When you have a problem, you seem to be unable to stay away from inflammatory and disrespectful rhetoric which tests the bounds of civility. This throws your alleged empathy for the animals in people's faces and you seem to believe that you have license to hurt people if they don't measure up to what you think of as standards, using that "empathy" as an excuse.
My caring is genuine and it is a real part of me, deserving of respect. I look at people funny when they declare that I must not care if I do not do things as they believe that I should. If I go along with them then they have control, as if they own my animals and I do not. I would not say that they actually have any standards outside of "he's always wrong." The argument shifts to keep whoever they target in the wrong. They just move the goalposts and the crosshairs. You're still targeted.
Were I to make no concessions to practicality I would be a poor caretaker of animals. If I decide that I can take care of four animals and I do not intervene to keep a fifth from dying because I am conserving resources to take care of the four that I already have, I don't want to hear it. If I put their needs ahead of my own too much that can become abusive of myself and frankly, those people who ask me to do so hate me and want me dead. If I have five animals and I am overextended, if I kill one and eat it (or any variation thereof) that is because I have to. Human needs and appetites have validity and are at least as valid of those of non-humans. I will not keep four animals that I do not want just to prevent myself from receiving verbal abuse from any given person. That would also be a bad reason to keep the animals. It is more respectable to keep them to for my personal satisfaction than it is to keep them to feed the political monster that "humane" has become or to avoid criticisms from people who usually have less than no standing in my life. This would include but not be limited to fighting them for entertainment, and it is through no virtue of yours that I detest animal fighting and will avoid it.
Because I am extending myself to help maintain the lives of several other creatures, oh yes it does mean that I have rights to what I want and need. I have earned a greater right through my work, exactly the way that a worker earns wages. I rarely push the "they're socialists" button but animal rights twits seem to universally hate the capable wage-earner who earns their money by actually working for it. This goes hand in hand with hating the meaning that another human gains from his or her life, the intangible profit. Threatening people into "good" behavior takes away that meaning. It robs them of that meaning and gives it to those who are making the threats. There is no meaning to an act of kindness to an animal if I do it because someone threatened me. Taking that meaning away from me takes away one good reason that I have to be kind to animals.
The one valid measure of whether I should keep an animal is if I want that animal or have a use for it. I do not alter my choices to try to gain left or right-handed compliments from you. What you "find disturbing" is a rhetorical device. Perhaps you need more experience in the real world. Perhaps you just need to shut up.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
A Response I Left On Petlaw:
(This was a reply to a post on Petlaw)
The same people advocate laws to prohibit bark softening. Bark softening causes a tiny bit of damage to a very small piece of tissue and is pretty much non-invasive. Early spay/neuter causes significant damage to the development of a dog and it's not just the skeleton. Then they say that it doesn't matter, you should spay and neuter anyway. If I wanted to physically damage a dog for my convenience or because of my belief system, without their prior approval, they would tell me that I should be taken out and shot. Ear cropping and tail docking is much less damaging than spaying or neutering and they condemn those practices. It's always about getting over on people.
They want us to be "bleeding hearts" about what they want and actually, leaving the animals intact should be one of those things that a "bleeding heart" is reluctant to do because it "denatures" the animal. That's sure changed not that they're talking about using poisons to sterilize wild animals so that there "won't be any killing." Why do I support killing and believe that "no kill" is a McGuffin? It's because nature's model is to produce many species individuals. Most of them become food for other animals. Humans have been part of that for longer than many of these "ecosystems" have existed.
I like the fact that the killing of pets is way less than five percent now. At worst it was never as often as would occur in unaided nature. However, when do they have the most power over us? When we want to "stop the killing." We have to think very hard before we try to "stop the killing." We can easily wind up with deer populations that disappear altogether as whackos surreptitiously dope them with contraceptives. I could wind up being labeled AR myself if I voice what I think should be done with a laboratory that produces an oral contraceptive or sterilant that can be surreptitiously administered to animals. Let's just say that it should not be in operation. This stuff is likely not to be good for humans, either, and while the avian version might not hurt predatory birds directly, those birds need to eat.
Preventing a hundred births to try to prevent less than five premature deaths in shelters is not beneficial to a species. Doing this completely destroys the thesis that humans are supposed to give up a little in order to keep other species safe. Many of their other tenets also do this. I harp on pet tigers. That's giving a little to keep the species safe and we gain a lot. To me it is an unequivocal and massive benefit to exotics to be kept as pets.
