The HSUS has succeeded in costing California farmers billions of dollars for their "Proposition 2" that has the government spending money it can't afford to micromanage farmers and force them to spend money that they can't afford. They are basically repealing the science of mass production of animal products and replacing it with whatever. Who wants a cage-free egg after it's rolled around a concrete floor picking up chicken droppings? How about an infant mortality rate for pork producers that exceeds fifty percent? I guess we're going to have to like them apples, 'cause we ain't going to be able to afford pork chops. Raising the price of our food places the interests of animals ahead of the interests of humans.
They want to bring this crap to Ohio. They want to "negotiate." What is there to negotiate about? Giving up less to the HSUS? They are entitled to less than nothing. They should have to pay massive fines for the damage that they've already done. The only thing that they should be "given" is a massive investigation of its fraudulent charitable collecting, which diverts money from legitimate animal-based charities.
The HSUS went around killing animals in their euthanasia van during the Katrina crisis. They have a convicted terrorist on their payroll. He earned his qualifications both by acting as a publicity agent for the terrorist group Animal Liberation Front and by committing terrorist acts on U.S. soil. This is also a point because such actions make it so that legal businesses, legal businesspeople, legal workers in every animal related field are not safe even when they are in compliance with the law. John Goodwin's employment by the HSUS is a large stinking mess of proof that the HSUS uses people who disrespect our legal rights. I'm glad they hired him.
Is there actually something wrong with pet ownership that makes it so that owners of pets have to mind everyone else's business? It's not something wrong with pet ownership. It's a bad mental habit that people get into. They worry too much about the negatives and blow them out of proportion. Of course that attaches to pet ownership and everything else. It narrows a person's comfort zone to that which she or he can control. Maybe it's narcissistic and maybe narcissism is an inevitable result of casting one's self as the hero who can remove all negatives from life. So what's wrong with taking positives and amplifying on them? The love that a person can have for his dog makes it easy to forgive messes and broken screen doors. A love of humanity makes it easy to forgive someone whose worst crime is caring too much.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Take the Slaughter and Euthanasia Issues Away from the Animal Rights Activists
First, look at the way it's done in the wild. Prey animals are viciously attacked by gangs of ravening wolves or lions, or by solitary hunters like tigers and jaguars. This is not quite as bad as it sounds, I don't want to drive a horror spike into anyone's hearts. It's safer for the predators to do it this way and the targeted animal suffers less pain when it is attacked in a way that induces shock, which causes numbness and euphoria, then quick death.
Predation is absolutely necessary. Every animal can outgrow its food supply. Caribou and deer strip vegetation down to nothing, then they die slowly and painfully in ruined and diseased ecology. Some contagious disease may even be a reaction that protects the ecology. Carnivorous species had to develop to protect the vegetation so that herbivore populations could be more stable.
It's the same thing when humans kill a certain number of herbivores and eat them. Fur and leather get more use out of the carcasses, and grinding up mink to use as fish feed, pet food, and fertilizer is using them for food. Industry doesn't like to waste usable biomass. It's more profitable then gold. Most likely if an environmentalist can think of a good way to use biomass, it's not only been thought of by industry, industry already has a better idea because that's the way that industry lives. Boiling down bones for gelatin and glue is a long-established art and that's getting close to salvaging everything but the squeal.
When humans slaughter animals for food, we have to be pretty bad at it to be worse than nature at the slaughter, and we don't leave wounded animals to die of infections and starvation weeks later. I personally don't even want them to die, but it's a necessity that has to be faced. Better to face it in an orderly fashion and with protection for the animals and the humans involved.
Nature kills off old and sick animals to make room for young fresh ones. Reproduction has to be maintained at some reasonable pace to keep up genetic variety. We can't go around forcing people to stop breeding animals on account of we're too successful in the job of keeping them alive. Nature usually kills off the majority of animals before they reach their first year. Humans are miraculously effective in keeping them alive, which fits our nature. Humanely killing selected animals for population control is a very acceptable alternative to allowing the lot of them to be subjected to slower painful deaths from diseases, parasites, and crippling physical and genetic illnesses.
