most of us provide to our dogs, often 20 hours per day every day…
  4. Several supporters basically argued that nobody can adequately care for more than a few dogs. I suspect they do not realize that some people do this full time and have considerable help. I think they are imagining a single person trying to care for her animals after her day job.
  5. Oprah says we need laws against puppy mills…

The people opposing the bill were the most experienced and educated experts in the animal community: dog trainers, judges, and breeders. It was almost comical how much expertise was arrayed against the bill, and I wish there were some way to get the legislators to understand that many of these people were authentic legends who have done immeasurable good for dogs in the last century. Most of them were not personally impacted by this bill, but believe it is wrong and would be counterproductive-it attacks breeders based on irrelevant criteria such as number and enclosure size while completely ignoring the true issues of care and condition of the animals. Consequently it would harm precisely those breeders who are providing the best care available, who serve as the most dependable source of healthy pets in our state, who provide training and support for less experienced animal owners, but would add virtually no value in remedying neglect cases. It in no way improves upon existing laws which apply to every dog, it merely imposes number limits.

The disparity in experience cannot be overemphasized, and I really believe it created such a differing perspective that we were simply not communicating.  On the one had you have someone with a single dog whose love is very passionate, but rather anthropomorphic and uniformed.  They would never put that dog in a crate, or in a cold room, they feed it Hagen Dazs and walk it on a diamond leash.   On the other hand you have someone who has raised many dogs and is caring for them as dogs.  They sometimes put them in crates for safety or training, they provide a variety of enriching experiences that are fun for a dog even if they may get dirty or cold or tired, they feed organic raw meat as part of a diet that they have spent years analyzing with nutritionists, and they exercise them daily according to a program carefully designed to maximize health. They have read every book and taken every class and are extremely informed about what is best for their animals. Each group believes they are doing the best thing for their dogs… Most of us started in the first group-we had a single dog upon whom we doted, often doing the wrong thing because we did not know better and because our love was not tempered by reason or experience.  Over time, if we were serious, we acquired enough experience to grow beyond this position.  Some people never do-they either stop owning animals, or they keep repeating the same experience, but they never expand their perceptions, and they become fanatical about believing that their view is the right view because they cannot stand to imagine that they might not actually have been doing what is best for their animals. So we get bills like this…

There was one point agreed upon by almost every person, and I have to say I think it is wrong.  “Puppy mills are bad and we must stop them.”    On the face of it, that sounds reasonable, but I think it is very misleading. Animal Rights zealots are brilliant at many things.  Altering language is certainly one of those things.  “Ethical, humane, guardian, rescue, sea-kitten, etc,” are all words that they have twisted to their agenda.  In their desire to vilify all breeders, they have been particularly effective-first they attacked the “backyard breeder”-anyone producing only a few puppies or litters per year was obviously not serious and should be stopped.  Then they created the term “puppy mill,” and for years they have been classically conditioning us that puppy mills are evil-every time we hear the phrase we are shown horrifying images of unspeakable suffering.  Now that we all recognize puppy mills as evil, they are attempting to define them solely in terms of number of dogs.  Never mind that they may be beautiful situations doing everything perfectly, they label anyone breeding more than 3 litters as a puppy mill. If you breed more than three litters you are a puppy mill, if you breed fewer than three litter you are a backyard breeder, and either way you must be stopped.

I reject the term “puppy mill.”  Every breeder, and indeed any owner, regardless of number, who keeps his dogs inhumanely should be stopped. Everyone who breeds dogs is a breeder, and we should evaluate their performance based on how the animals are treated and the results of that treatment. We must stop ALL inhumane practices, and if we do that there will be no more bad breeders, neither large nor small. We MUST maintain focus on the correct issue-HOW are the animals treated. I do not care if a breeder has 2 or 200, I do not care if they make money or lose money, I do not care what breed they produce, I do not care if their dogs are sometimes crated or sleep on the bed or have indoor/outdoor runs. If they can do it well and the animals are happy and healthy and puppies are successfully placed in lifetime homes, then great. If they cannot meet those conditions (which very few large scale operations will ever meet), then their behavior is unacceptable. Period. Oregon laws already accomplish this, if we chose to enforce them. And pet stores and shelters should not be exempted so that they can continue neglecting animals and setting an atrocious example. What we must stop is not “puppy mills,” it is abuse or neglect wherever they are found… 

