Blog posting and thread
Winograd ingratiated himself with a segment of owners who would latch on to just about any hope of decent treatment from anyone involved in the "humane" community. He still supports IPB (Indecent Proposition B) in spite of its total lack of human decency and contempt for human rights.
Best Friends skeeped about Winograd allegedly backing off support of IPB. This puts Winograd in an even better position with people who haven't thought it out. The enemy of my enemy is my friend? What if the enemy of my enemy is pretending to be such? It's easy to pretend. There is so much dirt to be had on the ASPCA, Best Friends, and the HSUS, that a tiny fraction of it makes a man look like a hero when he writes a book about it.
Early on, before Winograd closed comments on his blog, I commented that he shouldn't give the HSUS any way to redeem itself (as in "Redemption") because they have already committed too many crimes against humanity. Now his latest, http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=4473 , sets up a condition that will buy redemption for the HSUS or other miscreants that satisfy it. If they come together and "rescue" all the dogs that are displaced by IPB, then they will be among the blessed, to paraphrase. Otherwise they're evil little devils.
In other words, they'll be the good guys if they stage a feeding frenzy on an entire state of breeders whose activities were previously legal.
It is a very bad thing to ask people to "police themselves" in a setup like dog breeding. Any attempts to do so quite rightly cause people to defend themselves and the intend is to split the group and make them suspicious of each other. There is no good way to conduct such a program, at all, and the attempts cause a lot of damage.
According to Winograd the big three humane organizations are absolutely loaded to the gills with dirt. That's gravy for those of us who have learned, quite rightly to despise them. It also means to me that they not only do not have the right to judge any breeders, they do not have the ability. They are also known for lying.
One of the harshest things about this is that it will do what was done to exotic animal owners in Missouri. It will punish people who have spent millions to become legal. This is the HSUS's incrementalism. First it imposed unnecessary burdens on breeders. Now it's going to chop their income tremendously while they're still paying off the financing.
It is better to have no solution than a solution this destructive. The destruction is on purpose, from Winograd, from the ASPCA, Best Friends, and the HSUS. The handwriting has been on the wall because these miscreants have been lying to people. We haven't the slightest chance of knowing what is really going on.
Winograd follows the pattern of labeling commercial breeders as "puppy mills", therefore commercial breeders, in his mind, are automatically abusive, and if they are bigger breeders they are automatically more abusive. This is far less insightful than his usual material, so he is definitely doing this on purpose. Winograd ingratiated himself with the breeders to some extent, who seem not to have realized that he does not exempt them from the "puppy mill" label, and like I said, the complaints that Winograd has allied himself with the breeders has created a false impression.
I don't know what Winograd's definition of a "puppy mill" is or what definition he will stand behind, or what yours is, but you, Brent Toellner, were quoted by Winograd as saying this: "According to the US Department of Agriculture, there are 1,525 licensed commercial breeders in the state—nearly [three times] more than any other state. The rest… are unlicensed. In other words, Missouri could cut in half the number of ‘puppy mills’ just by closing down all of the unlicensed operations in the state."
You and Winograd have both said in writing that all of the licensed breeders in Missouri are "puppy mills." Please explain.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Pet Owner's Rights: The Puppy Mill Label
The first right that a pet owner has is to be treated like a human being who has rights, just like it says in the Constitution.
There are negative rights and positive rights. A negative right is like the right NOT to be raided and treated like a convicted rapist. A positive right is to the right to be treated with the respect that is due any citizen and that we generally extend to non-citizens because respectable and respectful people do this as a matter of course. This respectful treatment is part of a good and respectful person.
There is a word that begins with "n" and ends with the loss of a 30 year career as a radio personality. I was tempted to use it to jolt people a little in this essay. Probably not all that much wrong with it if I do it right, but it would be distracting. The fact is that this word and other labels have been used with destructive effect. Every time that it has been used this way, the person who used it was wrong. This kind of labeling is used exclusively to push bad ideas, inspire unjust violence, and even to incite the killing of innocent people. And it works. It always seems to work.
The use of the "puppy mill" label has been debunked so many times and so many ways that we're actually reinforcing its use. It's kind of like saying "I'm not a faggot." This is something that the bullier already knows. The purpose of the use of that label, as most people already know, is to put a mark on someone and to demonize and demoralize. They know it hurts so they keep on doing it. I have proposed defusing the label by telling people that yes, mills are good, factories are good, puppies are good, so the use of the term "puppy mill" as a derogatory term is simply silly.
The HSUS depends on the repeated, malicious, and stupid use of the term "puppy mill" because it already knows that it cannot present a reasoned argument for restricting the number of animals that a breeder is legally allowed to own or breed. Did we learn nothing from the oppression of Jews or black people? Maybe if we don't remember the derogatory terms used against Jews and blacks we won't remember the lessons of history. Maybe I should spell out the "n" word to tell people that the anti-breeding political groups use the term "puppy mill" to call people "niggers." You and I both know what that word means when used by a white man. It means "think of these people as dirt under your feet and ignore their humanity."
