CNN AR special tonight with "special friends" PETA - Page 2

Does anyone here actually believe that PETA could ever be successful at eliminating animal ownership?

I don't, only because people like me are fighting them.  Several years ago AR groups came within a whisker of passing a law in CO changing the designation of animal "owner" to animal "guardian."  Last minute efforts by animal welfare groups pointed out what the result of that would've been, which was the AR goal but of course they didn't come right out and say that until they were caught at it.  A guardian is a different legal entity than an owner.  The fine print said that as a guardian, you could never, ever sell an animal.  For instance, if you bought or adopted a horse or a dog, as its guardian you no longer "owned" it, but were it's guardian, and thereby legally obligated to maintain it for its lifetime.  You could also not decide to put it to sleep - if you did, a panel would have to decide if you could do so.  Situations where injury or disease too prohibitive to treat?  Too bad.  Euthanasia no longer an option for you as guardian.

Within the next 100 years, what do you think will happen if all the MSN laws now either on the books or being proposed, go into effect?  Many communities already restrict the number of pets you can have - some places it's ONE.

Tess, You are spot on! It is almost frightening that you actually must explain the danger on a dog forum, where one could easilu assume that all the Americans, at least, were aware of the pets/hsus (purposely not capped) agenda. This simply demonstrates how insidious these groups are.

Regardless of their agenda, they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of bringing their goal of banning the ownership of animals to fruition.  It simply isn't going to happen, ergo, not worth worrying about.

Who do you think has been behind and/or supporting much of the MSN legislation that has been proposed or passed in the past several years? The more jurisdictions they can sucessfully impose MSN in, the greater the impact on ownership, maintenance and breeding. I genuinely DETEST analogies between this type of mentality and some of the uglier aspects of human history, becasue we *are* talking about dogs. Nevertheless, I will say that much greater "evils" were also dismissed with disparagement as impossible in the past. So, yes, I do take peta/hsus and their agenda seriously.

Does anyone here actually believe that PETA could ever be successful at eliminating animal ownership?



How many people 30 years ago would  have thought that dogs which resemble a certain appearance would be banned in whole countries? Who 30 years ago would have thought that dogs would be banned not on their owner's management of them, nor even on their own behavior, but on their appearance?

I take HSUS and PETA VERY seriously as they have a ton of money and they have support of people like actors who thinnk it is cool to throw a lot of money their way without bothering to see what it is they are really supporting.

As to "no kill", it amazes me how many people who would NEVER dream of putting their pet in "permanent boarding facility" for years on end have NO PROBLEM making some other poor dog live that way...  "No Kill" is all about PEOPLE FEELING GOOD - it certainly is not about making dogs happy.  Having worked ina shelter for 20 years I can tell you that long term boarding in ANY facility SUCKS for the dog.  No owner, no life, no nothing.  To me, any group that claims they support "no kill" is a HUGE warning that they are NOT "animal people" and lack empathy.  Geez, even the idiots as PETA get that much...

Believe me, I am very familiar with PETA.  I used to be a member, when I was 19 I thought it sounded good, I soon quit but they still mail me constantly and call me with "action calls", I've been a vegetarian for about 15 years, but I am an animal *welfare* advocate, not animal rights, I am much more moderate- I don't push my beliefs but I don't believe the conditions of 99% of feed lots and slaughterhouses is something I would support, let alone EAT.  The thought of eating a dead animal makes me ill, because I know the background I've been to hog farms and poultry farms, I was also in 4-H as a kid so I developed empathy for farm animals, I can't see them as totally different than dogs or cats. I am moderate, in that I do protest animal cruelty and want stronger regulations for the meat & dairy industry, anti-vivisection, I am a member of a group protesting puppy mills, but I do believe in pet owner rights, and one thing I'm strongly against is mandatory spay/neuter laws, specifically here in Chicago where it was a recent issue.

PETA is a borderline terrorist organization.  Their tactics ruin it for other animal welfare advoates, when we get lumped in with the "crazy AR activists throwing red paint on people wearing fur" mentality.  They are also media whores.  Yet they get celebrity support?  They clearly state on their website how they do not believe in no-kill shelters, they KILL animals, they have a "master plan" and here it is-- Take the money that would have been used to house and feed shelter animals, kill all the shelter animals, then use that money to spay and neuter every pet, until there are none.

What I am saying here is that as much as we don't agree with their abolitionist viewpoints, they still have a right to free speech.  How would you like it if people told you, "Hey, you can't crop your dogs ears, we want to make it illegal," or "I want to take away your rights to keep your dogs testicles in-tact," or "I want to take away your right to train with an e-collar," OH YEAH they already did that and suceeded!!!!!!!  I want ALL my rights in this world, including the rights to my companion animals, rights to not castrate them, rights to crop ears by a vet, and rights to breed them as I see fit.  But if we want OUR rights, we cannot deny other people THEIR rights.  In this case, being on a tv show or spreading their viewpoints.  All we can do is counter it with facts....

It's important  to counter the positions of abolitionist groups with facts and common sense.  Not just to say things like "f- them" or "they suck" "people eating tasty animals", if you don't agree with it you have to do something about it, not just talk shit on message boards.  If you're interested in that look into joining and becoming active with Sporting Dog Alliance and National Animal Interest Alliance NAIA http://www.naiaonline.org/ 

NoCurs, you should check out the book "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" by Nathan Winograd, his ideas of how no-kill can work, he's done it, even in rural areas (not just San Francisco)

An article about his no-kill debate:  http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-02/living/17263755_1_animal-shelters-pet-overpopulation-pet-food-manufacturers-association

What I find interesting is how some shelters and rescues here in Chicago are IMPORTING animals from other states, Iowa, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, there was even people who wanted to bring in rescues from Haiti.... What I do know is there's a constant demand for dogs, how else is puppyfind.com so full, pet stores in business, breeders everywhere, Anti-Cruelty Society here in Chicago my friend volunteers he said sometimes on weekends they do great numbers and there was only like 10 dogs left... there's a huge damand, but there's other things going on.

This has nothing to do with peta's "freee speech" rights. It has everything to do with a respected NEWS network presenting a BALANCED coverage of the issues, NOT just peta/hsus's views. ¶ As Diane pointed out, they have "tons" of money and can flatter any airheaded celebrity into endorsing them, posing nude for their anti-fur campaign, and generally getting their message out. Or, rather, the portion of their message they are using at any given moment. ¶I simply have come to expect more balance from CNN/HLN. If it were Fox Noise I wouldn't expect more and wouldn't waste energy on it. :-)

"Animal Guardian"...

Oh my!! The red flags were flying high & bright on that one. WOW!!!
Stacy