[Fairfax]

A lawyer for HSUS (senior) is on the Presidential advisory board regarding matters of "animals and livestock"

My reason for mentioning those two concentration camps should be obvious. They are not the well known ones, the infamous names and they were not large...however they were satellite concentration extermination camps that carried out the agenda while lying to the public.

Those who quote, attempt to mandate or in any manner support HSUS and PETA, ADL, ALF etc are supporting the elimination of animal ownership.

[Justa Bob]

Once upon a time a bunch of extremists convinced the Nation to ban alcohol. Alcohol actually DOES cause a lot of public and private pain. The destruction of that industry caused large scale job losses and was likely a major contributor to the economic decline that we today call The Great Depression.

Never say "never" and always avoid the world "always."

G.

Actually, the ban on alcohol increased job productivity, decreased alcoholism and public drunkenness (which had been a serious problem at the time). Many a father spent his wages at the bar and left his family in poverty.

Prohibition broke a devastating cycle. See Ken Burn's documentary on Prohibition for a succinct analysis of it's effects.

http://www.hulu.com/ken-burns-prohib...FYeDQgod2ioAkQ

[Bluey]

I think that the HSUS has finally shown it's hand clearly.
No more disingenuous "we are just for the welfare of animals" words, when it is clear they are animal rights extremists by the lawsuits against the beef and pork association's check off programs.
Those can't be said to be for the welfare of any animals.
It is just a power grab for their animal rights extremist agenda.

Too bad that some still can't see that their horses are also part of what is in jeopardy here, along with all other domestic animals, their heads firmly stuck in the sand.

At least these expose type articles are now starting to hit the mainstream.
It is a bit harder now for some to keep insisting that I am in the basement and wearing a tin hat any more.
Hopefully the smarter of those still believing the HSUS propaganda will stop and think that there may after all be fire where that smoke is coming from and try to become a bit better informed about what all those animal rights extremist groups really are and do.

[CarrieK]

It is often not okay to them. That's how far they are removed from a love of, and understanding of, animals. Take the late Linda McCartney. She donated to a raptor rehabilitation program in England. When it was pointed out to her that the money she gave to feed the owls & hawks was spent on mice, since that's what they ate, she (no joke) asked the rehabbers if they could switch the birds to a vegetarian diet. When told that wasn't possible she arranged that her money would go to support in other ways but specifically could not be used for food for them.

There is also a movement to have your own pets be vegans. Here's only one site: http://www.vegetariandogs.com/

Make no mistake. Although the people with these views say it's for the animals, it is NOT about the animals at all, nor is it about what is best for them.

I was shopping at a pet store during an adoption. A mom and daughter asked me about the dog food I was buying. Then they showed me the dog they wanted and asked if it could be fed a vegan diet since by religion they were vegans. I told them it would not be in the best interest of the dog, but it could be done. As we talked I said that I didn't think a dog would be judged and should be guided by our religious choices, the least of which reason is that a dog doesn't make a moral choice about food and doesn't apply any religious significance to it. They said that they could not feed the dog meat, period. I told them that they might not want to mention that to the folks at the adoption because they probably would be denied. They asked why. I said again, because that diet choice is not in the best interest of the dog. I didn't stick around long enough to see if they got the dog. They were very nice and when they looked at the dog they just beamed; I think they would have made a great home for that dog but the diet part, I dunno.

[CarrieK]

Please explain what you mean by anti-dog legislation being passed all over the country. I really don't know what you mean. If they were that good, puppy mills would have been shut down years ago.

It's not all about puppy mills, you know. There are many communities with breed-specific legislation. In the example below, breed-specific legislation is anti-dog; punishing the breed and not the deed, in a community which allows dog ownership it makes a sweeping declaration which restricts its residents' freedom of choice.

I've run across some legistaion which does not name the breed but says all breeds which have a "propensity" to be vicious. So there go your shepherds and dobermans and rotties and, if people are honest, your bitey little jack russels and yorkies (which in my experience are two of the nastiest breeds out there; haven't met one that hasn't snarled or worse), whatever their lawyer can argue has a propensity.

Michigan State University College of Law Breed Specific Legislation

Example:

Citation: GROSSE POINTE WOODS, MI., MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 6-94 - 6-95 (2008)

Summary: The municipal code of Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan, makes it unlawful for any person to own, harbor or keep any pit bull terrier. Any dog determined to be a pit bull terrier by a court shall be destroyed or removed from the city.


Ordinance Text in Full:

Sec. 6-94. - Vicious dogs and other vicious animals prohibited.


(a) Keeping pit bull terriers prohibited. Because of the great inherent danger to the public health, welfare and safety, no person shall own, harbor or keep any dog commonly described as a pit bull terrier within the city. The term "pit bull terrier," as used in this section, shall be defined as any of the following:

(1) A bull terrier breed of dog.
(2) A Staffordshire bull terrier breed of dog.
(3) An American Staffordshire bull terrier breed of dog.
(4) An American pit bull terrier breed of dog.
(5) A dog of mixed breed or of other breed than the breeds listed in this subsection, which breed or mixed breed is known as a pit bull dog or pit bull terrier and has the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of any of the breeds listed in this subsection or any combination thereof.