Killing for population control should be an acceptable method and it should be actively disallowed as an issue in these fights to pass breeding bans or controls. Thus far we still have the right to decide which animals are pets, which are breeders, and which are food or culls, and this is a right that every animal owner must insist on. It is very nearly the only button that AR factions can consistently push. Without that they have less than half the power to legally disrupt animal owners. They use their own killings of animals in shelters as leverage against everyone else. They also use the deaths of animals when the legislation that they pushed for forces those animals out of loving homes. They use this issue in bad faith to damage every animal-using industry. We must take this issue out of their hands.
Predation is absolutely necessary. Every animal can outgrow its food supply. Caribou and deer strip vegetation down to nothing, then they die slowly and painfully in ruined and diseased ecology. Some contagious disease may even be a reaction that protects the ecology. Carnivorous species had to develop to protect the vegetation so that herbivore populations could be more stable.
It's the same thing when humans kill a certain number of herbivores and eat them. Fur and leather get more use out of the carcasses, and grinding up mink to use as fish feed, pet food, and fertilizer is using them for food. Industry doesn't like to waste usable biomass. It's more profitable then gold. Most likely if an environmentalist can think of a good way to use biomass, it's not only been thought of by industry, industry already has a better idea because that's the way that industry lives. Boiling down bones for gelatin and glue is a long-established art and that's getting close to salvaging everything but the squeal.
When humans slaughter animals for food, we have to be pretty bad at it to be worse than nature at the slaughter, and we don't leave wounded animals to die of infections and starvation weeks later. I personally don't even want them to die, but it's a necessity that has to be faced. Better to face it in an orderly fashion and with protection for the animals and the humans involved.
Nature kills off old and sick animals to make room for young fresh ones. Reproduction has to be maintained at some reasonable pace to keep up genetic variety. We can't go around forcing people to stop breeding animals on account of we're too successful in the job of keeping them alive. Nature usually kills off the majority of animals before they reach their first year. Humans are miraculously effective in keeping them alive, which fits our nature. Humanely killing selected animals for population control is a very acceptable alternative to allowing the lot of them to be subjected to slower painful deaths from diseases, parasites, and crippling physical and genetic illnesses.
Killing for population control should be an acceptable method and it should be actively disallowed as an issue in these fights to pass breeding bans or controls. Thus far we still have the right to decide which animals are pets, which are breeders, and which are food or culls, and this is a right that every animal owner must insist on. It is very nearly the only button that AR factions can consistently push. Without that they have less than half the power to legally disrupt animal owners. They use their own killings of animals in shelters as leverage against everyone else. They also use the deaths of animals when the legislation that they pushed for forces those animals out of loving homes. They use this issue in bad faith to damage every animal-using industry. We must take this issue out of their hands.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
They Have Got to be Kidding Us (Amish Puppy Mills)
Or is it more like gaslighting us? Bill Smith of "Mainline Animal Rescue (MLAR)" is at it again beating up on the Amish. This was shown on ABC's Nightline news program on March 27, 2009. This link should take you directly to the story.
To really understand this news item, look at both what they say and what they don't say. They say that the Amish are hiding a "secret world", and also use the term "culture of secrecy." People are often either alarmed at the idea of such secret things or are fascinated, or both at the same time. "Secret" in this context is like a code word. They say "secret world" without saying explicitly that this is wrong, but they apparently hope that the viewer will catch the implication that there is indeed something wrong. There is a transparent pretense of journalistic neutrality.
They say that the dogs run on "chicken wire" but it's harder to catch the fact that this wire is coated to prevent harm to the dog's feet. This time, unlike when Bill Smith and MLAR were on Oprah, they don't claim that the dog's feet are torn up by the wire but that claim is implicit when they mention the coated wire. In the Oprah video I didn't see any torn up paws or claws and maybe that's why they're not making the claim in the Nightline video.