It also means "do something mean and stupid to these people." So, no, I don't want to use that word, or the term "puppy mill" because doing so makes me look like a stupid jerk who just wants to hurt people.
I'm surprised that I even have to argue that dog breeders are good people.
Also, because Nathan Winograd insists on using the term "puppy mill" I cannot believe in him or his program. There is a huge difference between believing in humane treatment at commercial breeders and pet stores and using terms like "puppy mill" against them. It makes me feel like Winograd isn't all there.
There are negative rights and positive rights. A negative right is like the right NOT to be raided and treated like a convicted rapist. A positive right is to the right to be treated with the respect that is due any citizen and that we generally extend to non-citizens because respectable and respectful people do this as a matter of course. This respectful treatment is part of a good and respectful person.
There is a word that begins with "n" and ends with the loss of a 30 year career as a radio personality. I was tempted to use it to jolt people a little in this essay. Probably not all that much wrong with it if I do it right, but it would be distracting. The fact is that this word and other labels have been used with destructive effect. Every time that it has been used this way, the person who used it was wrong. This kind of labeling is used exclusively to push bad ideas, inspire unjust violence, and even to incite the killing of innocent people. And it works. It always seems to work.
The use of the "puppy mill" label has been debunked so many times and so many ways that we're actually reinforcing its use. It's kind of like saying "I'm not a faggot." This is something that the bullier already knows. The purpose of the use of that label, as most people already know, is to put a mark on someone and to demonize and demoralize. They know it hurts so they keep on doing it. I have proposed defusing the label by telling people that yes, mills are good, factories are good, puppies are good, so the use of the term "puppy mill" as a derogatory term is simply silly.
The HSUS depends on the repeated, malicious, and stupid use of the term "puppy mill" because it already knows that it cannot present a reasoned argument for restricting the number of animals that a breeder is legally allowed to own or breed. Did we learn nothing from the oppression of Jews or black people? Maybe if we don't remember the derogatory terms used against Jews and blacks we won't remember the lessons of history. Maybe I should spell out the "n" word to tell people that the anti-breeding political groups use the term "puppy mill" to call people "niggers." You and I both know what that word means when used by a white man. It means "think of these people as dirt under your feet and ignore their humanity."
It also means "do something mean and stupid to these people." So, no, I don't want to use that word, or the term "puppy mill" because doing so makes me look like a stupid jerk who just wants to hurt people.
I'm surprised that I even have to argue that dog breeders are good people.
Also, because Nathan Winograd insists on using the term "puppy mill" I cannot believe in him or his program. There is a huge difference between believing in humane treatment at commercial breeders and pet stores and using terms like "puppy mill" against them. It makes me feel like Winograd isn't all there.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Dear Christie Keith
It was when you taunted me that I knew for certain that every bad thing that I said about you was true.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Tigers as Pets
I have never believed that owning a tiger as a pet was so dangerous that it should be banned or regulated. I believe it even less these days because the reasons given to ban or regulate are at best over-hyped. They are usually deliberately dishonest and come from the usual suspects who hate humanity and want the human race to live miserable lives (go to Hell) and die.
You can even see that pattern in the behavior of people who say that they want to preserve our lives who are not animal activists. They might not believe it themselves or think of it that way, but it is a negative tradition to continually attack another person's pleasures as health hazards and worse. They have done the Orwellian inversion really well. That which gives life these days is often cast as being worse than death. Both human and animal methods of propagating life are being condemned by social custom that has a lot more to do with self-hatred than with the kind of love of life and family that should be the basis for morality. The feelings are so soundly condemned that I fear to talk about them.
Negatives are granted way too much of our time and energy. This grant wastes our energies, our money, and for God's sake our time, time that I miss dreadfully, thinking now that my initiation to the big cat world was sixteen years ago and during that time the animal rights activists have caused massive damage to our rights. One animal demonstrated to me that there was so much love in the world and that a big cat could contain so much love that it was worth every misery that humans have contrived to inflict on ourselves and others. Imagine the fact that if a giant predator meets a human being who is new to him, he seeks that person's approval and affection, and if that person seems "just right" in some way, he showers that "destructive human" with love like few humans have ever known.
This is what the sociopaths of the world truly hate. How many of us in school have seen people work to break up young love affairs just to be doing it? That has to be jealousy. They might make contact and they might feel the current flowing through them, but they do not benefit from it the way that a normal human does.