Telling us that humans should not benefit from the use of animals is a way to turn humans off to using our resources to keep animals. It also jacks up the price so that instead of five to ten thousand dollars a year to keep a generic tiger it can cost ten to a hundred times as much, and someone gets that money. We don't know the people who make millions from animal care efforts, from hospitals, from local news outlets, or grocery stores, or anything, and they're pretty much in the gray. The bureaucracies of so-called cruelty prevention or humane societies are also pretty much in the gray.
I will say that we need to breed without being too sensitive to how many are sent to their final destination by shelters. The shelter people mess with us when we try to give the animals forever homes. They mess with us when we try to stop them from killing, using the deaths of the animals as extortion. Going along with their uninformed, unprofessional, and just plain cruel dictates causes us much worse problems, like all these illegal and wrongful takings of private property. The solutions are worse than the problems.
You know, people get the most wired and anxious about preventing a given problem for a reason. They're trying to get a non-result. They're trying to make something "not happen" and the vigilance and effort against that loss has to be extended forever or what they fear will happen. Working for a positive result, like a new tiger cub, has a clear endpoint. Working for a negative result invests a whole lot of effort, energy, and anger, and it always cuts too broad a swath, but when you set out to make a litter of puppies, your focus is tight, you only involve the people and resources that it takes to make a litter of puppies, and you only have to work on the one project instead of seeing that you have to change the whole world to get what you want. This is why I like making things a lot better than I like trying to stop other people's lives.
The same people advocate laws to prohibit bark softening. Bark softening causes a tiny bit of damage to a very small piece of tissue and is pretty much non-invasive. Early spay/neuter causes significant damage to the development of a dog and it's not just the skeleton. Then they say that it doesn't matter, you should spay and neuter anyway. If I wanted to physically damage a dog for my convenience or because of my belief system, without their prior approval, they would tell me that I should be taken out and shot. Ear cropping and tail docking is much less damaging than spaying or neutering and they condemn those practices. It's always about getting over on people.
They want us to be "bleeding hearts" about what they want and actually, leaving the animals intact should be one of those things that a "bleeding heart" is reluctant to do because it "denatures" the animal. That's sure changed not that they're talking about using poisons to sterilize wild animals so that there "won't be any killing." Why do I support killing and believe that "no kill" is a McGuffin? It's because nature's model is to produce many species individuals. Most of them become food for other animals. Humans have been part of that for longer than many of these "ecosystems" have existed.
I like the fact that the killing of pets is way less than five percent now. At worst it was never as often as would occur in unaided nature. However, when do they have the most power over us? When we want to "stop the killing." We have to think very hard before we try to "stop the killing." We can easily wind up with deer populations that disappear altogether as whackos surreptitiously dope them with contraceptives. I could wind up being labeled AR myself if I voice what I think should be done with a laboratory that produces an oral contraceptive or sterilant that can be surreptitiously administered to animals. Let's just say that it should not be in operation. This stuff is likely not to be good for humans, either, and while the avian version might not hurt predatory birds directly, those birds need to eat.
Preventing a hundred births to try to prevent less than five premature deaths in shelters is not beneficial to a species. Doing this completely destroys the thesis that humans are supposed to give up a little in order to keep other species safe. Many of their other tenets also do this. I harp on pet tigers. That's giving a little to keep the species safe and we gain a lot. To me it is an unequivocal and massive benefit to exotics to be kept as pets.
Telling us that humans should not benefit from the use of animals is a way to turn humans off to using our resources to keep animals. It also jacks up the price so that instead of five to ten thousand dollars a year to keep a generic tiger it can cost ten to a hundred times as much, and someone gets that money. We don't know the people who make millions from animal care efforts, from hospitals, from local news outlets, or grocery stores, or anything, and they're pretty much in the gray. The bureaucracies of so-called cruelty prevention or humane societies are also pretty much in the gray.
I will say that we need to breed without being too sensitive to how many are sent to their final destination by shelters. The shelter people mess with us when we try to give the animals forever homes. They mess with us when we try to stop them from killing, using the deaths of the animals as extortion. Going along with their uninformed, unprofessional, and just plain cruel dictates causes us much worse problems, like all these illegal and wrongful takings of private property. The solutions are worse than the problems.