If you look carefully the stacked cages have catch trays to prevent feces and anything else from falling through to the cages underneath. I have yet to see a video of an alleged puppy mill where the cages lacked such trays but several of those videos included the claim that feces were falling through the wire onto other dogs. The Nightline video says outright that the cages are stacked so that feces fall into the cages below. You can see the trays that catch the feces and urine. In the Nightline video they're easier to see. Often when viewing these videos one has to hit the back button a few times to catch it.
They didn't show us the golden retriever in the ABC video trying to walk. They carried her everywhere. MLAR's claim was the only thing that it would have hurt. I just looked at some of the video from when they were on Oprah and I am not impressed. Ramming pipes down an animal's throat I do not believe because that would risk damaging valuable breeding animals. You also have the fact that there is a lot of barking in their footage at the puppy farms. I think that on Oprah the dog that they showed that didn't bark was a Basenji, which doesn't bark but uses other vocalizations. It's kind of like they don't want to get caught in a lie.
In the Oprah video Lisa Ling's voiceover said that the swollen teats of a mother dog were "sad testimony" to all the pups that she had bred. In nature often canids and other species live to reproduce because they have to, and there's nothing sad about that in and of itself, and why think so? And if some people are treating them like "agricultural products" that's their right. Animal rights activists don't like anyone to have "agricultural products" and I think they don't want us to eat at all. They do say no meat, no fur, no pets, and I say they need to move off the planet.
At least in the Nightline video the owner was allowed to speak in his own defense and I think he was right. He keeps them clean, he exercises them, and I think he's right to say that letting them run outside can be dangerous.
Proposed laws would among other things require solid floors and that would be less humane because the animals would be constantly walking in feces and urine. This law would force a breeder to maintain conditions that are inhumane to the animals. A cage that stays relatively clean is better than one that pools nastiness. A requirement for individual dishes means that less water will be available and it will not be as clean because water in dishes gets dirty.
The "secret society" stuff and the "they think of them as agricultural products" verbiage make appeals to bigotry. We can't prove them wrong about the Amish and the Mennonites quite as easily because they aren't nearly as much on the net as the rest of us. They get very little chance to tell their own side of the story.
Really, there are better ways to help animals.
To really understand this news item, look at both what they say and what they don't say. They say that the Amish are hiding a "secret world", and also use the term "culture of secrecy." People are often either alarmed at the idea of such secret things or are fascinated, or both at the same time. "Secret" in this context is like a code word. They say "secret world" without saying explicitly that this is wrong, but they apparently hope that the viewer will catch the implication that there is indeed something wrong. There is a transparent pretense of journalistic neutrality.
They say that the dogs run on "chicken wire" but it's harder to catch the fact that this wire is coated to prevent harm to the dog's feet. This time, unlike when Bill Smith and MLAR were on Oprah, they don't claim that the dog's feet are torn up by the wire but that claim is implicit when they mention the coated wire. In the Oprah video I didn't see any torn up paws or claws and maybe that's why they're not making the claim in the Nightline video.
If you look carefully the stacked cages have catch trays to prevent feces and anything else from falling through to the cages underneath. I have yet to see a video of an alleged puppy mill where the cages lacked such trays but several of those videos included the claim that feces were falling through the wire onto other dogs. The Nightline video says outright that the cages are stacked so that feces fall into the cages below. You can see the trays that catch the feces and urine. In the Nightline video they're easier to see. Often when viewing these videos one has to hit the back button a few times to catch it.
They didn't show us the golden retriever in the ABC video trying to walk. They carried her everywhere. MLAR's claim was the only thing that it would have hurt. I just looked at some of the video from when they were on Oprah and I am not impressed. Ramming pipes down an animal's throat I do not believe because that would risk damaging valuable breeding animals. You also have the fact that there is a lot of barking in their footage at the puppy farms. I think that on Oprah the dog that they showed that didn't bark was a Basenji, which doesn't bark but uses other vocalizations. It's kind of like they don't want to get caught in a lie.
