Why we should oppose "Animal Rights" WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES!

Animals don't have rights. How can we oppose something that isn't?

You see -- the question needs to be rephrased. If you say you oppose animal rights, then you're assuming animals have certain rights, and you're having your debate on their territory.

There's more than one graphic image there. What drivel.

I knew i shouldn't have opened that link

I'll edit the post to make the warning more emphatic.

I'm sorry but how can those laws end pet ownership? I'm confused.

You oppose the animal rights MOVEMENT.
I did not open the link, because I did not want to see the stupid propaganda the AR movement uses to get their way. However, the AR organizations want to eliminate ALL use of animals, this includes pet ownership as well. The banning of exotic animal ownership, breed specific legislation and mandatory spay neuter are all attempts to eliminate all pet ownership. Don't believe the lies that the AR try to shove down your throat. AR groups such as PETA, HSUS, API do not believe in pet ownership and they are doing everything they can to take that away from you. And always remember, in the eyes of the law, pets are our property (speaking of the USA laws here) If that should change, the goverment could take away your right to have pets, if they are not considered your property.

Much of the legislation is NOT to stop pet ownership, but rather, pet suffering. How many kill shelters have we visited?? Have many of us seen a tomcat slowly dying because the county allows only a set amount of the kill-serum, enough to eventually kill, but not until after prolonged suffering? Or saw a mare tied up & forced to breed with a donkey to produce a mule? or a stud colt tied down and gelded without anethesia? Found a burlap bag of drowned puppies floating down a canal? Or dead kittens in a garbage bag in a dumpster?? I live in a rural area where these scenes are all too common and I have seen them all, and unfortunately, have met too many others who have witnessed the same.
The mandatory spay/neuter law in Santa Cruz CA has been a model of success. Compare that to the epidemic of unwanted, unfortunate cats & kittens in the gold rush country, and well, there's something to be said about these ordinances.

Whoa...

I had not heard of HSUS opposition pet ownership. In fact, they have a "Pets for Life" program. http://www.animalsheltering.org/prog...pets_for_life/
After hurricane Katrina, HSUS aided with the rescue of abandoned domestic animals.

Could you please point to some media where HSUS is against pet ownership?

I had a look and while I can't find exactly what you're looking for, they support breed specific legislation, and were investigated after the recent hurricanes for possible misuse of funds given to them to help animal victims and their owners.

Breed Specific Legislation
Misuse of funds

I also found a link that shows how the HSUS could easily be doing an awful lot more to help out shelters than they are already.

I gave money for the homeless pets.

Although, I think of HSUS as a lobbying group... it makes me sad that the money that was given to rescue pets may have been wasted on other things.

Edited to add: Wow, I just looked at their form 990 and where their money goes. My monies will go directly to shelters from now on!

This is what i love about this site, we get educated on a lot of things so don't beat yourself up

Stopping the suffering of animals needs to take precedence over peoples irrational fears about animal rights extremists. They are extremists and they are in the minority.

The images are not only horrible, they are gratuitous. Gee, they almost coulda used some from their good buddies over at PeTA. Yeah especially since ALF claims to do right by the animals they "liberate."

Can you say "lost touch with reality?"

Would you agree that enforcement of existing laws might go a bit farther than enacting new legislation?

That's way too open ended a question to answer. It would depend on the what the existing laws are and what the new legislation is.

I think any new legislation needs to be considered for it's own merits without any assumption that there is an evil ______ (fill in your favorite, despited AR group) puppetmaster pulling strings in the background for the purpose of pursuing an agenda other than what is explicitly stated in the legislation.

Yes, I do.

Here are the animal welfare laws in my state (Virginia). You can also access the animal welfare laws for other states at that link.

I can assure you there are plenty of people in violation of those existing laws (but not being pursued due to lack of manpower, funds, interest, etc.), and I can't think of any additional legislation I would recommend.

What are your thoughts?