You know, people get the most wired and anxious about preventing a given problem for a reason. They're trying to get a non-result. They're trying to make something "not happen" and the vigilance and effort against that loss has to be extended forever or what they fear will happen. Working for a positive result, like a new tiger cub, has a clear endpoint. Working for a negative result invests a whole lot of effort, energy, and anger, and it always cuts too broad a swath, but when you set out to make a litter of puppies, your focus is tight, you only involve the people and resources that it takes to make a litter of puppies, and you only have to work on the one project instead of seeing that you have to change the whole world to get what you want. This is why I like making things a lot better than I like trying to stop other people's lives.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Risks and Sacrifices
I would put a human at risk to save the lives of an animal species or even one animal, but what does "risk" even mean? Too often we truncate phrases like "unacceptable risk" or "irresponsible risk." Then they become zero-tolerance, one-drop-rule memes. They become the kind of meme that makes a child afraid to cross the street when there is no traffic coming, or even according to established safety rules.
Kim Carlton walked his pet tigers to the mall and let people pet them. I think that was a very good thing that taught people to be comfortable around animals that we live with. Were the children at risk? It was a good kind of risk. Saying that it's a bad risk is saying that the experience with the animals is worthless. Ask the autistic child who comes out of his shell to hug a cheetah what that experience is worth. It's worth a lot. That makes it a productive risk, a good risk. The sacrifice of a tiny bit of our safety is well worth it. This is just saying that we take a millionth of a chance that someone will die, or maybe a thousandth of a millionth of a chance, to live an extraordinarily good moment.
The pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness are not just enumerated in the Constitution. They are in the body of the Constitution and they are the primary focus of the Constitution. This is the point by which I justify my next statements.
It is right to allow an animal to die to protect the rights of its owner. That got some knee-jerk emotional reactions, didn't it? But think about it. Our human rights are considered so important that even when protecting them in another nation many people can justify the use of death on a large scale. The case can be pretty vaguely connected to our own personal rights, but it would look like the defense of our own rights would be far more vigorous. I read about the child who was bitten in the face by a rescued dog. He pulled the dog off his daughter and the dog attacked her again. If I faced the same situation and were mentally prepared by having read his, the dog would die in my hands. I would twist its collar or I would crush its throat until it was thoroughly and unmistakably dead. Immediately. I am speaking as someone who has actually slept in the same bed with a dog the same day that it bit me, accidentally of course. I understand the difference between an accidental nip and tearing someone's face off. There are a few people out there who seem to need a little education in that area.
If we're not thinking clearly we do find ourselves killing the pet tiger just in case, although no pet tigers have ever broken loose and harmed someone off the property that they live on. Just like dogs they would be more likely to either stay away from people or make new friends and some of them are as easy to handle as dogs, not all but some, and the risk is very minimal. On the other hand, in a schizophrenic split, we might try to preserve the life of a dog that is actually in the midst of a deadly attack instead of killing it when we get the upper hand. In the case I mentioned, killing the dog would have prevented further injury to the girl. If we somehow "can't sacrifice the life of an animal" to protect a human, we are so very very sick. This is upside down, too, because the animal that actually causes harm might be protected over one that has never so much as scratched anyone.
Then we have confiscations of animals without due process of the law based on the idea that the animals might be unhealthy, might be dying or starving, might be about to die, and so on. So an inspector from the USDA can just write up a confiscation order. What if the owner's own judgment and that of his veterinarian is that he's doing the right thing, perhaps feeding less because his animal has a long-term illness that requires the animal's movements to be restricted? I've seen a medically dependent human die because a "federal inspector" ordered an increase in that human's feedings, and I am willing to testify to this.
All that controversy matters little because the issue of due process under the law overrides. Yes, it trumps the risk that an animal will die. We're talking about animals that under other circumstances the exact same authorities order killed for no reason besides breed and species. See how it gets to be schizoid?
Due process of the law is necessary because with it we have a justice system. Without it, we don't. It is the weapon with which we defend our rights. We are not only allowed but obligated to protect our human rights from any agency, governmental or otherwise. It is a higher obligation than saving the life of an animal. Giving up our right to ownership, voluntarily, on a case by case basis, without coercion, exercises our right to make our own choices, so that's OK, but those who coerce should be read the Riot Act. We should also demand money.
It should be all too easy. Roy Cooper's tigers should only have been taken, if then, after he had his day in court without a rush to judgment and their lives should have been left at what little risk there was in order to preserve his human rights. The person who violated his rights should have to be an assistant manager at a fast food restaurant for five years, or better yet, have to perform manual labor on a cattle farm. Too many other people have experienced arbitrary confiscations and this contradictory use of concepts, practices that nullify, in real terms, the very existence of the law and the justice system.