In the Oprah video Lisa Ling's voiceover said that the swollen teats of a mother dog were "sad testimony" to all the pups that she had bred. In nature often canids and other species live to reproduce because they have to, and there's nothing sad about that in and of itself, and why think so? And if some people are treating them like "agricultural products" that's their right. Animal rights activists don't like anyone to have "agricultural products" and I think they don't want us to eat at all. They do say no meat, no fur, no pets, and I say they need to move off the planet.
At least in the Nightline video the owner was allowed to speak in his own defense and I think he was right. He keeps them clean, he exercises them, and I think he's right to say that letting them run outside can be dangerous.
Proposed laws would among other things require solid floors and that would be less humane because the animals would be constantly walking in feces and urine. This law would force a breeder to maintain conditions that are inhumane to the animals. A cage that stays relatively clean is better than one that pools nastiness. A requirement for individual dishes means that less water will be available and it will not be as clean because water in dishes gets dirty.
The "secret society" stuff and the "they think of them as agricultural products" verbiage make appeals to bigotry. We can't prove them wrong about the Amish and the Mennonites quite as easily because they aren't nearly as much on the net as the rest of us. They get very little chance to tell their own side of the story.
Really, there are better ways to help animals.
Friday, March 27, 2009
An Animal Rights-ish Feeling
I have to admit that I like most animals better than I like most humans. When there is a quandary between saving an animal and a human, I don't always have a clear answer. Maybe I'd save the animal because I can eat the animal. Those questions don't answer the big question as well as how I live my life in real life.
Why would I want people to keep pets and livestock if I think that animals are better than humans? Part of the reason is because I don't think that better in some ways means better in all ways. Also, even if an animal or human is better in all ways, we can still associate and live and play together. They're really good at putting on their best to be with their humans and that's why they will always make us feel as if they are better people.
Love and happiness are resources. These are resources that humans provide for animals.Love is something that humans seem to be uniquely able to be good at in the company of an animal, largely because of something that I tried to explain earlier. A companion animal relationship is based on shared love, happiness, and pleasure. Farmers who keep livestock and draft animals also find that kind of relationship.
An animal that might have been doomed to a lonely search for the rare morsel of food, and that would have starved to death if it didn't, can find a precious resource in humans. Wild deer, bears, and raccoons routinely beg for food, or steal it, or scavenge it from humans because humans are good at getting food and often have a lot of it.
Even if animals are better than humans, smell better, are more pleasant to the touch, are happier beings filled with more light, are somehow morally or ethically better, they have uses for us and they love us. Nature produces an animal that can do everything that requires technical expertise simply because nature accretes genetic and outside-world information and that's how to deal with it, to produce a brain that can process this information in practical ways. Of course the other animals that are part of nature want a part of this. They have curiosity, even a sort of intellectual curiosity. They helped make us. They definitely have a right to share.
Why would I want people to keep pets and livestock if I think that animals are better than humans? Part of the reason is because I don't think that better in some ways means better in all ways. Also, even if an animal or human is better in all ways, we can still associate and live and play together. They're really good at putting on their best to be with their humans and that's why they will always make us feel as if they are better people.
Love and happiness are resources. These are resources that humans provide for animals.Love is something that humans seem to be uniquely able to be good at in the company of an animal, largely because of something that I tried to explain earlier. A companion animal relationship is based on shared love, happiness, and pleasure. Farmers who keep livestock and draft animals also find that kind of relationship.
An animal that might have been doomed to a lonely search for the rare morsel of food, and that would have starved to death if it didn't, can find a precious resource in humans. Wild deer, bears, and raccoons routinely beg for food, or steal it, or scavenge it from humans because humans are good at getting food and often have a lot of it.
