Very Interesting-thank-you

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Iguana Forum ]

Posted by Samcin on September 01, 2001 at 10:18:39:

In Reply to: LONG Animal welfare vs. animal rights Re: PA Press: Report urges ban posted by Xine on September 01, 2001 at 05:15:07:

: I am posting this message as it appeared in its entirety on the YahooGroups meatrabbits list.
: We all need to pay closer attention to those we support.

: Message: 4
: Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 03:50:42 +0800
: From: "Robert Mather"
: Subject: H$U$

: I have close friends involved in pet rescue operations here in Los Angeles
: (Burbank)... after volunteering my time to the devoted pet lover friends, I
: was curious as to why they never had enough money to help the stranded pets
: they have endeavored to save from the euthanasia chambers...

: Along the way, I learned about Maddie's fund up in Frisco... a trust fund
: for "no kill" shelter operations... I worked with my friends to get some
: funding from Maddie's fund... well, while digging into the application
: process, I just couldn't figure out exactly why Maddie's fund would not give
: *any* cash to the H$U$, PeTA or any of the major players of the animal
: rights industry... Of all "charities" I presumed that the H$U$ and PeTA
: would be first to advocate "no kill" policies as to pet animals... Boy, was
: I ever wrong!

: Had to start somewhere... I began researching the issue... when I learned
: that the H$U$ raised huge sums of cash (on their own) and didn't "share" it
: with *their* affiliates, I was puzzled... Then I found out why... The H$U$
: has *no* affiliates or association with pets or pet shelters in this day in
: time.

: Since that time, I have been on a mission to create a public information
: campaign to heighten awareness about the H$U$ and through public outrage,
: force the H$U$ to give back the hundreds millions of "doggie" dollars they
: bilked from unsuspecting pet lovers...

: The more I have learned about the H$U$, the more I have come to find out
: that they are a dangerous and vicious fraud and have used pets to obtain
: millions of dollars in donations--but instead of using that tax-exempt cash
: for the pets they used in begging for that cash, they have attacked any and
: every "animal use" group known to mankind.

: That's bad enough, but to make matters worse, the H$U$ is using that
: tax-free cash to influence the legislative/political process... and that in
: itself seems to be against the laws regulating tax-exempt charities. They
: are arrogantly assaulting our rights and not only are they doing it... they
: are doing it with the money from the same people they are attacking... talk
: about slick!

: Making a little progress... we need publicity to heighten awareness of the
: constructive animal rights frauds led by the H$U$... The tide is turning,
: but not quickly enough!
: *** end copied post.

: Animal rights groups range from the terrorist through the treacherous to the tricky and advocate everything from elimination of medical research involving animals to the keeping of pets. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) raids and vandalizes research laboratories and fur farms and terrorizes scientists; PETA is a mouthpiece for ALF and promotes civil disobedience, harassment, trickery, and lies to end the use of animals; and the Humane Society of the US (HSUS) proposes draconian breeding bans on dogs and cats and lobbies for an end to hunting. Sprinkled into the mix are the Fund for Animals, Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine, the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, the Progressive Animal Welfare Society, and a variety of other groups with related agendas and often overlapping personnel.

: The hijacking is repeated every day as activists and their groups indulge in doublespeak, enlist celebrities as spokesmen, and engage national attention with their outlandish promotional schemes, lawsuits, and calls for compassion�their brand of compassion that will eliminate the use, any use of animals in human society.
: A favorite tactic of activists is to infiltrate mainstream humane societies and animal shelters throughout the country, gain election to the boards, and direct activities and money towards anti-breeding legislation under the guise of �population control.� They usually get their ducks in a row, contacting politicians and persuading them that the votes lie with a �compassionate� stance against the killing of healthy animals; planting articles and letters to the editor in local papers decrying the euthanasia of dogs and cats in the local shelter; collecting donations for a print-media advertising campaign; blaming �profit-making� breeders for a �surplus� population of pets; and even euthanizing a dog or two for the television cameras to drive their point across. This latter tactic worked in San Mateo County in California.

: Other strategies include infiltration of the schools with so-called humane education and classroom visits by people who espouse no-use-of-animals-under-any-circumstances; direct-mail solicitation of funds filled with pictures of �abused� animals; recruitment of celebrities to support the cause; and comparison of animal rights advocacy with campaigns to gain equal rights for blacks and women.