The second portion of the bill was less discussed–the lemon law piece.  Most everyone who talked about this portion agreed that the bill was absurdly unreasonable.  It somehow expects breeders to be able to ensure the health of living animals far beyond what is possible, and to bear the burden for veterinary expenses over which they have no control.  It also does something else that is profoundly worrisome–it reinforces the notion that breeders bear all the responsibility for the health and welfare of animals.  Unfortunately, this is a huge portion of the problem in animals today–blame the breeder for everything.  In truth, the shelters are full because of owners who fail to live up to their responsibilities.  Almost all of the problems in dogs today are caused by this one simple truth, yet legislators and naive animal owners want to keep pointing the finger at someone else because it is less painful.  Very few of the dogs in shelters come from breeders or serious dog people who own multiple dogs.  They are almost all there because casual owners get dogs and later decide they are too much work so they take them to the shelter.  If we want to improve the lives of dogs in this country, this is the problem we need to address…

So, HB2470 is going to be discussed and refined and amended.  You need to write to Representative Hovey, and your legislators, and the other members of the committee and voice your opinion, and you also need to stay attentive-there will be another hearing and it will again be critically important that people call, write, and show up to offer their opinions of whatever the next revision says. Representative Hovey is ostensibly assembling a team of experts to work with him to rewrite the bill, and hopefully they will include some of the real experts on that team.  I suspect the final bill will remain deeply flawed, but perhaps not… As soon as I hear more, I will certainly post here…

Share
 February 27, 2009  Posted by at 8:14 pm Tagged with: ,

2009 Oregon Legislative Session: Bills Negatively Impacting Animals

Feb 232009
 

In Oregon, the 2009 Legislative Session is underway, and there are several proposed bills that would significnatly impact animals. Some of them are excellent, others are quite bad.  In this post I will briefly articulate the three bills I believe animal lovers must oppose. These bills are an outright attack on animals and their owners.

 

Please take a few minutes to review these bills and contact your legislators. Send email or snail mail, talk to them on the phone, arrange meetings, or attend hearings.   Please go to http://www.leg.state.or.us/index.html to read the bills and find contact information for your legislators. If you have not done this before, it may seem daunting, but it is really quite simple.  These legislators work for us, and all you have to do is get in touch and share with them your opinions!

 

SB391: would prohibit all exotic animal ownership in the state except for federally licensed exhibitors, breeders, and research facilities. It is unnecessary, counterproductive, and unjust.

1.      The historic record is unimpeachable—legally owned exotic animals have caused virtually no harm in Oregon. We have excellent laws that work.

2.      The rare problem that does occur with exotic animals invariably stems from the actions of people who are breaking current law. When people follow the current regulations of USDA, ODA, and ODFW, problems do not arise. If we merely enforce current law there can be no problems.

3.      This bill would reduce the population of knowledgeable and skilled animal experts who are precisely the people working within the state to prevent exotic animals from ever being a problem. Captive exotic animals pose virtually no threat of interbreeding with local animals.

4.      Keeping exotic animals is not intrinsically dangerous or cruel, despite what HSUS may claim.  In most cases, these animals are pampered, loved, and enjoy lives far superior to what they could have in the modern wild world or in a large zoo or other institution.

Simply put, we have laws that work.  This bill provides no benefit for any resident of this state: its only effect if passed would be to advance the personal agenda of people who erroneously believe that NO animal can or should be kept in captivity.

SB303: would allow the state to commission “humane officers” and empower them as peace officers to enforce animal related laws.

These positions could be filled by anyone, and the primary intent of this bill is to make it easy for Animal Rights zealots to gain entry to private homes to search for anything they can use to further their agenda. This is an absurd invasion of privacy.

Surely if we are going to empower civilians to start searching homes for illegal conduct our energies would be better spent on child welfare, drugs, terrorism and other central issues of our time rather than harassing animal owners in the hopes of finding the few bad seeds who are mistreating their animals.

HB2470: would impose strict new regulations for dog breeders. It is counterproductive, unnecessary, and unjust.

HB2470 would harm the animals of our state, and their breeders and owners, as well as consumers and numerous small businesses.

HB 2470 is not a puppy mill bill—it targets all breeders regardless of quality. Because it fails to target only substandard breeders, it is, quite simply, an anti-breeder law. It utilizes incorrect factors like number and enclosure size rather than the correct criteria: quality of care, conditions, and effective placing of any puppies. How many intact dogs people possess is irrelevant if they are able to care for them well.  Number limit laws have never successfully addressed irresponsible breeders, negligent rescue operations, or hoarders, and have been found to be unenforceable and vulnerable to court challenge.