Even if animals are better than humans, smell better, are more pleasant to the touch, are happier beings filled with more light, are somehow morally or ethically better, they have uses for us and they love us. Nature produces an animal that can do everything that requires technical expertise simply because nature accretes genetic and outside-world information and that's how to deal with it, to produce a brain that can process this information in practical ways. Of course the other animals that are part of nature want a part of this. They have curiosity, even a sort of intellectual curiosity. They helped make us. They definitely have a right to share.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
IPCC Scientists Caught Faking Global Warming Data
Ingrid Newkirk's been milking the global warming myth for all it's worth lately. So have "real" environmentalists, the people who want to move millions of humans for the sake of a thousand tigers and who want massive die-offs of the human race. Never mind the fact that it is a million or more times as hard to move one human to a new home as it is to consider the idea from a perspective as removed as an American's is from a village in India.
I'm not sure what makes anyone think that there is any integrity in the environmental movement. It's too much against its own race to be particularly reliable. When it denies the validity of human judgment it undercuts itself. The rest of us have to hope for their integrity and reliability based on the logic that they are educated, they are scientists, and we depend on science. What we see in the news is them saying that human judgment is bad but the judgment of environmental scientists is good as long as they stick to the political party line.
Global warming would seem to be one of those absolute "end of the world" scenarios that should cut off all debate against measures designed to prevent it. It's emotional button-pushing of course, which you will see over and over again in environmental and animal rights presentations.
The global warming game is all over. The Goddard Institute at NASA has been caught lying. To make October of 2007 appear to be the hottest October on record, they carried over figures from September of 2007, which always has at least a few very hot days in the Northern Hemisphere. An article in the London Telegraph explains the anomaly of all of the record low temperatures and record high snowfalls in Russia during the hottest October on record:
As far as I am concerned the game is all over. Carbon dioxide is plant food. Plant cover is what we live on and it needs that carbon dioxide. Plants can even take in pollutants like carbon monoxide and sulfur and nitrogen compounds and make them into more plants. When industry emits carbon dioxide and some other compounds it feeds the environment. Consider the fact that carbon that is buried is anywhere from less available for plant growth to unavailable. Unchecked vegetation tends to sequester carbon in the soil under it, and up to a point this is actually very useful, but at some time it has to be replenished. A declining phase would be hazardous as we already need about as much biomass for food, fuel, and construction as we can get. Burn some coal and some underbrush and get that precious compound back in the air to feed useful plants.
I'm not sure what makes anyone think that there is any integrity in the environmental movement. It's too much against its own race to be particularly reliable. When it denies the validity of human judgment it undercuts itself. The rest of us have to hope for their integrity and reliability based on the logic that they are educated, they are scientists, and we depend on science. What we see in the news is them saying that human judgment is bad but the judgment of environmental scientists is good as long as they stick to the political party line.
Global warming would seem to be one of those absolute "end of the world" scenarios that should cut off all debate against measures designed to prevent it. It's emotional button-pushing of course, which you will see over and over again in environmental and animal rights presentations.
The global warming game is all over. The Goddard Institute at NASA has been caught lying. To make October of 2007 appear to be the hottest October on record, they carried over figures from September of 2007, which always has at least a few very hot days in the Northern Hemisphere. An article in the London Telegraph explains the anomaly of all of the record low temperatures and record high snowfalls in Russia during the hottest October on record:
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.The article from Alex Jones's Prison Planet is also worth reading. That's where I got the link to the article about the lying by the Goddard Institute.
As far as I am concerned the game is all over. Carbon dioxide is plant food. Plant cover is what we live on and it needs that carbon dioxide. Plants can even take in pollutants like carbon monoxide and sulfur and nitrogen compounds and make them into more plants. When industry emits carbon dioxide and some other compounds it feeds the environment. Consider the fact that carbon that is buried is anywhere from less available for plant growth to unavailable. Unchecked vegetation tends to sequester carbon in the soil under it, and up to a point this is actually very useful, but at some time it has to be replenished. A declining phase would be hazardous as we already need about as much biomass for food, fuel, and construction as we can get. Burn some coal and some underbrush and get that precious compound back in the air to feed useful plants.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Generalizations
The animal rights activists propose that animals are too dangerous to keep on the strength of single attacks, sometimes even when the attacks are not fatal. On what is this based, exactly? Just on the strength of the assertion. Proof by assertion is considered one of the basic logical fallacies, but somehow it works well with the human brain when repeated enough. Any evidence without evidence to counter it works as proof. A lot of people know better but it wears in with repetition. Repetition increases the weight of otherwise weightless evidence.
