Tuesday, June 30, 2009

This is the Typical AR Mentality


It's like Mat Sitte wanted to act out the AR program in his own home:

For an instant, he stood and watched as the flames circled her body then engulfed her.

"I could feel the heat of the fire. I could smell the flesh burning ... I stay a few seconds and say a prayer to set her soul free," he said. Suddenly, he said, he realized he forgot to get the kids' three pet rabbits out of their bedrooms.

"I ran upstairs and got two cages and brought them outside. Then I ran back in to get the third one," he said. "The heat was pretty intense. On my way back downstairs I hear a big bang. And I see the kitchen floor collapse and I realize it's time for me to get out of there. I barely get out alive ... then I grab my bottle of rum and sit across the street and watch the fire."

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

You Have to Give People Something

A lot of people who are on the ownership rights side also jump on the cruelty bandwagon. We want everyone to have their rights as long as they "aren't cruel" and "don't neglect." Even when we make somewhat finer distinctions and sound more positive, if it adds up to the same or a similar program, it doesn't look any different to the public. We can call it animal welfare or animal protection, and it still does not say that we have a progressive purpose in owning animals. It still says that the thrust is to eliminate abuse. When all that gravitates to its logical conclusion, the fewer animals there are the fewer animals are abused. This is a really bad policy that has grave consequences for the animals and humanity. What we practice on the animals we really will do to humans, like mass slaughter to send everyone else to Heaven ahead of us.

The public wants something for the animals and in all the confusion the smartest of us will have trouble figuring out what. Of course, just because it took me a while doesn't mean that, but I think it's true anyway. Of course people want good lives for nonhuman animals. It's just natural.

The animal rights activists found it more profitable to do good by fighting evil because they could slap a label on everyone they felt like. Agriculture does a lot more good for the animals because their health and well-being are our health and well-being. The activists sell this in the negative and as it always happens, the negative campaigns have spiraled out of control and have to be stopped.

We who believe in the right to own animals have to give the public something. Warm fuzzies are still good. People hugging tigers is good, and a message that I would like to see would be something like "you can have this yourself." Tell people the truth, that breeding is good for animals. That's where new animals come from. Animal-based agriculture provides us with safe and nutritious food and we feed the animals first. Give people something to respect, to honor, to love. Help them understand what a rodeo means, or a cattle drive, or why people should play with big cats, elephants, wolves, bears, or big birds. Share the love.

Monday, June 22, 2009

No-Kill: A Performance Trap

Any number of animal activists say that no more animals should be bred until the shelters are empty and the shelters no longer kill any animals.

I bought this bridge from a crazy-eyed man for $50 and my soul, but the tolls that I collect at both ends of the bridge will make me rich, rich rich.

What's wrong with their logic? What's wrong is that if there is any substantial number of dogs in any city, some are going to die in shelters. Trying to reduce the number of shelter deaths by reducing the number of animals out there might work, but we will never reach zero. These people have announced that they will fight a war against our ownership rights forever. They know that shelter deaths will never reach zero. If we accept their conditions they have trapped us into an agreement to do the impossible. We will have handed over our rights in order to satisfy their delusion.

If nothing else the AR people will breed dogs themselves and kill them in their own shelters. This is actually a practice that dates back to the 19th century and ASPCA people were caught doing it.

It Is This Simple

When all this crap got started, animal owners should not have tried to "prove" anything to the animal rights activists, not one thing. Whenever humans try to talk to these bullies, there is one expectation, one way that it goes: No one realistically expects the animal rights activists to be swayed by science or any kind of rationality, reason, or evidence. The human being is expected to be swayed by science, rationality, reason, and evidence. However, this expectation comes from a bully who does not feel obligated to tell the truth. The science is bogus. The evidence is manufactured and tainted. Going through the process is an act of submission in the eyes of the bully. Submitting anything to them, evidence, science, anything, is an act of submission and in their view you have already lost.

This is why the animal loving community should have made firm decisions a long time ago. We should have decided that almost every human being is good enough to have an animal, outside of being habitual, egregious abusers who routinely injure animals sadistically. We should have decided not to be swayed by arguments about "safety." None of us should ever have backed down, which is of course why the bullies pick on the safest targets that they can. A lot of us became cowardly and even lazy, using the attacks against us as an excuse. It's easier to take the path of excusing one's ownlack of ambition or lack of courage. A lot of authority got handed off way too easily.