Don't be fooled. That is what the AR movement WANTS you to think, but in reality, they do nothing at all to stop animal suffering. PETA kills 90% or more of the animals they bring in and HSUS, with all it's money, does not operate nor do they support any shelters. Animal welfare is what we all should agree on. But the AR movement does not care about animal welfare and yes they DO want to remove pets from our lives.
Yes, this is what PETA did in North Carolina. Rescued perfectly healthy AND adoptable puppies, kittens, cats and dogs from a vet, killed them and threw their bodies illegally in a dumpster. Yes, these AR folks sure care about animal welfare don't they.
They sure are a lobbying group. Using money that should go to help animals, such as low cost spay neuter programs, help with TNR or to help other shelters but instead, it is spent on lobbying. In my case with my animals, they have been lobbying to take away my right to own and love my animals. So once again, the AR DOES want to remove pets from our lives. Also, you can look up a bill that was pending in my state of Ohio, HB45. To make it short, if owners such as myself, could no longer comply with this BAN bill, our animals would be removed and destroyed. Yes...killed!! Guess what? This bill was written by the AR group API and is supported by HSUS. So therefore they, API and HSUS, support the killing of animals. And they use money people give to them, to push these bills through, when that money should be used for the programs I already mentioned. Yeah, that sure is animal welfare isn't it!! So far, we have stopped this bill HB45. We educated our legislators on the lies the AR force upon them and they saw just how bad they really are
Exactly, donate to your LOCAL shelters and humane societies where the money will be used for the care of animals.
Yes it would!! No new laws are needed and this useless legislation must be stopped. If we are not enforcing current laws, what good will new ones do, other than hurt the people who are responsible.
Have you ever dealt with state level legislation to see what goes on? Let me tell you what. Using HB45 as an example. They state that this bill is not a ban, they say it is to enforce responsible ownership. Yeah sure, read it and you will see that this is not about responsible ownership, but a complete and total ban. That's how these things work. They write the bill, knowing that most legislators won't read most of it and say sure, I am for responsible ownership. But if you look at who API is, the AR group who wrote the bill, you will see they do not support ANY ownership of these animals. They want them banned completely. A puppetmaster pulling strings for their own agenda?? You bet, that is exactly how they work!! Also, instead of spending my hard earned money and time to care for my big cats, I have to spend it to fight legislation that wants to take my animals away from me. Oh yeah AR sure care for animals don't they. They would rather see them taken from my home, where they are loved and so very well cared for and either put up at an over crowded sanctuary or killed. Yes, these AR groups are wonderful people
Nope...they are a majority!! Thanks for posting the links.

I'm sorry- but that just has to be corrected. Kill shelters are NOT evil. They HAVE to take animals in in many cases because their city owned- so yes, they do get the animals nobody wants- the severly ill, the very aggressive and unadoptable ones.

I worked as a vet tech for a kill shelter- that being said it has one of the highest adoption rates in the area and under no circumstances allowed animals to suffer. Do you understand the process of how animals are supposed to be pts? The law does not tell shelters that they can only give X amount of beuthanasia solution (which is what it's called) All that they require is that every animal who is given something be logged into the system have a recieving/log number with a description of the animal -and for the staff to keep a record of how much sedation solution ("cat hooch" or ketamine
sometimes other things too) is used and how much euthanazia solution is used and they need a record of the animals weight and why it was pts. It is not just simple process, you have to record EVERYTHING because the state inspectors DO check and they will measure the contents of the bottle if they suspect foul play. So no, kill shelters are not all cruel and they do not all deprive the animals of adequate solution when being pts. Posting things like that however do prevent animals from getting homes when all shelters are given a bad name for a job that although necessary, they do not like to do. (Yes, there are some shelters who are not good and should not even be allowed to operate- but there are good shelters too that are truely in it to help the animals in their care,even if helping means allowing a suffering animal to be humanely pts)

Also just one more question- do you understand the process of euthanazia in a cat? I don't mean any offense in asking, i'm just curious because if someone were to observe a cat being pts - they might not understand what is happening and why. In MANY cats it is hard to do a vein stick in the leg (especially an ill one who has low blood pressure) So it is much easier and less stressful on the animal to give a sedative in the muscle of the back leg and then let the animal take a few minutes to go to sleep. It can take a little bit of time for them to fall asleep that way because the medication takes longer to circulate in the body when it's administered in the muscle vs. the vein. You might also observe the animal "fighting" sleep a little bit too- they may be a little disorentied a bit and bounce around a little while falling asleep when the meds are given IM. Once the sedative kicks in- if a leg or other vein is viable- you may try to hit that and administer the euthanazia solution that way...a lot of times though on cats- it's hard to hit that way thuogh especially when their blood pressure drops and they are under anestesia. So the prefered method in that instance is a heart stick. It may sound cruel, but it is not when it is done properly. In a heart stick when done properly the animal put under anestesia first (and depending should be administered pain meds) so that they do not feel and are not awake for anything while out. Then a needle is placed directly into the heart and the solution is administered. Now the needle stays in place for several moments so that you can visually see when the heart stops beating (the needle will stop moving). Then you check for a heart beat and once the animal has passed then dispose properly of the body. It would be VERY cruel to put an animals body in a freezer or incenerator only to find out the animal was not fully deceased, so that's why it can take a little bit of time to properly put down a cat- you want to make sure you follow proper procedures and don't cause them any unnecessary suffering like freezing or burning them alive.

A most informative post. Thank you!!

I suspect the state inspectors are more concerned about ketamine getting out of the clinic into the human population. It's well-know as "cat valium" and other terms among drug abusers. Not that I'm all that informed on illegal drugs, mind you.....I found that out by googling.

The "heart stick" isn't just used in kill shelters. I've seen it used on various animals in a highly respected, high-dollar veterinary hospital, as well.

As far as currently legal endeavors resulting in unnecessary suffering, I think you could find an example of an unfortunate mistake/rarity in just about any environment involving living things (I'm sure plenty of horrible, regrettable things have happened at no-kill shelters and other animal sanctuaries/rescues over time). No matter how careful, consistent, or thoughtful you are, there are still going to be individuals/circumstances all the rules and procedures can't account for. Living things are inherently unpredictable.

