Friday, July 31, 2009

Michael Vick or the HSUS?

I've said before that it's a step down for Michael Vick to consort with the HSUS. Let's look at some facts:

Michael Vick helped out his mother with a lot of money. The HSUS helps attack elderly women for breeding dogs, at all, and lies to get then in trouble. So does the SPCA.

The HSUS got more dogs killed at one time than Michael Vick is alleged to have killed, and in a way it's worse because it's colder, it was done for political purposes, and they are supposed to be the people who would know that it is unnecessary to do this to pups who haven't been fight-trained.

Michael Vick may have taken the blame for some of his friend's actions to get them out of trouble. The HSUS tries to get people in trouble for small things like dirty water dishes.

The HSUS has secretly killed thousands of dogs and hurts owners whenever it can. Michael Vick is only just now starting to do that.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

They are NOT for Animal Rights

The party line is that animals have a right to live free of human interference. I'm not giving them the "free of human interference" part for several reasons. One is because if it is a moral principle, then moral principles come from the alleged minds of people who have anti-social personality disorder because their "reasoning" comes from a hatred of their own species.

The human species is the first species that has shown a desire or an ability to be less destructive to its own environment. This destruction is a normal product of use. Herbivores use the environment and if predation and disease didn't stop them they would eat all of the greenery and starve and die. Even the greenery would choke itself off and die if it didn't have the herbivores and fire to kill some of it off once in a while. An intelligent species can control this process with less waste, less disease, and can ensure the future of other species. One of the best things that we have done is transplant other species around the planet, thus increasing the geographical spread of unique genomes.

I can't say that a species has a right to what it needs as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Other life competes with and fights with each other. Humans have at least as much right as other animals to be a part of this. There are other examples of different species that cooperate with each other but humans are the one species that seems to be willing and able to work cooperatively with a very wide variety of non-human species. We are also the one species that is willing and able to work on behalf of that wide variety of species.

Were there such a thing as an animal rights activist, that activist would be for the most essential rights of an animal. These would be the right to exist and the right to propagate. They would be for legislation that forced humans to take in as many animals as possible, and considering how loosely connected to reality the "animal rights" activist is, "possible" takes on a whole new meaning. It's kind of a relief because I might find out that I only want one or two big cats, not the whole hoard that keeps getting thrust on big cat enthusiasts.

It's not just PETA killing animals or the HSUS with its killing vans and swindling judges into ordering the deaths of pitbull pups. It's a determined effort to stop private breeding and to get as many non-humans dead or under their control as they can. Preventing births looks a little like saving lives, but it works like euthanasia in advance. When one to three percent of the pet population ends up being killed as "overpopulation" then for every pet saved from that experience, at least thirty-three births have to be prevented. That's a dead loss. If we looked at it from a viewpoint that permitted joy, we would take pleasure in the fact that very few pets die that way.

PETA, the HSUS, and the growing cottage industry of swindlers, self-haters, and terrorists don't care about the animals. They just care about money and the pain that they can cause humans and animals.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Very Good Ideas

Most of what the ownership rights side says is negative. It needs to be done, it is good work, we're right to do it, but it is still negative. We report government abuses and the solutions are always implied. In order to progress we need to take that very frightening next step, often onto a surface that we can't see, don't know if it even exists, and seems to be over a bottomless abyss.

If the government abuse is banning people's pets, the implied positive response is that those pets should not be banned because it is a very good idea to keep pets and everyone knows that. It's been hard to get everyone to admit that, hasn't it?

Sometimes we need to say that "it's a very good idea to..." whatever it is, to add positive energy to the whole thing. Appropriate to the situation, we might say that it's a very good idea and explain why, or just say that it's a very good idea. This is the treatment for all those people who say that something's a bad idea for reasons that carry very little strength. Arguing their reasons down without explicitly saying "it's good" robs us of most of the impact of the argument. They don't have that handicap. Here are some examples of arguments that have more positive impact:

"It is a very good idea to keep a wallaby as a pet because it helps conserve the species, wallabies are pretty good pets, they are very harmless, and they make people happy. This argument outweighs the arguments against that are loaded with negative emotion and bogus science."

"It is a very good idea to keep a lion as a pet if one is able to keep it fed and clean, because this helps conserve the species, it puts a person's humanity to good use, because lions give a lot of love, because a human should have the right to choose, and because the danger is less than riding a bicycle in Kansas City."

Or, for a short one: "It is a very good idea to keep a monkey as a pet" with no explanation needed.