Any such dog shall be impounded by an animal warden and held until a determination is made by a court of competent jurisdiction that the animal is a pit bull terrier. The court shall order that any dog determined to be a pit bull terrier shall be destroyed or removed from the city.

[pezk]

It's not only about BSL in communities. The ins companies are doing a pretty good job of denying homeowners ins to people with certain breeds of dogs. The last time I saw the ins co list, it's up to 50 breeds that the ins cos are banning. They along with local govt and HSUS are eliminating our right to own what breed we prefer.
The horse people don't care about the dog people and the dog people don't care about horses. Everyone sees their own little world. It's too bad. If all animal owners gave a d___ then animal ownership would not be under attack on many fronts.
People have their head in the sand. When they finally wake up, it will be too late. Your "best friend" will be eliminated.

[JSwan]

What's that saying?

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them."


The truth is that the big animal welfare groups USED to focus on animal welfare.

They're not about animal welfare anymore - they're about animal rights.

They're two separate and distinct philosophies.

[Bluey]

What's that saying?

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them."


The truth is that the big animal welfare groups USED to focus on animal welfare.

They're not about animal welfare anymore - they're about animal rights.

They're two separate and distinct philosophies.

Right.

Generally, those big animal rights extremist groups have other smaller groups they finance that they use to front for them, so their name doesn't come up when it is not convenient for them.

In the lawsuits against the beef and pork promotion boards, they want everyone to know they are financing those lawsuits.
It is a clear shot across the bow to everyone that crosses them, as those boards did support recently others against the pet projects the HSUS was lobbying for in different states.

I really wonder how the HSUS is able to keep their non-profit status, as they seem to have more than clearly overextended past their stated goal as such non-profit, into a lobbying arm for animal rights extremists positions.

It is a bit ironic as, if I remember right, the lawsuit against the pork board is because of the rightness of them using years ago "pork, the other white meat" and there is questions of how right it is for the HSUS themselves now to call themselves "for animal welfare", when that is a stretch any more.

[luvmytbs]

What's that saying?

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them."


The truth is that the big animal welfare groups USED to focus on animal welfare.

They're not about animal welfare anymore - they're about animal rights.

They're two separate and distinct philosophies.

JSwan, thank you!

Unfortunately a certain group of COTHers seem to be unable to understand that when 'we' speak of animal welfare, our philosophy is not anywhere near animal rights and will never, ever go there.

[Fairfax]

JSwan, thank you!

Unfortunately a certain group of COTHers seem to be unable to understand that when 'we' speak of animal welfare, our philosophy is not anywhere near animal rights and will never, ever go there.

We clearly understand the difference and those who reflect that difference in their posts.

The lines merge when a poster will quote, almost vebatim, the HSUS mantra and will state horses should be declared companion animals so they can not be sent to slaughter, and then, when convenient, say.... I am not a follower of HSUS ../. I am just for the horse.

When a poster agrees with taxing breeders of horses and agrees with PETA/HSUS that there should also be a transfer tax on horses for their lifetime..then, they are agreeing with and supporting HSUS

I believe it was you...lovey..who wanted an export tax.

You deny animal rights and yet you are one of the prolific animal rights posters..

[cowgirljenn]

What's that saying?

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them."


The truth is that the big animal welfare groups USED to focus on animal welfare.

They're not about animal welfare anymore - they're about animal rights.

They're two separate and distinct philosophies.

This! I believe they started out with good intentions (even PETA looooong ago). And they did good work. But sadly most of them have morphed into animal rights groups.

And if you own or ride a horse, you do NOT support animal rights. The animal welfare movement believes we should be able to use animals: for food, for clothing and other products, and for entertainment/recreation. The movement promotes the humane care and treatment of those animals. In other words, if we're going to use animals, we must care for them humanely.

Animal rights, on the other hand, believes that all animals should have the same rights as humans. AND that means we cannot use them in any way - no eating, no wearing, no testing, no riding, and no entertainment. They should rather animals go extinct than be subjected to the horrors of use by humans. Before you tell me how wrong I am - I've met and talked to some of the founders of the animal rights movement. These things came straight from him.

And before you scream because I mentioned 'animal testing' - look at your own life. Any medications or medical procedures you've ever taken/undergone were first developed and tested using animals. I do think there is gratuitous use of animal testing on certain products, but I also think many of us own our health and sometimes even our lives to the testing that was done using animals.

[sunridge1]

Maybe if WE (like police our own) assaulted the asshats, there would be no assault on the good owners/keepers/growers. It seems to me from my own experience that the laws are there to protect the perps even with solid evidence of terrible abuses. So it will never happen until someone decides it for us, not unlike the BL thing.

Puppymills are one of the most disgusting forms of animal husbandry I've ever seen. I would know, I purchased my farm from an active miller.

The former owner was arrested, fined, ordered no contact with dogs. Yet she's still at it in a different part of the state.

[luvmytbs]

I believe it was you...lovey..who wanted an export tax.

You deny animal rights and yet you are one of the prolific animal rights posters..