HB2470 purports to solve a problem that simply does not exist in Oregon.  There are very few large-scale breeders in this state, and they are already required to be federally licensed and meet appropriate standards of care. We already have some of the strongest and best animal cruelty laws in the nation, making this bill unnecessary. Time after time people who provide substandard care for their animals have been shut down using existing laws.

HB 2470 attacks precisely those breeders who are providing the best care available and who serve as the most dependable source of healthy pets in our state. These are the very people who provide rescue resources when there are problems, as well as training and support for novice animal owners.

HB 2470 would have a significant negative fiscal impact by eliminating small businesses that routinely have charge of more than 25 intact dogs. These businesses include boarding kennels, daycares, professional handlers, and professional trainers. The bill infringes on privacy without conferring any benefits, and it exempts shelters and pet stores who are often the most egregious violators and who routinely keep animals far longer than other animal businesses.

HB2470 serves the agenda of animal rights organizations who seek to eliminate all animal ownership, but it would do nothing to prevent puppy mills, reduce the numbers of unwanted pets, or improve the lives of any animals. It was written without consulting any of the state’s genuine animal experts who almost without exception oppose this ill-conceived and misguided bill. If you believe there is a problem with the current animal laws in this state, let me suggest that you consult those of us who genuinely understand the issues and devote our lives to solving them: we would be happy to help draft and support a bill that would genuinely improve our state’s animal laws.

Share
 February 23, 2009  Posted by at 5:59 pm Tagged with: , , ,

Dog Fighting Busts and Due Process

Jan 152009
 

In February, Pat Patrick and Emily Dennis were arrested on charges of dog fighting. Ostensibly damning evidence was also seized—treadmills, antibiotics, etc. Their animals were rescued from their enclosures by the humane society and taken to be put in other small enclosures.

Numerous media stories talked about the glorious rescue of these dogs by the heroic humane society.

Over the next few months, virtually all of the dogs were killed by the humane society.

Nine months later, both defendants were acquitted because there was no compelling evidence that they had fought their dogs.

The day after Patrick and Dennis were acquitted, HSUS presented their 2008 Humane Law Enforcement Awards to the persons responsible for this raid.

I have no idea if these people were fighting their dogs or not. No idea if their dogs had good lives or not, and I am certainly not defending anything they may have done to harm the dogs.

What I do know is that the dogs were taken and killed before their owners even got to present their case in court. And no restitution was paid, no apology offered. Quite the contrary, awards were given out for those involved. And that simply terrifies me. That means the HSUS can raid anyone they want and seize their dogs. Their evidence could be something as specious as the fact that you spent thousands of dollars to purchase a treadmill to help exercise your beloved dogs.  Sure, you may be proven innocent in the end, but your dogs will have been traumatized, over-vaccinated, hacked into, or just plain killed…

Share
 January 15, 2009  Posted by at 9:23 am Tagged with: , , ,

How did the desire to save animals go so wrong?

Jan 112009
 

The AR movement started out with some excellent welfare/protection ideals: people saw that research animals were being treated horribly and resolved to change the world so that people would not abuse animals.  From that excellent beginning was born one of the most divisive and negative movements in the history of mankind, and interestingly that transformation occurred for precisely the same reasons it occurs for many religious/cult movements:

 

1.       They stopped listening or caring about truth.  They became persuaded that they knew the ONE TRUTH, and that everyone who disagreed with them should be attacked and silenced.

2.       Their leaders became more interested in their own power and the feeling of having followers than in anything to do with animals.

3.       They replaced reason with zealotry, and effectivly precluded all genuine discourse on animal welfare and all cooperation to make improvements by attacking everyone whose views are at all different from theirs. 

4.       They do not rigorously question their assumptions. For example, they assume that “natural” or “wild” is the only acceptable life for an animal.  This assumption has nothing to do with Rights or Welfare—it is simply a quasi-religious assumption from which most of their arguments derive, but they will not genuinely question it.

5.       Despite their love of “natural”, they have lost sight of nature and have become persuaded animals have a “right” not to die or be eaten or in any other way be part of nature.

6.       They became persuaded that their goal is so important that they can lie, terrorize, steal, mislead, and hurt other people or animals to achieve their goals.

7.       They recruit a huge number of members through deceit. In my experience most PETA and HSUS members believe that they are members of animal welfare organizations supporting humane treatement of captive animals.  I have talked to many members, and most of them are outraged when they come to understand what they have been supporting.  