We need the positive attitude. We need to talk about specific benefits and stand on the idea that those benefits, for human and animals, far outweigh the drawbacks. We need to keep away from qualifiers that can be interpreted broadly and stick with specifics, such as keeping the animals clean, healthy, and well-fed, which is part of healthy. "Humane" and "responsible" are catch-all, overly broad terms that have been abused to death the last few years. We must use specific terms so people can know what we're talking about.

It is a very good idea to do this so that we have a better chance of winning back our rights. We do after all have to tell them what we want, don't we? Don't we also have to tell them that it would give us pleasure and improve our lives?

Friday, July 17, 2009

A Note to the Citizens of British Columbia

Some people may freeze to death because of the eco-terrorist bombings of natural gas pipelines, and we know that up in Canada it's cold. These people want you to freeze to death. Here's my opinion about that:

When you let characters like Barry Penner, the B.C. Minister of Environment, decide the fate of your pets and livestock, the eco-terrorists do not give you a break. They get worse. You earned it, citizens of B.C. The people who you've allowed to run wild, are.

That's right. Give up your "exotic" pets and they will bomb your natural gas pipelines because they know that you're wimps and you won't do anything about it like shoot them or even tell your legislators that they are wrong.

The eco-terrorists, the SPCA, and Barry Penner have made the citizens of B.C. their bitches. That's when you know that too much civilization has come to Canada. Enjoy what you have left. It ain't much.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Another Righteous Tirade That Features Bill Smith

This is a rewrite of something that I posted to Pet-Law's Yahoo group:

I really think that Bill Smith lies about the "squalor." I'm sorry that he gets so much done that way. I read a piece about his mother getting a veterinarian and one of his customers in trouble and it sounds like the nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

Some of these people have been giving out sketchier information than they used to. When they give enough details inconsistencies creep in. Now the news stories that I see in the Kansas City Star and the stories on the Missouri Humane Society website leave out anything that a person might analyze. That's another indicator that they lie on purpose. The longer a story you can get a liar to tell the more you can tell that they are lying. They know this. The stories have gotten awful short and the KC Star is keeping their stories very sketchy so that critics can't pick on them in the comments section.

I think that Bill Smith is a hard core swindler, actually. Both times that I saw him do a video segment he told obvious lies. They were made obvious by the video and the degree of detail that he went into that contradicted the video. Here's one:

http://abcnews. story?id= 7187712&page= 1

Obvious lies: The idea that any commercial farmer would shove a pipe down the throat of a dog and risk killing it to soften its bark is a lie. The idea that a large female golden retriever was ever kept on "chicken wire" boggles the mind, it is so stupidly obviously a lie. The dog is too big. They carry her around to keep the audience from seeing whether she can walk on other than "chicken wire." Get a load of where Bill Smith keeps his hand when he carries her, too. It's disgusting. I can say that because that's the way that he treats people.

The "chicken wire" itself is an obvious lie because chicken wire is very narrow gauge wire with fairly broad spacing, that hexagonal pattern, and it can't support any weight. The material that they stand on is not chicken wire. Big dogs like Golden Retrievers couldn't be kept in rabbit hutches, either. It's too expensive to try to build an off the ground "hutch" for a 100 pound dog. At the same time that they were talking about chicken wire they were showing Labrador Retrievers running around on the ground.

I thought that they were saying that the 300 registered breeders in Lancaster County were trying to avoid discovery, but that was the alleged 600 unregistered breeders. When he talks about those, instead of saying "these unregistered breeders" he says that "The farmers, the Amish and the Mennonites, they pull the heads back and then they hammer sharp instruments down their throats to scar their vocal cords so they can't bark." I don't see how that's physically impossible without losing most of your breeding stock and he slams their religion by name when he says this.

They talk about fecal matter falling into cages from above when they are stacked but the stacked cages that they show have trays to catch that. When the news crew goes into a breeder's facility to look around, you can see that the flooring of the cages is more like some kind of extruded plastic. I'm not familiar with that material but it looks like it's molded, not wire at all. Most of the material I saw was stiff "wire" that is large enough to be easy on feet.

I am extremely sick of being beset by liars and being unable to fire back. People should at least get comfortable with suggesting that Bill Smith and others like him are lying. That's not saying that we should rest our case on that. Breeding animals is important work. It is among our oldest technologies and it fulfills a need for humans and animals. What we do has merit.

A deception by omission is the way that Bill Smith treated the breeders. He didn't tell them that he was going to lie about them to destroy their businesses. If they had known of course they would have done anything except give their dogs to him. So would I. Fine, give the vet a few dollars to put down a dog that isn't producing anymore. It's better than giving the dog to Bill Smith to do God knows what with.