It was as simple as saying that we can tolerate the dangers of owning tigers. It was as simple as telling the press that tragic deaths are part of living and should be no cause for any sweeping changes; general policy should not be made from sweeping changes. It was as simple as telling the world that it is wrong to bully others for owning the animals that they love.

Maybe it still is.

That is all that people like Carole Baskin have been doing. They've been telling government officials what they want and giving reasons. The reasons haven't been truly honest. They appeal to least-common-denominator thinking like "it's dangerous, please keep it away from me I'm so scared I'm wetting my pants." This kind of thing has to be backed by the usual violence and vandalism for it to have taken the hold that it seems to have. Also, I think that the government officials have to have been compromised in the first place.

Animal lovers didn't want to get into politics in the first place but we let other people do politics. Didn't we know that this would lead to deadly consequences?

Friday, June 19, 2009

Toxic Workplaces

I've worked in places where the management seemed ridiculously high-strung before. A lot of times it was because they had marital problems, were overstressed from working at least two jobs, were the wrong people for the job, or were disappointed with their level of achievement in life.

There might not be a workplace in existence that is as toxic as an animal menagerie these days. "Tight safety regulations" are the refuges of the incompetent, the scoundrels, and the sociopaths, with a lot of overlap between the named groups. A person who does not handle the animals does not learn how to handle the animals. If you spend years to even get to handle the animals, generally you move on and start the whole process over again, if you even get in. Someone who is the worthless nephew of the boss's sister-in-law might go straight in and learn how to "handle" while someone who the cats obviously love might be restrained from even touching through the fence.

Zero tolerance creates a toxic workplace. Humans aren't made for that. Zero tolerance policy cannot and will not be administered honestly. Tolerance necessarily creeps in or you don't have a workforce. Even with the best of faith it's subjective and depends on the mood of whichever authority figure happens to be in a given place at a given time. With zero tolerance a worker is treated as if he has just violated the world's fertile womb with nuclear poisons if he happens to brush against the fur of a snow leopard and it can be construed as a voluntary act.

At the same time the workers are there to be with the animals. If an invisible barrier of authority stands between the workers and the animals, things happen. One is of course that that the worker never learns to work with the animals, a thing that you cannot learn without some kind of interaction. That's a thing that doesn't happen. Another is that workers get frustrated and go independent, so they interact without the help of a person who knows how to be safe around the animals. It's like learning how to drive a motorcycle by spending years cleaning the showroom floor while someone else moves them in and out. Yet another thing is that you get toxic personalities in the workplace who could give a crap about the animals but like to horse animal lovers around.

There is a toxic personality who recently took all of her son's big cats away from him and has banned her workers from contact with them. This was his mother, for the love of God. So his dream has been taken away by his mother. He probably should have read Iron John. And she's taking it away from a lot of other people who work there. The emotional atmosphere has changed with may account for the recent death that occurred there. She is going to have her profit center, she is going to change the trade for the worse, and she is going to be in league with some of the most destructive people on Earth.

As for myself, I live to have contact with the animals. Even without the "no contact" extreme, as near as I can tell opportunities for real contact with the animals are few and far between. They are few and far between enough that the professionals who are working these menageries now are failing to create enough new "trained professionals" to keep the industry going. I foresee a downward spiral as planned by some of the most evil sentient beings that the universe has brought forth. There is a lot of pork-barrel in constructing sealed habitats with their own little carefully tended artificial ecosystems that will be allowed to fall into rack and ruin in just twenty or thirty years while the scammers abscond with the money and leave their employees holding the bag.

I suppose that I will never voluntarily attempt to put myself in a position to make any kind of contact with big cats. My choice as I understand it is to obey the rules or live without. I'm not choosing the former because the rules are tainted. There is even some kind of deliberate sadism in treating animal lovers this way and it is the same sadism that is practiced by animal rights activists. There is no chance that I will put myself in a position where I have to obey "no contact" rules except occasionally I might visit a zoo and stay well away from any barriers. Mostly I figure if they don't want me to touch it they don't want me to have anything to do with it. They want some money out of me? Are they kidding?