So they believe that one incident proves that people should have their animals taken away by force. They hammer on this as if singular incidents are all of the evidence in the world and all that is needed to justify everything that is done to hurt animal owners. One person starves an animal in Muskogee Oklahoma and everyone's starving their animals. They recommend lengthy jail sentences. I have also seen them advocate the torture and murder of other human beings, including specific humans beings, who have abused animals and who they have obviously falsely accused, such as Michael Sandlin with his "truck stop tiger" who I wish was still breeding tigers, and a man who was cleared of all charges of abuse, surprisingly, by his local humane society.
Apply their own logic to their own actions. Animal rights activists have beaten people and left them for dead. Just recently some ALF people burned a zoo and burned several animals to death. They have killed many animals as well as destroyed non-living property that represented a lot of time, money, energy, and physical research. There is a list of crimes that could fill several books, committed by animal rights activists. Many of these crimes constitute terrorism and conspiracy to commit. You can also count PETA's thousands killed and I count the millions that the SPCA claims that it has to kill.
By their own logic a lot of human beings should be tortured and killed for their crimes against animals. There is no severability in their logic, such that if one owner or organization does badly, the others are innocent, so by their own logic the Friends of Animals are just as guilty as the ALF, and you won't find an animal rights organization that allows this necessary severability for their own enemies, or fails to use singular incidents against an entire industry.
By the logic that they use against animal owners, all animal rights activists should be taken out and shot. They should be tortured first. Those that survive being shot should spend the rest of their lives in jail and eat porridge and rat droppings.
How much damage do they have to do to us for us to even be tempted to think such things? They know that they're targeting good people who are harmless and don't think that way. It's the way of bullies. They're always after good people. The miscreants do them a lot of good and are more like them anyway. You and I would never harm anyone on purpose. We're useless to them.
So they believe that one incident proves that people should have their animals taken away by force. They hammer on this as if singular incidents are all of the evidence in the world and all that is needed to justify everything that is done to hurt animal owners. One person starves an animal in Muskogee Oklahoma and everyone's starving their animals. They recommend lengthy jail sentences. I have also seen them advocate the torture and murder of other human beings, including specific humans beings, who have abused animals and who they have obviously falsely accused, such as Michael Sandlin with his "truck stop tiger" who I wish was still breeding tigers, and a man who was cleared of all charges of abuse, surprisingly, by his local humane society.
Apply their own logic to their own actions. Animal rights activists have beaten people and left them for dead. Just recently some ALF people burned a zoo and burned several animals to death. They have killed many animals as well as destroyed non-living property that represented a lot of time, money, energy, and physical research. There is a list of crimes that could fill several books, committed by animal rights activists. Many of these crimes constitute terrorism and conspiracy to commit. You can also count PETA's thousands killed and I count the millions that the SPCA claims that it has to kill.
By their own logic a lot of human beings should be tortured and killed for their crimes against animals. There is no severability in their logic, such that if one owner or organization does badly, the others are innocent, so by their own logic the Friends of Animals are just as guilty as the ALF, and you won't find an animal rights organization that allows this necessary severability for their own enemies, or fails to use singular incidents against an entire industry.
By the logic that they use against animal owners, all animal rights activists should be taken out and shot. They should be tortured first. Those that survive being shot should spend the rest of their lives in jail and eat porridge and rat droppings.