Other issues that are not side issues include his continually criticizing them for treating the dogs like an agricultural product. This is also a slam at agriculture. He is slamming the Amish religion too and treating them as if there is something wrong with being Amish. The Amish and the Mennonites are easier targets when they are less likely to know what is being said about them on Oprah or ABC news, and less likely to be on the Internet. I'm not informed enough to know whether any of them keep track of these news stories. What I've heard about the Amish is that they don't watch television or use computers, so how would they know that they are being libeled in this manner? They are an even more vulnerable target than the general public in that it is even harder for them to find out what is going on.

Friday, July 3, 2009

A Response to Kay Simpson of Arkansas

That would be the Kay Simpson who is mentioned in this article from the Arkansas Times. She says that she is literally crying now that the felony animal abuse law passed in Arkansas. She is crying because she doesn't have the resources as head of the Pulaski County Humane Society to conduct a bust of that kind. The law allows law enforcement to "raid" a breeder and it allows devices to avoid any kind of due process of the law.

The American judicial system is supposed to be based on the concept of "guilty until proven innocent." In other words, the accused is required to be allowed full due process of the law. This law has a provision that is as hostile as it gets towards that due process. If a person is accused of mistreating the animals that they own, they have to post some kind of bond, a percentage of the estimated cost of keeping the animals, or lose ownership of those animals. The way that Kay Simpson puts it, most of the owners then "abandon" such animals. What actually happens in many cases is that the shelters get a fresh supply of purebred dogs with many puppies that can be sold out the door in as little as four days, only they call the price tag an "adoption fee."

This way they can scatter a breeder's inventory and make it unrecoverable. Since they also surgically sterilize most of the dogs, they have made that inventory worthless to the breeder. We don't just have a right to breed dogs when the Humane Society feels like letting us, it's a basic human right. What you might call overly strict enforcement is actually a deliberate failure to allow due process of the law before taking property. It is a deliberate attack against a breeder that they want to shut down and I'm building a long list of dirty tactics that are used to do this.

If someone is deprived of the opportunity to do this, too bad. The felony law should never have been passed because its only use is going to be to extort money and property. All authorities involved in this are liable under section 1863 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the courts still take that Civil Rights Act seriously, at least some of them. Every jurisdiction involved in such busts should know that they may soon be liable for extremely large lawsuits. There should also be criminal penalties and we don't have to be particularly creative to do that. The threat of force under color of law to get property away from people is extortion. Police have gone to jail for it before and hopefully they will again. Also, there is the taking of property for public use without just compensation. It doesn't matter if they immediately destroy that property, the "taking" is in the denial of the use of that property to its owner.

People are slowing down their donations to the shelters in part because the shelter system has proven itself unworthy of the donations by supporting these laws. Kay Simpson should count herself lucky that she can't drive around making a reputation for herself by violating the rights of citizens. She could count herself lucky that she isn't destroying legitimate businesses and making false accusations of abuse. Someone who supports a law like that law that just passed doesn't know the difference anyway. It's above their level of competence. That "brick wall" that Kay Simpson has run into is simple reality. No one has resources to waste on things that violate human rights.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

It's Really Ridiculous

Wayne Pacelle approaches the agricultural business in Ohio and says "surrender or we'll beat your ass." Anyone he recruits in a state, he uses against everyone else in the state. If none of them had surrendered to him or accepted bribes he would not have won any states. He wouldn't have had part of the dog breeding community to use against the rest of the dog breeding community, and the recent atrocity in Tennessee is just one example of this.

There is no reward for compromise with the HSUS. They have rewards only for criminal behavior like abusive busts of commercial breeders whose dogs are in good enough shape to turn around and sell within the week. The only threat that they pose is if anyone is damn fool enough to let them have anything that they want. They are a terrorist organization that certainly doesn't deserve anything. They were named in a Department of Homeland Security report and in other reports to Congress, so the United States Congress does know enough about the HSUS that anyone who takes just a minute to think would say "these people are terrorists and don't have an opinion to contribute." Terrorists are criminals. That report is at Rexano under Commentary and Editorials.

If people would think of themselves as deserving of the company of animals and deserving of the use of animals, swindlers like the HSUS would never be able to gain the power that they have. It makes a huge difference what we think of ourselves. Think well of ourselves and each other and no one is going to be looking for anything from the HSUS. We'll already have it. They offer us a bill of goods and we are the ones who own those goods.