No that wasn't me.

But FYI, importing horses into Canada by a private individual for example requires taxes to be paid.

If you have ever brought one of your KY horses to Canada, you should be familiar with the concept.

[Guilherme]

Actually, the ban on alcohol increased job productivity, decreased alcoholism and public drunkenness (which had been a serious problem at the time). Many a father spent his wages at the bar and left his family in poverty.

Prohibition broke a devastating cycle. See Ken Burn's documentary on Prohibition for a succinct analysis of it's effects.

http://www.hulu.com/ken-burns-prohib...FYeDQgod2ioAkQ

The issue is less the effects of Prohibition than an observation that a committed minority can effect massive social change with all manner of anticipated and unanticipated consequences.

Those who say, "Oh, the government would never do this!" are not very astute students of government or history.

G.

[Lynnwood]

Please explain what you mean by anti-dog legislation being passed all over the country. I really don't know what you mean. If they were that good, puppy mills would have been shut down years ago.

As for the NYC carriage horses, yes, I am fully aware of of what is going on, but they have NOT been successful in banning them and as far as I can tell, aren't even close.

The ARAs will continue to picket outside the circus, animal parks, petting zoos and the carriage trade. Have they gotten anywhere near getting any of them banned?

Enjoy your special vacation in Bluey's basement....

You are plain wrong. Of course they have gotten close even succeeded ..to the point that close enough its too close.

Senator Tony Avella , Into 86A is sponsored by Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito. NYClass has managed to solicit somewhere in the 500,000 dollar range for their electric car's and people just keep donating money. No car to show for it .. no actual abused horses saved and cared for.

Can you imagine what 500,000 dollars could have done to save and protect the truly needy and destitute?

Here is a list of the places who have implemented exotic animal circus/bans. http://www.ad-international.org/anim...?id=281&ssi=10

Feigning dumb and pretending like its not happening is no different then signing their petitions and attending their protests you are not neutral you are aiding them.

[JGHIRETIRE]

Yes.

JSwan, thank you!

Unfortunately a certain group of COTHers seem to be unable to understand that when 'we' speak of animal welfare, our philosophy is not anywhere near animal rights and will never, ever go there.

[luvmytbs]

Senator Tony Avella , Into 86A is sponsored by Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito. NYClass has managed to solicit somewhere in the 500,000 dollar range for their electric car's and people just keep donating money. No car to show for it .. no actual abused horses saved and cared for.

Can you imagine what 500,000 dollars could have done to save and protect the truly needy and destitute?

Sue Wallis and her pro slaughter buddies are persueing their agenda via a non-profit organization, which of course would require them to beg for donations as well.

The Kentucky Horse Council recently received grants totalling $ 600,000 to conduct a survey which in their own words would provide them with the actual numbers of horses residing in this state. Yet, their approach to the study is to ask individuals to participate via their website - that's it.
How comprehensive and factual is that?
Personally I don't know one horse owner who would answer their survey even if they went door to door.

That's $ 600,000 that could have been used to much better serve the horse community in this state.

Here is a list of the places who have implemented exotic animal circus/bans. http://www.ad-international.org/anim...?id=281&ssi=10

And your assumption is that all of those were iniated by HSUS and PETA?
You really give them too much credit.

[JGHIRETIRE]

This is very clearly where I sit.
I am also aware of the dog issues. I have a German Shepherd.

This! I believe they started out with good intentions (even PETA looooong ago). And they did good work. But sadly most of them have morphed into animal rights groups.

And if you own or ride a horse, you do NOT support animal rights. The animal welfare movement believes we should be able to use animals: for food, for clothing and other products, and for entertainment/recreation. The movement promotes the humane care and treatment of those animals. In other words, if we're going to use animals, we must care for them humanely.

Animal rights, on the other hand, believes that all animals should have the same rights as humans. AND that means we cannot use them in any way - no eating, no wearing, no testing, no riding, and no entertainment. They should rather animals go extinct than be subjected to the horrors of use by humans. Before you tell me how wrong I am - I've met and talked to some of the founders of the animal rights movement. These things came straight from him.

And before you scream because I mentioned 'animal testing' - look at your own life. Any medications or medical procedures you've ever taken/undergone were first developed and tested using animals. I do think there is gratuitous use of animal testing on certain products, but I also think many of us own our health and sometimes even our lives to the testing that was done using animals.

[luvmytbs]

And if you own or ride a horse, you do NOT support animal rights. The animal welfare movement believes we should be able to use animals: for food, for clothing and other products, and for entertainment/recreation. The movement promotes the humane care and treatment of those animals. In other words, if we're going to use animals, we must care for them humanely.

Me too.

I eat meat - my favorite being beef.

My shoes, purses and some jackets are made from leather.

So are my saddles, bridles and some halters.

I ride my horses, even when sometimes they are not in the mood.

If I was to neglect/abuse them, I would expect to have to face the law.

[poltroon]

Wait, I can see a positive.

Deer will have to carry insurance so when they smash into my car it is on them to pay for it.

Our public radio station often gives the warning, "Remember, it's mating season, so the deer are especially stupid this time of year. Particularly the males."