How much damage do they have to do to us for us to even be tempted to think such things? They know that they're targeting good people who are harmless and don't think that way. It's the way of bullies. They're always after good people. The miscreants do them a lot of good and are more like them anyway. You and I would never harm anyone on purpose. We're useless to them.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Canada's "Regulations"
Here's what I wrote about the new bans on exotic animals in British Columbia, Canada:
Thank you for the links, Lianne. I've been looking over the regulations on the different sites and I still don't see where it's written into any legally citable regulations. I haven't found a reference to something in writing that says what conditions a person has to meet to keep their animal, either. If it's up to the SPCA whether they keep their animals or not, everyone's toast and the regulations are in bad faith.
There may be some way to characterize the regulations as "reasonable" but I have always thought that keeping lions and tigers is worth some risk. Maybe Canada doesn't care about equal protection under the law, but Barry Penner's thing about animals that present a risk to human life, which is totally slaved to the SPCA's propaganda, applies to just about every species of animal that you can name. So what are you seeing that is so "reasonable"?
This one person, who so blatantly works for the SPCA, should not have been given this power. If the Assembly is unable to do this in a more fair and reasonable manner they should not have fobbed it off on a person who essentially works for the animal rights activists, which is a conflict of interest with his duty as a Minister of the government of B.C. He and the SPCA have been jonesing for this kind of power over pet owners. And many of the species in question have been defined as "domestic" for over 25 years. Redefining them as wildlife is a betrayal. Such a basic change in the status of personal pets, by species, should not be in the hands of one man even if you don't like their teeth and claws.
Then you have the permit applications. People will submit these applications in good faith and whether those applications will be accepted may not be in good faith. Submitting the applications in good faith will be giving up their right to privacy, not that Canada, the SPCA, or the U.S. any of them has given a fig for privacy, and that will make them targets for abuse.
I consider the new regulations to be an unnecessary abuse of power and a giving of quasi-governmental powers to special interests of the animal rights activist type.
How could this not be legislating the exotic animal industry out of business? The regulation clearly excludes almost everything.
The way that I see it the pet industry is at least as valid as zoological parks and recreation. Personal property is the basis of personal freedom. A regulation that says that scientists can own something and humans can't makes everyone a second-class citizen under the scientists, and the animals don't benefit all that much. Animals like being raised with families better than they like being raised in institutions.
Thank you for the links, Lianne. I've been looking over the regulations on the different sites and I still don't see where it's written into any legally citable regulations. I haven't found a reference to something in writing that says what conditions a person has to meet to keep their animal, either. If it's up to the SPCA whether they keep their animals or not, everyone's toast and the regulations are in bad faith.
There may be some way to characterize the regulations as "reasonable" but I have always thought that keeping lions and tigers is worth some risk. Maybe Canada doesn't care about equal protection under the law, but Barry Penner's thing about animals that present a risk to human life, which is totally slaved to the SPCA's propaganda, applies to just about every species of animal that you can name. So what are you seeing that is so "reasonable"?
This one person, who so blatantly works for the SPCA, should not have been given this power. If the Assembly is unable to do this in a more fair and reasonable manner they should not have fobbed it off on a person who essentially works for the animal rights activists, which is a conflict of interest with his duty as a Minister of the government of B.C. He and the SPCA have been jonesing for this kind of power over pet owners. And many of the species in question have been defined as "domestic" for over 25 years. Redefining them as wildlife is a betrayal. Such a basic change in the status of personal pets, by species, should not be in the hands of one man even if you don't like their teeth and claws.
Then you have the permit applications. People will submit these applications in good faith and whether those applications will be accepted may not be in good faith. Submitting the applications in good faith will be giving up their right to privacy, not that Canada, the SPCA, or the U.S. any of them has given a fig for privacy, and that will make them targets for abuse.
I consider the new regulations to be an unnecessary abuse of power and a giving of quasi-governmental powers to special interests of the animal rights activist type.
How could this not be legislating the exotic animal industry out of business? The regulation clearly excludes almost everything.
The way that I see it the pet industry is at least as valid as zoological parks and recreation. Personal property is the basis of personal freedom. A regulation that says that scientists can own something and humans can't makes everyone a second-class citizen under the scientists, and the animals don't benefit all that much. Animals like being raised with families better than they like being raised in institutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