If a slaughterhouse is effective 90+% of the time, but the remaining animals manage to have extra-thick skulls or move at just the right time to avoid even the most skilled captive bolt gun handler, and it takes an extra ten or twenty seconds to properly stun/kill an animal, I'm having real problems with justifying banning it. No matter how icky it is to watch, I have a hard time saying an animal that takes twenty or thirty seconds to die is really worse off than a beloved pet that suffers for days, weeks, or months with a painful, terminal disease, hopefully to be euthanized, but frequently left to die "peacefully".

Not to mention, a lot of these graphic pictures the AR folks like to toss around are of dead animals! Obviously, if you are cutting up (butchering, skinning, whatever) a dead animal, there is going to be blood; there will be guts. Ever seen a necropsy done on an animal that was humanely euthanized by a loving owner? It's not pretty, either. Doesn't necessarily mean the animal was a victim of cruelty.

I have real issues with the AR movement. Philosophically, we will never agree. I have no qualms with owning, riding, eating, and otherwise using animals. I have real problems with people who are needlessly cruel to animals. I think they are separate issues.

I hadn't seen that link before, but knew HSUS's stand on reptile ownership (http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_...reptile_trade/ bunch of BS) - so it's not surprising a site like that would have info too.
Then found this link http://www.arbreptiles.com/extremists2.shtml Pretty funny considering both these stores sell animals - or should I say improperly keep and starve animals in their displays cases? (unless the store is luckily enough to have an employee with a functioning brain).

(and then I got distracted by the person's pictures of their pretty Indian Star torts http://www.arbreptiles.com/torts/index.shtml )

Bank of America and Microsoft have also added HSUS, so that anytime you make a transaction or use MSN (from the ads on it) HSUS will get a small donation...

Cat and dog owners may not see problems with a lot of the bills being proposed, but anyone keeping exotics, reptiles, or even birds will be the first to be affected. Once they've weeded us out they'll start working on everyone else...

Oh so very true. I have said this many times, I am so happy to see others understand as well I just hope we can help all people who love animals and their pets understand as well, before it is to late and all animal ownership is banned for good.

Ketamine's street name is "Special K"....aka a favorite of the the date rape drugs- rapists like it because it knocks out the victim and keeps them paralized but they can still feel everything- just not repond. That stuff was kept behind a safe with a keypad where i worked and only certain employees had access to the keypad code. / It's not just ketamine though- there are SOOOOOOO many other drugs/etc related to animal use that they regulate to the tee for good reason.

yes, i know. the heart stick is a medical procedure that's used mostly on cats because it's simply a lot easier way of putting them down vs. trying to stick them in various veins on their body when their blood pressure is low. It's quicker and easier. It's used across the board and when done properly is humane. Anyone certified as a euthanazia tech or vet should know how to do one properly.

That doesn't mean that some people choose not to do them correctly though. There was a horrible shelter a few hours away from where i live that was closed down not too long ago for doing heart sticks on animals who had not been sedated (and they were doing it in a very cruel way and on dogs.) Dogs should rarely EVER have a heart stick - you can almost always hit a vein on a dog if you know what your doing.

PeTA I had given up on, but I was willing to give the HSUS the benefit of the doubt for the longest time. Now that they have hired a former Animal Liberation Front member (John Goodwin) to a key position, the HSUS is no better than PeTA or ALF themselves.
http://fowlnews.blogster.com/animal_rights_activist_2

And what is the new legislation being proposed in Virginia that you think is unnecessary because of these existing laws?

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my post. You claim this bill explicitly bans all pet ownership. If that is true then I would certainly not support it. I still maintain that any new legislature should be judged on it's own merits and not automatically condemned out of fear that there is some "secret agenda" behind it.

No, I didn't say this bill bans ALL pet ownership, it bans all EXOTIC pet ownership. But, that is the first step. Once exotic animals are banned as pets, the next step is to ban all domestic animals. Don't think that is happening already? It is and it's called BSL or Breed Specific Legislation. People who own certain breeds of domestic dogs and cats are already being hit by this. Pitt Bull and Bengal cat owners come to mind. They don't try and push a bill threw that will ban all animal ownership at once, because they (the AR) knows that people will fight it. However, they try to eliminate and seperate owners of certain breeds and ban them. They make certain breeds look "dangerous" where most people will think yeah, I'm all for that. Heck, I have heard of people who think Bengals are dangerous!! It's there and don't ignore it. Don't support any of these AR groups or you will find pet ownership banned for good.
That's because 99% of the time there is a "secret agenda" behind it.
There isn't any from what I understand. What was stated is this Since existing animal welfare laws are NOT being enforced, no new legislation is needed. More laws don't do a darn thing, except make it harder for the people who are responsible. I will fight any and all new animal legislation. No new laws are needed.