You know very well that the "bully" or "sociopath" who wants to take away what we love or value can't tell us so. They have to disguise it as something else and themselves as fearsome warriors who will protect us from the evils that lurk in the dark woods. The darkness has to make us hide our lights under bushel baskets, behind veils, behind circumlocutory speech, so that the darkness can do what darkness does. The light always chases away the darkness and forces it to hide behind things. This metaphor is always true.
A predator is a creature of light. She does best with a population that is strong because she draws her strength from the creatures that she eats. Parasites are always sickly creatures because although they at least in part control the animals that they burrow into, by necessity, they always draw their sustenance by being less than those who they take it from. This metaphor is also always true. Social parasites always have to take something from you and make you less. A real predator has to make you more powerful to become more powerful itself, as predators are raised from below. Parasites eat away at the foundation of life. Predators have to nurture and protect their foundations to survive. Parasites live and prosper, insofar as they can prosper, in a constantly degrading world. That's why they become tiny worms that feed on the flesh of much larger and better creatures. Predators create and live in a world of constant improvement. Their prey improve and so do they. Their natural temperaments are consistent with this.
When I approach a tiger, I am attracted to life. Everything that we know about predators points to and illustrates the fact that a predator, as I just said, depends on supporting the life of its prey. More so with animals and less so with humans, that support is expressed as physical love. Humans do it too, or can. Predators and humans also, almost always, mentally mark those individuals whom they love as "not food." When pet tigers attack and kill, it is usually by accident. Humans also accidentally kill pets and loved ones. Also, even if it is usually not considered justifiable, humans who kill other humans or animals on purpose believe that they have a legitimate problem that must be solved by killing.
Compare and contrast, engage in weighty philosophical discussion for years on end, brawl online and whine and moan, and while the philosophy is enlightening and the brawling is social, it comes to me that the more people who simply decide that they want a tiger as a pet, the more they can find legal places and means to do it, and the more they can create legal places and means. In 1980 when they made the tiger a legal domestic pet in British Columbia, Canada, it worked mostly because that is what they wanted to do. These days tiger owners generally say "please don't hurt us too much." They actually want "regulations." When they do, how can they then object to the "more is better" approach to regulations? How can they contain the regulations and keep them from becoming destructive? It was a lot easier when regulations either did not exist or were extremely lax. "Strict" regulations are only good for acts of destruction. That is why social parasites love them.
If a tiger loves you, he or she will give you their strength free of charge. Because the emotional bond is symbiotic the tiger loses no strength in doing so. Shared strength is like shared warmth. When two creatures cling to each other on a cold night they are both warmer. This is literally sharing life. This is what the parasites want to stop us from doing. A strong animal's immune system sickens and kills parasites.
What I am saying about tigers is true of other animals. To me it is simple biology. It is also true that most animals are not as intense as the tiger and that a lot of humans have a strong compatibility with the tiger and are able to be full partners with the tiger. This kind of relationship is valuable in and of itself. People pay billions of dollars just for the slightest whiff of this relationship.
Who would even be willing to pick your friends and life partners for you? Even being willing to do that is a sign of mental illness. Being willing to use force is violently insane. Stealing your beloved tiger from you then treating it like junk, like the animal junkyard created near San Antonio by Ron and Carole Asvestas, is an even sicker act. Possession of the tiger in a very real way is possession of health. The taking of the pet tiger deliberately inflicts sickness on the victim by removing health. People have sickened and died shortly after losing their animals, be they dogs or tigers.
The cruelty of the methods of taking also contributes to the deaths of human beings and inflicts illness. That is the point of gaining the power to choose another person's friends and life partners. A compromised life is at greater risk of being lost altogether. This causes desperation, naturally. A desperate, weakened, compromised person is much easier to exploit. A strong person finds ways to remove the profit from these scams.
It is worth noting that parasites cannot live without their hosts. They die back after they have used too many hosts. When they get desperate they attack stronger people and they get knocked back. The program of the animal rights activists is to attempt to saturate the world with enough of their poison to weaken those who would be strong against them and they have just a few people who would kill those who would stand strong against them. If they do get obvious enough about the killing then strong people will find ways to kill them and that is an unequal war because strong people are smarter, can get away with more, and they will do a more thorough job of it. Good people are getting sick of a one-sided shooting war. Make no mistake about it. When they set things on fire, destroy cars and homes, vandalize, and release valuable animals, this is a shooting war.
The content of this essay reflects a lot of internalized abuse. One should, like Ralph Helfer, be able to talk about the desire to have a pet tiger or lion or other animal without even mentioning the damned animal rights activist or their antics.
People are afraid of the power of life, we really are. It doesn't seem to take much to tip that fear into self-destructive action and action that is destructive of other human and non-human animals.
You can even see that pattern in the behavior of people who say that they want to preserve our lives who are not animal activists. They might not believe it themselves or think of it that way, but it is a negative tradition to continually attack another person's pleasures as health hazards and worse. They have done the Orwellian inversion really well. That which gives life these days is often cast as being worse than death. Both human and animal methods of propagating life are being condemned by social custom that has a lot more to do with self-hatred than with the kind of love of life and family that should be the basis for morality. The feelings are so soundly condemned that I fear to talk about them.