Way too much has been sacrificed of our justice system and of essential due process using the alleged safety of animals as an excuse. Even the lives of animals have been sacrificed, and their safety is in question when the number of homes available for those animals keeps shrinking. Humans can all sacrifice a little bit of our safety to give homes or allow homes to exist, to respect the rights of people who want to keep those animals, and it's a very tiny bit, and at the same time we are preserving our own rights in general, which are worth more than the lives of the tigers or dogs or whatever.
Many of us humans consistently use our rights to serve the needs of animals, so it's a win for them and a win for us. That is a central theory of animal culture.
Kim Carlton walked his pet tigers to the mall and let people pet them. I think that was a very good thing that taught people to be comfortable around animals that we live with. Were the children at risk? It was a good kind of risk. Saying that it's a bad risk is saying that the experience with the animals is worthless. Ask the autistic child who comes out of his shell to hug a cheetah what that experience is worth. It's worth a lot. That makes it a productive risk, a good risk. The sacrifice of a tiny bit of our safety is well worth it. This is just saying that we take a millionth of a chance that someone will die, or maybe a thousandth of a millionth of a chance, to live an extraordinarily good moment.
The pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness are not just enumerated in the Constitution. They are in the body of the Constitution and they are the primary focus of the Constitution. This is the point by which I justify my next statements.
It is right to allow an animal to die to protect the rights of its owner. That got some knee-jerk emotional reactions, didn't it? But think about it. Our human rights are considered so important that even when protecting them in another nation many people can justify the use of death on a large scale. The case can be pretty vaguely connected to our own personal rights, but it would look like the defense of our own rights would be far more vigorous. I read about the child who was bitten in the face by a rescued dog. He pulled the dog off his daughter and the dog attacked her again. If I faced the same situation and were mentally prepared by having read his, the dog would die in my hands. I would twist its collar or I would crush its throat until it was thoroughly and unmistakably dead. Immediately. I am speaking as someone who has actually slept in the same bed with a dog the same day that it bit me, accidentally of course. I understand the difference between an accidental nip and tearing someone's face off. There are a few people out there who seem to need a little education in that area.
If we're not thinking clearly we do find ourselves killing the pet tiger just in case, although no pet tigers have ever broken loose and harmed someone off the property that they live on. Just like dogs they would be more likely to either stay away from people or make new friends and some of them are as easy to handle as dogs, not all but some, and the risk is very minimal. On the other hand, in a schizophrenic split, we might try to preserve the life of a dog that is actually in the midst of a deadly attack instead of killing it when we get the upper hand. In the case I mentioned, killing the dog would have prevented further injury to the girl. If we somehow "can't sacrifice the life of an animal" to protect a human, we are so very very sick. This is upside down, too, because the animal that actually causes harm might be protected over one that has never so much as scratched anyone.
Then we have confiscations of animals without due process of the law based on the idea that the animals might be unhealthy, might be dying or starving, might be about to die, and so on. So an inspector from the USDA can just write up a confiscation order. What if the owner's own judgment and that of his veterinarian is that he's doing the right thing, perhaps feeding less because his animal has a long-term illness that requires the animal's movements to be restricted? I've seen a medically dependent human die because a "federal inspector" ordered an increase in that human's feedings, and I am willing to testify to this.
All that controversy matters little because the issue of due process under the law overrides. Yes, it trumps the risk that an animal will die. We're talking about animals that under other circumstances the exact same authorities order killed for no reason besides breed and species. See how it gets to be schizoid?
Due process of the law is necessary because with it we have a justice system. Without it, we don't. It is the weapon with which we defend our rights. We are not only allowed but obligated to protect our human rights from any agency, governmental or otherwise. It is a higher obligation than saving the life of an animal. Giving up our right to ownership, voluntarily, on a case by case basis, without coercion, exercises our right to make our own choices, so that's OK, but those who coerce should be read the Riot Act. We should also demand money.
It should be all too easy. Roy Cooper's tigers should only have been taken, if then, after he had his day in court without a rush to judgment and their lives should have been left at what little risk there was in order to preserve his human rights. The person who violated his rights should have to be an assistant manager at a fast food restaurant for five years, or better yet, have to perform manual labor on a cattle farm. Too many other people have experienced arbitrary confiscations and this contradictory use of concepts, practices that nullify, in real terms, the very existence of the law and the justice system.