: Michael Fox of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has said, "The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect."

: Animal rights supporters reject all animal use, no matter how humane. Some animal rights advocates have even suggested that animal welfare reforms actually impede progress toward animal rights because they improve the conditions under which "animal exploitation" occurs, making it more difficult to stimulate public opposition to animal use.
: The animal rights movement has been able to advance because of urbanization and the inability of countryside organizations to unite. Country life cultures have become the minorities throughout industrial nations, and their lifestyles are in danger of being dictated by urban majorities. These urban people receive their education in animals and wildlife through Disneyland fantasy. Huge, well-organized animal rights organizations feed the fires that pressure politicians and the media to keep anti-hunting issues in front of the public.

: Animal rights groups like the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Humane Society of the US, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the Animal Liberation Front all coordinate their activities and work in some degree throughout Europe and North America. These organizations are bureaucracies with well-paid staffs.
: Animal rights capitalizes on public confusion. Their names confuse the public. We are not sure what each of the organizations really stands for. Most of the public believes they are humane organizations, but they are not: animal rights and humane organizations are not the same.

: Animal rights groups are political organizations. Their funds and efforts focus on changing laws to suit their beliefs. True humane organizations concentrate on preventing animal suffering and abuse. Most of us support humane organizations. However, many of us unwittingly support animal rights groups because of their clever use of names and their ability to capitalize on humane issues. These groups take humane issues to the public to obtain funding, but the funding does not necessarily go to the humane issue. It more often funds rights issues.
: Animal rights doctrine believes that animals have the same rights as humans. Paramount in understanding this movement is accepting that the goal is a petless, meatless society. To achieve the goal, animal rights activists target individual pastimes one by one. By doing so, they are able to get financial support from those involved in similar activities who do not yet realize they are also targets.
: To stop animal rights, we must address issues that have been used by these groups most successfully. Their most effective weapon has been emotion. The countryside movement will never gain majority support by appealing to fact or logic alone. It�s no contest; emotion wins every time. If the public considers practices to be cruel or inhumane or believes stress is wrong for the animals, then we lose.

: But it is a definition we are dealing with, not a quantifiable term. Words such as stress, cruel, and inhumane mean different things to each of us. Humane feelings are defined individually, depending on past experiences and their consequent perspectives. Few of us would agree to the same definition.

: We must re-define these words in a way that makes sense to the public. An example: animal rights groups have been successful in getting the media to show films of dead animals being torn apart by hounds. To most people, this would appear to be cruel or inhumane. But put in proper context, while it still may be offensive, it can be understood as a natural process. A dead animal being torn apart is just a different means of consumption and, obviously, dead animals don�t feel pain. Is that scene very different from father carving the Christmas turkey while the kids gnaw at the drumsticks? These types of analogies are necessary if we hope to at least gain public tolerance. We must use examples the common urban dweller can understand.
: If we put all the animal rights targets into four categories, the Animal Rights Doctrine Master Plan is easier to understand. The principle or rationale for eradicating one activity sets the stage (and the precedent) for all of them to be abolished.

: 1. Trapping, hunting, and fishing are essential tools for wildlife management and bring funding to wildlife and habitat conservation, yet are condemned by animal rights groups as inhumane because they result in killing animals.
: 2. Horse shows, dog and horse racing, rodeos, polo matches, three-day and carriage events, endurance riding, show jumping, dressage, dog and cat shows, and other types of competitions involving animals are marked for elimination because they are �exploitive� and result in stress, which is considered a form of animal abuse by activists.
: 3. Circuses, zoos, aquariums, nature parks, and pets are on the animal rights� list for banning as exploitive. Animal rights groups consider pets as slaves and confinement of animals for education or entertainment to be cruel.
: 4. Fur industry, animal-based medical research, animal and fish farming, and eating meat or fish are considered both murderous and barbarous by animal rights groups and are targeted for elimination.