 

I absolutely believe that 90% of the AR suporters and 90% of the animal owners and lovers actually agree: we would all like to see the same objectives met.  A huge majority of AR supporters do not believe that all pets, all meat consumption, and all animal research should be eliminated.  Most of them hold a reasonable middle-ground position that animals should be treated humanely and with reasoned consideration of their actual interests and that human interests should also be considered. However, the extreme AR zealots oppose any moderate rational solution because they believe it is morally untenable to have any animals in captivity. Period. And any middle ground would merely perpetuate that attrocity…   

Share
 January 11, 2009  Posted by at 3:18 am Tagged with: ,

Animal Rights: What Everyone Needs to Know

Jan 062009
 

Many people assume when they hear about animal issues that the pro-animal people are on one side and anti-animal people are on the other side. This is rarely the case—almost always the disagreement is between two groups each believing that they are protecting animals and improving their lives. Millions of votes are cast and millions of dollars donated each year by people who do not understand the differing views and who inadvertently support the very people they intend to oppose. Politicians courting the “animal vote” unwittingly support legislation that animal lovers are devoted to defeating.

Whatever beliefs you hold, if you care about animals, vote, donate money, or want to be informed, spend an hour doing some basic research on this topic so you are at least supporting the side with which you genuinely agree.

There are hundreds of subtly different views and organizations, but there are two core views that are not reconcilable:

  • Animal Welfare / Animal Owner: Animals can happily and productively share their lives with humans if certain conditions are met to ensure the welfare and safety of the animals and the public. Deriving utility from animals is acceptable so long as certain conditions are met, and in fact coexisting can and should be mutually beneficial.
  • Animal Rights: Animals should exist only in a pure and natural state free from captivity or any human intrusion. Captive animals should be released or destroyed: death is preferable to life involving humans. Animals should never be “utilized” by humans as pets, food, or research tools. If humans derive benefit it is exploitation and should be stopped, even if the activity benefits the animal.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), and other Animal Rights (AR) organizations oppose any animal captivity. Their central objective is to eliminate animals in captivity and to pass laws that will outlaw captive animals or eradicate them through attrition. As clearly articulated in their own official reports, they kill virtually every animal that falls under their control.

These organizations are well-funded and do some good work which we all support: they fight genuine animal abuse, spotlight cruel industrial practices, increase awareness and motivate change concerning the humane treatment of all animals. They advertise and lobby ceaselessly to focus media attention on the good work that they accomplish, but none of these activities modifies their core mission: killing or freeing every captive animal—aquarium fish, beloved pets, cancer-research rats, dairy cows, zoo otters… They artfully create the illusion that they love pets and pet welfare in order to win millions of dollars in donations which they use to kill animals and lobby towards pet extinction.

Consider the following points:

  1. They believe that animals have the right to live in a fantasy world, free from suffering, death, or human involvement, and that any animal that cannot exist in that world would be better off dead.  Because that world does not exist, they effectively argue against every viable life for animals in the real world.  And this is no academic distinction: they actively kill animals or release them or ban them…
  2. They believe that lying is an acceptable tool. They proudly admit that they will lie or cheat if it will help them achieve their goal, so they do not candidly fight for what they believe, instead they collect billions of dollars in donations from will meaning pet lovers who believe that their money will be used to improve the lives of animals when in truth it will be spent to pass laws making animals lives worse.
  3. Their entire position derives from the idea that animals have “rights.”  This assertion is, on its face, absurd: in nature animals have no rights.  They are killed, they suffer, they are raped, eaten alive, tortured, etc.
  4. All animals are “captive” in their local habitat, their continent, their planet, their home range surrounded by physical boundaries or other animals’ ranges. The involvement of human consciousness does not make captivity wrong. People are capable of providing superior lives for animals—free from parasites and predators and with optimal nutrition and water, secure space, needed veterinary care, and enrichment. The life expectancy of human cared for animals averages two to three times longer than that of their wild counterparts, and for much more of their lives they are healthy, robust, and comfortable. AR advocates assert that “natural” is the only good. Most authentic animal lovers focus on providing the best possible lives for animals, and while nature provides the seminal model, “nature” is rarely the ideal. The only intrinsic difference between a wild animal and a well-kept animal is that the captive animal has a person tending to its every need. Animals have lives in captivity that are every bit as rich and full as in the wild, and in general they are longer, healthier, more comfortable, and by any practical criteria better.
  5. AR people have killed many animals, turned countless animals loose to starve, opened gates and enclosures so that cherished pets are run down on the streets, all in the zealous belief that no animal should ever be captive. Many of these released animals had enjoyed full and happy lives that were ended abruptly because those lives did not conform to the AR view of what they should be. Further, AR people have taken custody of animals, promising to re-home them, then destroyed and discarded them.
  6. The AR movement actively works AGAINST animal welfare improvements.  They believe that improving captivity merely encourages its continuation.
  7. AR people argue that only a wild “natural” life is acceptable; yet, how many AR people chose for themselves a wild life with limitless freedom and rights instead of a comfortable captive life with food and medicine and electricity?
  8. Finding a single instance of abuse or neglect, AR people assert that all people behave in the same way.
  9. AR people have a track record of passing seemingly reasonable laws, then revisiting them repeatedly to incrementally increase their impact until statutes and regulations effectively preclude animal ownership.
  10. AR organizations recruit celebrity advocates who believe they are working for animals. Many of these celebrities own pets themselves yet endorse organizations seeking to eradicate pets because they naïvely assume that they cannot be wrong in supporting the “ethical treatment of animals.”
  11. AR people believe emotional and practical terrorism are acceptable tools for advancing their goals: that their cause is so important and right that they are justified in lying or terrorizing to accomplish their objectives. Conscientious and responsible animal owners live in terror that AR people will show up and open their cages or poison their animals or otherwise create problems in order to generate negative media coverage. Some of the most horrific animal abuse ever filmed has allegedly been staged by AR zealots: they torture animals, film the action, and use that film to condemn the actions of others. They turn animals loose and then use the loose animals as evidence that animals cannot be responsibly contained.
  12. The existence of the AR movement has prevented animal lovers from working together to eradicate abuse and neglect.  We would all love to see processes put in place to combat situations where animals are suffering, and this would be easy to accomplish if we worked together, but because the AR movement exists and will utilize any laws or processes as tools to advance their cause, true animal lovers are forced to fight against them instead of working to improve the world for animals.

No discussion of the Animal Rights agenda would be complete without a quick examination of their flagship crusades:

  • Breed-specific Legislation: these laws target animals based on their breed. They are ineffective and immoral. Breeds are never responsible for any injury, only irresponsible owners. Create laws that prevent and punish people for failure to control their animals, or failure to care for their animals, and you solve the problem. Outlaw one more breed and you do nothing to reduce dog bites, you merely further the objective of eradicating pets one breed at a time.
  • Exotic animal bans: these laws target private individuals regardless of their competence or history and prevent them from owning and caring for certain animals. Such laws do nothing to ensure public health or safety: on the contrary, they hamstring the very law-abiding animal lovers who work to ensure public health and safety. Create laws that prevent and punish people for failure to control their animals, or failure to care for their animals, and you solve the problem. Regardless of the species, uniform and fair laws require any person to be able to keep their animal safely and properly.
  • Mandatory spay/neuter laws: these laws aim to eradicate pets, and do so at the expense of animal health. Individual owners should work with qualified veterinarians to decide which animals should have what surgery. Most experts believe that there is no pet overpopulation problem; however, even if there is, the superior way to control animal population is to educate people. But politicians should not be mandating health decisions relating to individual animals.
  • Vilification of all breeders: constantly extolling the ostensible virtues of shelter dogs and denigrating all breeders as heartless puppy-mills is a tactic aimed to eventually eliminate all breeding and therefore all pets. In truth shelters often perpetuate the very disposable pet attitude that creates a need for shelters while responsible breeders steadfastly work to improve their breed, ensure ideal lives for their puppies, and take back any dogs they bred that ever need homes.

Killing, eliminating, or banning well cared-for animals whose lives do not meet an arbitrary standard of being free from all human involvement is neither ethical nor humane. All true animal lovers must band together to prevent the eradication of all pets and ultimately all animals. Millions of dollars are donated to these groups by well-intentioned pet lovers who believe they are helping animals, and who are shocked and outraged when they learn the truth.

If you own a pet or believe that some people should be allowed to keep pets,do not support AR groups. Please be part of the solution: make an informed decision to support organizations whose ideals and actions comport with your own and will genuinely help to make the world a better place.

Refuse to support deceitful and organizations that will take your money in the name of animals and use that money to kill and lobby against animals. Refuse to vote for politicians who support such organizations.