Way too much has been sacrificed of our justice system and of essential due process using the alleged safety of animals as an excuse. Even the lives of animals have been sacrificed, and their safety is in question when the number of homes available for those animals keeps shrinking. Humans can all sacrifice a little bit of our safety to give homes or allow homes to exist, to respect the rights of people who want to keep those animals, and it's a very tiny bit, and at the same time we are preserving our own rights in general, which are worth more than the lives of the tigers or dogs or whatever.
Many of us humans consistently use our rights to serve the needs of animals, so it's a win for them and a win for us. That is a central theory of animal culture.
Monday, April 19, 2010
On the one hand...
On the one hand, "they" demand that we alter our dogs to prevent the possibility of reproduction, a surgical mutilation that affects future health and skeletal development adversely and causes significant structural alteration. On the other hand, they denounce bark softening as a horrible mutilation, even though bark softening involves a little bit of cutting on very small pieces of tissue, which has very little effect on the dog as a whole. That's just yanking us back and forth.
On the one hand, "they" claim that owning exotic animals is dangerous. On the other hand they demand that people in developing nations with growing human populations allow tigers and lions to run around as nuisance animals with no protection for the humans.
In reference to the previous paragraph, another "one hand, other hand": They complain that humans destroy habitat then they work to deny habitat that humans freely offer to the animals.
On the one hand, they say that we must "adopt." Then they dictate how many we can keep, which also has the effect of reducing the number of homes for animals.
They tell us that the population of humans should be reduced by any means necessary. Then they warn us of the dangers of keeping animals as pets.
They want to write laws for us to obey but they disobey any laws that are inconvenient to them, such as open meetings laws, laws against arson and vandalism, and laws against cruelty to animals.
They demand that we "register" our animals yet the entire state of Missouri can tell you that they will use the registries as lists for shopping for targets.
They prosecute owners and breeders over the slightest nitpicky excuse and at the same time they pack dogs into crates that are too small for them and let them rot in their own shit in their "humane" shelters. They're real good at taking animals from any situation and making that situation worse.
They pick on people for having animal bodies in freezers. PETA keeps a walk-in freezer for animal bodies and that's a standard for shelters. That one is simply good hygiene.
The hypocrisy of the movement is most evident when they claim that they're about saving the animals and they destroy so many.
On the one hand, "they" claim that owning exotic animals is dangerous. On the other hand they demand that people in developing nations with growing human populations allow tigers and lions to run around as nuisance animals with no protection for the humans.
In reference to the previous paragraph, another "one hand, other hand": They complain that humans destroy habitat then they work to deny habitat that humans freely offer to the animals.
On the one hand, they say that we must "adopt." Then they dictate how many we can keep, which also has the effect of reducing the number of homes for animals.
They tell us that the population of humans should be reduced by any means necessary. Then they warn us of the dangers of keeping animals as pets.
They want to write laws for us to obey but they disobey any laws that are inconvenient to them, such as open meetings laws, laws against arson and vandalism, and laws against cruelty to animals.
They demand that we "register" our animals yet the entire state of Missouri can tell you that they will use the registries as lists for shopping for targets.
They prosecute owners and breeders over the slightest nitpicky excuse and at the same time they pack dogs into crates that are too small for them and let them rot in their own shit in their "humane" shelters. They're real good at taking animals from any situation and making that situation worse.
They pick on people for having animal bodies in freezers. PETA keeps a walk-in freezer for animal bodies and that's a standard for shelters. That one is simply good hygiene.
The hypocrisy of the movement is most evident when they claim that they're about saving the animals and they destroy so many.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Pets Are Luxuries?
You could just as well say that a feeling of well-being is not "necessary", nor are any of the proven benefits of keeping a pet. I could show you where the studies have been mentioned that prove that keeping at least one pet tremendously increases the chance that a human will survive having a heart attack. I could also show you stories about how people have died shortly after losing pets or after having them forcibly removed. When a pet helps us keep ourselves up, that is a necessity, not a luxury. A shortened lifespan and poorer health are the result of the loss of a necessity.
The propaganda also tells us to open our homes but they soft-peddle the fact that they're going to pick those homes to pieces.
I'm not real hip on the idea that poor people shouldn't have luxuries, either.