:
: Xine

: (Christine Lynn)
: Second Chance Reptile Rescue and Rehabilitation
: Jacksonville, Florida
: Adoptions and Educational Talks

: : Report urges ban on reptiles as pets
: : Humane Society cites danger, salmonella risk

: : Friday, August 31, 2001

: : By Jonathan D. Silver, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : I am posting this message as it appeared in its entirety on the YahooGroups meatrabbits list. : : We all need to pay closer attention to those we support. : : Message: 4 : : Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 03:50:42 +0800 : : From: "Robert Mather" <rfmather@email.com> : : Subject: H$U$ : : I have close friends involved in pet rescue operations here in Los Angeles : : (Burbank)... after volunteering my time to the devoted pet lover friends, I : : was curious as to why they never had enough money to help the stranded pets : : they have endeavored to save from the euthanasia chambers... : : Along the way, I learned about Maddie's fund up in Frisco... a trust fund : : for "no kill" shelter operations... I worked with my friends to get some : : funding from Maddie's fund... well, while digging into the application : : process, I just couldn't figure out exactly why Maddie's fund would not give : : *any* cash to the H$U$, PeTA or any of the major players of the animal : : rights industry... Of all "charities" I presumed that the H$U$ and PeTA : : would be first to advocate "no kill" policies as to pet animals... Boy, was : : I ever wrong! : : Had to start somewhere... I began researching the issue... when I learned : : that the H$U$ raised huge sums of cash (on their own) and didn't "share" it : : with *their* affiliates, I was puzzled... Then I found out why... The H$U$ : : has *no* affiliates or association with pets or pet shelters in this day in : : time. : : Since that time, I have been on a mission to create a public information : : campaign to heighten awareness about the H$U$ and through public outrage, : : force the H$U$ to give back the hundreds millions of "doggie" dollars they : : bilked from unsuspecting pet lovers... : : The more I have learned about the H$U$, the more I have come to find out : : that they are a dangerous and vicious fraud and have used pets to obtain : : millions of dollars in donations--but instead of using that tax-exempt cash : : for the pets they used in begging for that cash, they have attacked any and : : every "animal use" group known to mankind. : : That's bad enough, but to make matters worse, the H$U$ is using that : : tax-free cash to influence the legislative/political process... and that in : : itself seems to be against the laws regulating tax-exempt charities. They : : are arrogantly assaulting our rights and not only are they doing it... they : : are doing it with the money from the same people they are attacking... talk : : about slick! : : Making a little progress... we need publicity to heighten awareness of the : : constructive animal rights frauds led by the H$U$... The tide is turning, : : but not quickly enough! : : *** end copied post. : : Animal rights groups range from the terrorist through the treacherous to the tricky and advocate everything from elimination of medical research involving animals to the keeping of pets. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) raids and vandalizes research laboratories and fur farms and terrorizes scientists; PETA is a mouthpiece for ALF and promotes civil disobedience, harassment, trickery, and lies to end the use of animals; and the Humane Society of the US (HSUS) proposes draconian breeding bans on dogs and cats and lobbies for an end to hunting. Sprinkled into the mix are the Fund for Animals, Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine, the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, the Progressive Animal Welfare Society, and a variety of other groups with related agendas and often overlapping personnel. : : The hijacking is repeated every day as activists and their groups indulge in doublespeak, enlist celebrities as spokesmen, and engage national attention with their outlandish promotional schemes, lawsuits, and calls for compassion�their brand of compassion that will eliminate the use, any use of animals in human society. : : A favorite tactic of activists is to infiltrate mainstream humane societies and animal shelters throughout the country, gain election to the boards, and direct activities and money towards anti-breeding legislation under the guise of �population control.� They usually get their ducks in a row, contacting politicians and persuading them that the votes lie with a �compassionate� stance against the killing of healthy animals; planting articles and letters to the editor in local papers decrying the euthanasia of dogs and cats in the local shelter; collecting donations for a print-media advertising campaign; blaming �profit-making� breeders for a �surplus� population of pets; and even euthanizing a dog or two for the television cameras to drive their point across. This latter tactic worked in San Mateo County in California. : : Other strategies include infiltration of the schools with so-called humane education and classroom visits by people who espouse no-use-of-animals-under-any-circumstances; direct-mail solicitation of funds filled with pictures of �abused� animals; recruitment of celebrities to support the cause; and comparison of animal rights advocacy with campaigns to gain equal rights for blacks and women. : : Michael Fox of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has