The owners of the menageries did it to themselves. They did not dig in their heels nearly soon enough. They have let it get to the point where more drastic actions are needed and of course they could use a white knight, but if I were that white knight I would want something for that and if I'm not good enough to touch, my money is not good enough for them. I can't believe the cowardly chickenshit. All of the abuse is passed on to the customers and to the next generation of animal handlers, and then they expect good service, lots of money, and tremendous goodwill in return, just like their abusers and just like the dysfunctional family and the toxic schoolteachers.

I have to care what is in it for me. People would have me drain everything that I have into their pockets and for all I know their bloodstreams and life-forces and they want me to expect nothing in return, to give "charity" and be "altruistic." This is the epitome of the thieving scoundrel. If I could even tithe to something reasonable, group efforts to do good things, that would be all right, but they're not going to treat me like a human. They're going to treat me like a member of their own personal living blood bank. Screw them.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Full Text of California's Proposition 2

Link or http://tinyurl.com/kvbhh2

SECTION 25990-25994

25990. Prohibitions. In addition to other applicable provisions of
law, a person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a
farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents
such animal from:
(a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs;
(b) Turning around freely.

25991. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the
following terms have the following meanings:
(a) "Calf raised for veal" means any calf of the bovine species
kept for the purpose of producing the food product described as veal.

(b) "Covered animal" means any pig during pregnancy, calf raised
for veal, or egg-laying hen who is kept on a farm.
(c) "Egg-laying hen" means any female domesticated chicken,
turkey, duck, goose, or guinea fowl kept for the purpose of egg
(d) "Enclosure" means any cage, crate, or other structure
(including what is commonly described as a "gestation crate" for
pigs; a "veal crate" for calves; or a "battery cage" for egg-laying
hens) used to confine a covered animal.
(e) "Farm" means the land, building, support facilities, and other
equipment that are wholly or partially used for the commercial
production of animals or animal products used for food or fiber; and
does not include live animal markets.
(f) "Fully extending his or her limbs" means fully extending all
limbs without touching the side of an enclosure, including, in the
case of egg-laying hens, fully spreading both wings without touching
the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens.
(g) "Person" means any individual, firm, partnership, joint
venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate,
trust, receiver, or syndicate.
(h) "Pig during pregnancy" means any pregnant pig of the porcine
species kept for the primary purpose of breeding.
(i) "Turning around freely" means turning in a complete circle
without any impediment, including a tether, and without touching the
side of an enclosure.

25992. Exceptions. This chapter shall not apply:
(a) During scientific or agricultural research.
(b) During examination, testing, individual treatment or operation
for veterinary purposes.
(c) During transportation.
(d) During rodeo exhibitions, state or county fair exhibitions,
4-H programs, and similar exhibitions.
(e) During the slaughter of a covered animal in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 19501) of Part 3
of Division 9 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to humane
methods of slaughter, and other applicable law and regulations.
(f) To a pig during the seven-day period prior to the pig's
expected date of giving birth.

25993. Enforcement. Any person who violates any of the provisions
of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand
dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period
not to exceed 180 days or by both such fine and imprisonment.

25994. Construction of Chapter.
The provisions of this chapter are in addition to, and not in lieu
of, any other laws protecting animal welfare, including the
California Penal Code. This chapter shall not be construed to limit
any state law or regulations protecting the welfare of animals, nor
shall anything in this chapter prevent a local governing body from
adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

I Will Tolerate Animal Abuse

That sounds like a bizarre, in your face thing to say doesn't it? Yet I will stand behind it. Zero tolerance for animal abuse is one of the most destructive things going these days. Zero tolerance means that if you're late feeding your already well-fed dog one evening, you're just as bad as someone who puts kittens in ovens. If there's a bit of kibble on the floor, as the person who sold the dog to Vice President Joe Biden found out, a zero tolerance "officer" will use it to violate you and your reputation.

A few times in history states have pared back their humane laws to the bare minimum because it was utterly ridiculous. There has to be some tolerance for things that are not exactly as someone would want them. Tolerance may be the only thing that will save us. Animal owners and users have to have a goal to achieve, preferably total freedom from regulation. It is OK to want what we want. Our rights are superior to those of animals. Fortunately for the animals our desires are to care for them in ways that are often extravagantly pleasing to the animals. The animal rights people are fighting against that. It is very wrong to eliminate the use of animals in the hopes that a few will suffer less. Most of them won't even exist to feel pain or pleasure.