I am quite willing to risk my own life, however, to opt out of a system where the people who want me to bring them money and take their living liabilities off their hands want to control so much of what I do with what I am allegedly doing them a favor by taking. If it isn't my property when I pay for it or when it is given to me, I don't want it. One way or the other I'm investing time, energy, and money in something that is not mine. I am also inviting scrutiny by people who I do not know, have every reason to distrust, and ridiculous penalties and ridiculous harsh treatment if I am seen as somehow out of line.
So, I am going to make a point of either accepting a free puppy from an individual, or going to a breeder, or even just allow that if I have a heart attack my chances of long-term survival won't be as good. Any of those options are better.
I have learned that pets are a necessity for several reasons, including a longer lifespan. Unfortunately I have also learned that sometimes for the sake of one's own personal integrity it is better to do without some necessities.
The propaganda also tells us to open our homes but they soft-peddle the fact that they're going to pick those homes to pieces.
I'm not real hip on the idea that poor people shouldn't have luxuries, either.
I am quite willing to risk my own life, however, to opt out of a system where the people who want me to bring them money and take their living liabilities off their hands want to control so much of what I do with what I am allegedly doing them a favor by taking. If it isn't my property when I pay for it or when it is given to me, I don't want it. One way or the other I'm investing time, energy, and money in something that is not mine. I am also inviting scrutiny by people who I do not know, have every reason to distrust, and ridiculous penalties and ridiculous harsh treatment if I am seen as somehow out of line.
So, I am going to make a point of either accepting a free puppy from an individual, or going to a breeder, or even just allow that if I have a heart attack my chances of long-term survival won't be as good. Any of those options are better.
I have learned that pets are a necessity for several reasons, including a longer lifespan. Unfortunately I have also learned that sometimes for the sake of one's own personal integrity it is better to do without some necessities.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Social Dynamic
The social dynamic is simple. The animal rights activists persuaded owners of traditional pets to fight each other and fight against owners of exotic animals. This took power away from owners of traditional pets, who seem to be blissfully unaware that this war has been fought back and forth for at least fifty years.
They got this "adopt, don't buy" garbage going in which they got way too many people to believe that dogs should not be bred, else the species will be irreparably harmed. In doing so they also gained a measure of control over the use of the term "extinction" that is frightening.
Some dog owners, perhaps a loud minority, were persuaded of a false and damaging paradigm. "Rescuing" somehow helps the species, but reproduction, the only way to replace animals that have died of old age, is now villified. There are people who believe that surgical sterilization saves lives when that actually prevents lives, kills their chances before they are even conceived. It's like death, only pre-emptive.
Attacking the owners of tigers and other exotics further wastes the power of traditional pet owners. Most owners of tigers and other exotics, except for a few bastards, are one hundred percent behind pet ownership rights, the right to own cats and dogs. As owners of exotics they have some pull. When they were forcibly disenfranchised they became much less able to help dog and cat owners.
I've lost count of the ways that owners of so-called traditional pets have hurt themselves at the behest of the animal rights activists. They got dog and cat owners to fight against ownership of big cats and primates, wasting the power that dog and cat owners have and empowering the activists. The punishment for this is being administered to dog and cat owners by the activists. When deaths of dogs in shelters hit an all-time low, the activists became more demanding, more dictatorial, more punitive, and more destructive. They are also corrupt.
It has happened before and the bad laws have been repealed before. Pennsylvania repealed most of their dog laws in 1965. Other states have done the same. Several states have laws against "animal control" in unincorporated areas because of previous bad experiences with activists, who can pop up out of nowhere, lie about how you're taking care of your dogs and horses, and make off with them.
The way in is the way out. We will not regain our right to choose our so-called traditional pets until people who want tigers, lions, chimpanzees, and so on regain their rights.
They got this "adopt, don't buy" garbage going in which they got way too many people to believe that dogs should not be bred, else the species will be irreparably harmed. In doing so they also gained a measure of control over the use of the term "extinction" that is frightening.
Some dog owners, perhaps a loud minority, were persuaded of a false and damaging paradigm. "Rescuing" somehow helps the species, but reproduction, the only way to replace animals that have died of old age, is now villified. There are people who believe that surgical sterilization saves lives when that actually prevents lives, kills their chances before they are even conceived. It's like death, only pre-emptive.
Attacking the owners of tigers and other exotics further wastes the power of traditional pet owners. Most owners of tigers and other exotics, except for a few bastards, are one hundred percent behind pet ownership rights, the right to own cats and dogs. As owners of exotics they have some pull. When they were forcibly disenfranchised they became much less able to help dog and cat owners.