said, "The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect." : : Animal rights supporters reject all animal use, no matter how humane. Some animal rights advocates have even suggested that animal welfare reforms actually impede progress toward animal rights because they improve the conditions under which "animal exploitation" occurs, making it more difficult to stimulate public opposition to animal use. : : The animal rights movement has been able to advance because of urbanization and the inability of countryside organizations to unite. Country life cultures have become the minorities throughout industrial nations, and their lifestyles are in danger of being dictated by urban majorities. These urban people receive their education in animals and wildlife through Disneyland fantasy. Huge, well-organized animal rights organizations feed the fires that pressure politicians and the media to keep anti-hunting issues in front of the public. : : Animal rights groups like the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Humane Society of the US, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the Animal Liberation Front all coordinate their activities and work in some degree throughout Europe and North America. These organizations are bureaucracies with well-paid staffs. : : Animal rights capitalizes on public confusion. Their names confuse the public. We are not sure what each of the organizations really stands for. Most of the public believes they are humane organizations, but they are not: animal rights and humane organizations are not the same. : : Animal rights groups are political organizations. Their funds and efforts focus on changing laws to suit their beliefs. True humane organizations concentrate on preventing animal suffering and abuse. Most of us support humane organizations. However, many of us unwittingly support animal rights groups because of their clever use of names and their ability to capitalize on humane issues. These groups take humane issues to the public to obtain funding, but the funding does not necessarily go to the humane issue. It more often funds rights issues. : : Animal rights doctrine believes that animals have the same rights as humans. Paramount in understanding this movement is accepting that the goal is a petless, meatless society. To achieve the goal, animal rights activists target individual pastimes one by one. By doing so, they are able to get financial support from those involved in similar activities who do not yet realize they are also targets. : : To stop animal rights, we must address issues that have been used by these groups most successfully. Their most effective weapon has been emotion. The countryside movement will never gain majority support by appealing to fact or logic alone. It�s no contest; emotion wins every time. If the public considers practices to be cruel or inhumane or believes stress is wrong for the animals, then we lose. : : But it is a definition we are dealing with, not a quantifiable term. Words such as stress, cruel, and inhumane mean different things to each of us. Humane feelings are defined individually, depending on past experiences and their consequent perspectives. Few of us would agree to the same definition. : : We must re-define these words in a way that makes sense to the public. An example: animal rights groups have been successful in getting the media to show films of dead animals being torn apart by hounds. To most people, this would appear to be cruel or inhumane. But put in proper context, while it still may be offensive, it can be understood as a natural process. A dead animal being torn apart is just a different means of consumption and, obviously, dead animals don�t feel pain. Is that scene very different from father carving the Christmas turkey while the kids gnaw at the drumsticks? These types of analogies are necessary if we hope to at least gain public tolerance. We must use examples the common urban dweller can understand. : : If we put all the animal rights targets into four categories, the Animal Rights Doctrine Master Plan is easier to understand. The principle or rationale for eradicating one activity sets the stage (and the precedent) for all of them to be abolished. : : 1. Trapping, hunting, and fishing are essential tools for wildlife management and bring funding to wildlife and habitat conservation, yet are condemned by animal rights groups as inhumane because they result in killing animals. : : 2. Horse shows, dog and horse racing, rodeos, polo matches, three-day and carriage events, endurance riding, show jumping, dressage, dog and cat shows, and other types of competitions involving animals are marked for elimination because they are �exploitive� and result in stress, which is considered a form of animal abuse by activists. : : 3. Circuses, zoos, aquariums, nature parks, and pets are on the animal rights� list for banning as exploitive. Animal rights groups consider pets as slaves and confinement of animals for education or entertainment to be cruel. : : 4. Fur industry, animal-based medical research, animal and fish farming, and eating meat or fish are considered both murderous and barbarous by animal rights groups and are targeted for elimination. : : : : Xine : : (Christine Lynn) : : Second Chance Reptile Rescue and Rehabilitation : : Jacksonville, Florida : : Adoptions and Educational Talks : : : Report urges ban on reptiles as pets : : : Humane Society cites danger, salmonella risk : : : Friday, August 31, 2001 : : : By Jonathan D. Silver, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Iguana Forum ]