If any animal owner wants to win this fight, we have to decide that we want what we want and stop giving any kind of power to the humane organizations. If the humane organizations want to operate they must do so under very strict guidelines which include no knocking over of little old ladies to try to "save" a few cats who are doing quite well. They shouldn't have any problems with being service organizations instead of armed robbers.

Tolerance of abuse means that humane care and use of animals becomes possible. With that tolerance we make this care possible, diligently, and diligently make certain that legal powers are not abused, so that it is possible for humans to do what so many of us want to do, to live with animals and take good care of them. It is the only way. Intolerance destroys.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

I'm Sorry About "Tiger Lily"

I am sorry that a kitten was cruelly burned to death in an oven. I feel bad for the kitten who screamed its life out in intolerable heat, not only frightened by the pain and heat but by the loss of trust in its humans. Her screams may haunt me for the rest of my life even though I can only imagine them (thank God that I can only imagine). This hurts someone very much who loves animals more than he loves himself. So I love property more than myself, especially living property, so sue me. They happen to be more lovable than I am.

Still, I do not support felony animal abuse charges against Cheyenne Cherry who has confessed to the killing of that kitten. I will admit that I'm tempted. Who wouldn't want someone like that thrown in jail and the key lost?

I would think that whoever has been following the crimes committed by the HSUS against animal owners and breeders would want them jailed and the key lost. They have been very cruel to the commercial breeder who they recently busted in Indiana, on the pretext that they weren't paying sales taxes. They and other so-called humane organizations use felony animal abuse charges to force people to hand over their own property, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars worth. Those charges are obviously bogus if they can be bought out. Even worse, in this case they also took the property that was to be held for a tax lien, so there's even more corruption than usual.

Felony property damage I will support. The Bronx teenager broke into someone's apartment and burned valuable property, so that's also arson. Animals are property and we're better for it. Owners do not get charged with ridiculous crimes for ridiculous reasons and face ridiculous penalities if their cars are dirty. Yet. We can kill and eat our own property and the HSUS wants to take that right away from us as they want to take away our right to keep pets humanely. Felony property damage kicks in when someone who does not own the property damages or destroys it. That protects the owner and the animal. Current laws have failed to protect owners from bogus charges leveled by AR-infested humane organizations and a good felony property damage/felony theft under color of law regulation, if followed, would put a lot of those people in jail where they belong. Some of them have done worse than Cheyenne Cherry did. Some of the so-called humane organizations have killed a lot of valuable lives, more than any other abusers that I know of.

Friday, June 5, 2009

California Senator Fran Pavley Betrays Pet Owners

After AB1634 was defeated, so was Lloyd Levine, who attempted to perpetrate that bill on California. Then SB250 came along which was just a re-written version of AB1634. Fran Pavley beat Lloyd Levine out of a Senate seat with the help of voters who were against AB1634. People even sent campaign contributions to Pavley in the amount of $16.34 to make it clear why they voted for her. I've been reading posts by people who worked hard to get Pavley in.

Now Fran Pavley gave the deciding vote to get another mandatory spay/neuter bill on the floor, and that bill has passed the California Senate but not the Assembly. She betrayed the people who voted her in.

Any senator who betrays the people whose votes she solicited should shortly become the former senator (apply that to any position of authority). For some reason this seems to be the pattern with people who use the animal rights or environmentalists platforms to gain votes, and Pavley is one of those who sells global warming. I suppose that puppy farts are now considered harmful to the ozone layer.

Anyone who betrays people like that to get a seat on the legislature is just not a good person with a good cause.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

A Few Simple Declarations

Possibly preventing some dogs from being killed in shelters is not worth mandatory spay/neuter laws that destroy property rights.

There is no safety problem with the ownership of any animal that is worth the compromise of human rights.

Animals are property and you animal rights activists out there are going to live with it. Owners will strike back.

The right of a chicken to spread its wings is inferior to my right to be able to afford my next meal.

The right of a sow to be able to turn around is inferior to my right to be able to afford my next meal.

The animal rights activists have proven that they have absolutely nothing intelligent to add to the realm of animal husbandry.

Fur and leather are environmentally friendly.

Breeding is the best way to preserve a species.

The idea that cow farts are hurting the ozone layer is utter crap.