I've lost count of the ways that owners of so-called traditional pets have hurt themselves at the behest of the animal rights activists. They got dog and cat owners to fight against ownership of big cats and primates, wasting the power that dog and cat owners have and empowering the activists. The punishment for this is being administered to dog and cat owners by the activists. When deaths of dogs in shelters hit an all-time low, the activists became more demanding, more dictatorial, more punitive, and more destructive. They are also corrupt.
It has happened before and the bad laws have been repealed before. Pennsylvania repealed most of their dog laws in 1965. Other states have done the same. Several states have laws against "animal control" in unincorporated areas because of previous bad experiences with activists, who can pop up out of nowhere, lie about how you're taking care of your dogs and horses, and make off with them.
The way in is the way out. We will not regain our right to choose our so-called traditional pets until people who want tigers, lions, chimpanzees, and so on regain their rights.
Friday, March 19, 2010
No One Under the Bus
Owners of so-called traditional pets have always been able to count on owners of exotic animals to support the right to own those so-called traditional pets. Owners of exotics have not always received the same courtesy. A lot of owners of dogs and horses say "Why would you want to own a snake? Why would you want to own a tiger?" Don't you know those animals can kill you?!" As if horses and dogs can't and don't.
There is poetic justice in the fact that owners of traditional pets are suffering in the hands of the people that they have empowered to attack the owners of so-called exotics like lions and tigers. Some really infamous stories are coming from Florida about the mistreatment of dog breeders and owners by animal control there. Florida is a state where a small board is allowed to decide that people may no longer own their pet lions, snakes, or anything else, even though that board is commissioned to protect native wildlife, not people's pets.
Iowa is going through some really hard times for the same reason. The activists got the power when they went after exotic animal owners. Now they are the ones punishing people who own dogs and horses, which is what they intended to do in the first place. Anyone who has any familiarity with them at all knows about the Wayne Pacelle quotes like "one generation and out." There are other famous quotes from activists including the one about not wanting to see another dog or cat born and Bruce Friederich's wanting McDonald's to explode because they serve meat.
It is poetic justice. Poetic justice is the kind of retribution that people bring on themselves, arrange for themselves, and provide the power and money for. Owners of traditional pets in several places around the world have arranged the loss of their own rights by what they think of as a circuitous route. They gave up the opportunity to stop the activists. They took away a lot of the motivation that owners of foxes, bears, lions, and tigers had and practically all of their power. They stripped themselves of their allies and of a buffer between them and the activists. They took away from good people animals that were very special to them. In every way they made the actions of the activists appear to be justifiable. I am not sure why I still think that it's wrong, except that it's wrong to swindle people.
This is something that a lot of pet owners have done to themselves and still do to themselves. I just want everyone to go back to taking care of each other like we used to instead of this crap.
There is poetic justice in the fact that owners of traditional pets are suffering in the hands of the people that they have empowered to attack the owners of so-called exotics like lions and tigers. Some really infamous stories are coming from Florida about the mistreatment of dog breeders and owners by animal control there. Florida is a state where a small board is allowed to decide that people may no longer own their pet lions, snakes, or anything else, even though that board is commissioned to protect native wildlife, not people's pets.
Iowa is going through some really hard times for the same reason. The activists got the power when they went after exotic animal owners. Now they are the ones punishing people who own dogs and horses, which is what they intended to do in the first place. Anyone who has any familiarity with them at all knows about the Wayne Pacelle quotes like "one generation and out." There are other famous quotes from activists including the one about not wanting to see another dog or cat born and Bruce Friederich's wanting McDonald's to explode because they serve meat.
It is poetic justice. Poetic justice is the kind of retribution that people bring on themselves, arrange for themselves, and provide the power and money for. Owners of traditional pets in several places around the world have arranged the loss of their own rights by what they think of as a circuitous route. They gave up the opportunity to stop the activists. They took away a lot of the motivation that owners of foxes, bears, lions, and tigers had and practically all of their power. They stripped themselves of their allies and of a buffer between them and the activists. They took away from good people animals that were very special to them. In every way they made the actions of the activists appear to be justifiable. I am not sure why I still think that it's wrong, except that it's wrong to swindle people.
This is something that a lot of pet owners have done to themselves and still do to themselves. I just want everyone to go back to taking care of each other like we used to instead of this crap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