Please do your own research about any organization you would support. Here are a few websites with useful information on the animal rights issue:

www.humanewatch.org www.consumerfreedom.com
www.petpac.net www.activistcash.com
www.rexano.org/Animal_Rights.htm www.petakillsanimals.com
www.dogpolitics.com www.naiaonline.org
www.animalscam.com www.carpoc.org/articles.html
Share
 January 6, 2009  Posted by at 9:15 am Tagged with: , ,

Captivity: Good or Bad for Animals?

Jan 062009
 

The central notion of the Animal Rights movement is that “animals deserve consideration of their interests”. Let us consider captivity as it relates to the interests of animals:

There are an wide range of natural lives and captive lives, and one can easily and misleadingly look at the best example of either and compare it to the worst example of the other and reach whatever conclusion one wants to reach. Too often people compare the very best and most idyllic moment in a wild life with the worst example of atrocious captivity, and reach a skewed conclusion. For the sake of this article I am going to try to compare an average wild life with an average captive life. Since the question is whether or not captivity can be in the best interests of animals, we need to look at a reasonably good example of captive life to decide whether or not it can be a good life and if we believe it can then we can turn our attention to determining what conditions need to be met.

The natural life of a wild animal is rarely the idyllic picture that Disney, your parents, and some animal rights advocates would like you to believe. Nature is harsh and unforgiving, and most wild animals live very difficult lives. They are almost always inundated with fleas, ticks, intestinal worms, heartworms, and other parasites. They are plagued by flies and mosquitoes. They spend much of their life without enough food or water, or drinking brackish filthy water. They are often hunted and killed by animals of other species. They are often dominated or attacked by members of their own species over territorial or mating disputes. They are uncomfortably cold and wet or hot most of the time. They are unvaccinated against even the most common diseases and their injuries and illnesses go untreated and are often agonizing and eventually fatal. They are shot, poisoned, leg-trapped, or struck by cars. They are under constant stress and are always held captive by geographic boundaries or other animals’ ranges. They are often bred every season regardles of their health, and many of their offspring die. A wild animal’s life expectancy is generally less than half what it would be in captivity and much of that time is full of fear, stress, and discomfort.

A reasonably well cared-for animal has a very different life: it has ample space without threat of predation. It has clean, fresh water at all times. It is fed high quality balanced meals regularly and given vitamins, supplements, and treats to ensure maximal health. It is kept close to an ideal temperature at all times, and has dry clean bedding. It rarely encounters any parasites. It is given excellent preventative care, and any injury it sustains is treated immediately and pain management is provided. It is exercised regularly and given lots of enrichment so it is not bored. If appropriate it is housed with other compatible animals so it has companionship without risk. It is weighed and bathed. If needed it may receive massage or chiropractic treatments. Many captive animals are never bred, but those that are often are bred at comparatively infrequent intervals and given superlative prenatal care and their offspring have a very high likelihood of surviving. A captive animal’s life expectancy is generally two to three times longer than that of their wild counterparts, and for much more of their lives they are healthy, robust, and comfortable.

The only intrinsic difference between a wild animal and a well-kept animal is that the captive animal has a person dedicated to tending to its every need. If a captive animal were cared for in a manner identical to “nature”, the owner would be arrested for neglect and abuse immediately.

Very few adult humans chose to live a “wild” life. While we value our freedom dearly, we also value health and comfort and convenience. (Humans who value freedom so highly that they forego comfort to live without walls are called “homeless”, and most of us do not consider their choice optimal)

Over the years we have had several animals who came to us at a young age from the wild due to injury or accident whom we have raised as citizens of both worlds. We live far out in the woods and let them come and go at will. Not only did they stay, but also they spent the vast majority of their time lying on the down comforter rather than being outside. The only way I could get them to go act wild is to go out and call them and play with them, and as soon as I went back inside so did they. This is a well known issue in rehabilitation—one must be careful not to let the animal acclimate too much to captivity or they will prefer a comfortable captive life to the wild and will become unreleasable.

Some people argue that captivity is bad and all animals deserve to be wild and captive animals should be freed or eradicated. The point of this post is to honestly and carefully consider that view: animals have lives in captivity that are every bit as rich and full as in the wild, and in general they are longer, healthier, more comfortable, and by any practical criteria better.

Animals do indeed deserve consideration of their interests, and it is unmistakably clear that, if we can look past our preconceptions and biases, captivity is often the very best life to achieve those interests.

Share
 January 6, 2009  Posted by at 1:15 am Tagged with: , , , , ,
 Newer Entries