Negatives are granted way too much of our time and energy. This grant wastes our energies, our money, and for God's sake our time, time that I miss dreadfully, thinking now that my initiation to the big cat world was sixteen years ago and during that time the animal rights activists have caused massive damage to our rights. One animal demonstrated to me that there was so much love in the world and that a big cat could contain so much love that it was worth every misery that humans have contrived to inflict on ourselves and others. Imagine the fact that if a giant predator meets a human being who is new to him, he seeks that person's approval and affection, and if that person seems "just right" in some way, he showers that "destructive human" with love like few humans have ever known.
This is what the sociopaths of the world truly hate. How many of us in school have seen people work to break up young love affairs just to be doing it? That has to be jealousy. They might make contact and they might feel the current flowing through them, but they do not benefit from it the way that a normal human does.
You know very well that the "bully" or "sociopath" who wants to take away what we love or value can't tell us so. They have to disguise it as something else and themselves as fearsome warriors who will protect us from the evils that lurk in the dark woods. The darkness has to make us hide our lights under bushel baskets, behind veils, behind circumlocutory speech, so that the darkness can do what darkness does. The light always chases away the darkness and forces it to hide behind things. This metaphor is always true.
A predator is a creature of light. She does best with a population that is strong because she draws her strength from the creatures that she eats. Parasites are always sickly creatures because although they at least in part control the animals that they burrow into, by necessity, they always draw their sustenance by being less than those who they take it from. This metaphor is also always true. Social parasites always have to take something from you and make you less. A real predator has to make you more powerful to become more powerful itself, as predators are raised from below. Parasites eat away at the foundation of life. Predators have to nurture and protect their foundations to survive. Parasites live and prosper, insofar as they can prosper, in a constantly degrading world. That's why they become tiny worms that feed on the flesh of much larger and better creatures. Predators create and live in a world of constant improvement. Their prey improve and so do they. Their natural temperaments are consistent with this.
When I approach a tiger, I am attracted to life. Everything that we know about predators points to and illustrates the fact that a predator, as I just said, depends on supporting the life of its prey. More so with animals and less so with humans, that support is expressed as physical love. Humans do it too, or can. Predators and humans also, almost always, mentally mark those individuals whom they love as "not food." When pet tigers attack and kill, it is usually by accident. Humans also accidentally kill pets and loved ones. Also, even if it is usually not considered justifiable, humans who kill other humans or animals on purpose believe that they have a legitimate problem that must be solved by killing.
Compare and contrast, engage in weighty philosophical discussion for years on end, brawl online and whine and moan, and while the philosophy is enlightening and the brawling is social, it comes to me that the more people who simply decide that they want a tiger as a pet, the more they can find legal places and means to do it, and the more they can create legal places and means. In 1980 when they made the tiger a legal domestic pet in British Columbia, Canada, it worked mostly because that is what they wanted to do. These days tiger owners generally say "please don't hurt us too much." They actually want "regulations." When they do, how can they then object to the "more is better" approach to regulations? How can they contain the regulations and keep them from becoming destructive? It was a lot easier when regulations either did not exist or were extremely lax. "Strict" regulations are only good for acts of destruction. That is why social parasites love them.
If a tiger loves you, he or she will give you their strength free of charge. Because the emotional bond is symbiotic the tiger loses no strength in doing so. Shared strength is like shared warmth. When two creatures cling to each other on a cold night they are both warmer. This is literally sharing life. This is what the parasites want to stop us from doing. A strong animal's immune system sickens and kills parasites.
What I am saying about tigers is true of other animals. To me it is simple biology. It is also true that most animals are not as intense as the tiger and that a lot of humans have a strong compatibility with the tiger and are able to be full partners with the tiger. This kind of relationship is valuable in and of itself. People pay billions of dollars just for the slightest whiff of this relationship.
Who would even be willing to pick your friends and life partners for you? Even being willing to do that is a sign of mental illness. Being willing to use force is violently insane. Stealing your beloved tiger from you then treating it like junk, like the animal junkyard created near San Antonio by Ron and Carole Asvestas, is an even sicker act. Possession of the tiger in a very real way is possession of health. The taking of the pet tiger deliberately inflicts sickness on the victim by removing health. People have sickened and died shortly after losing their animals, be they dogs or tigers.
The cruelty of the methods of taking also contributes to the deaths of human beings and inflicts illness. That is the point of gaining the power to choose another person's friends and life partners. A compromised life is at greater risk of being lost altogether. This causes desperation, naturally. A desperate, weakened, compromised person is much easier to exploit. A strong person finds ways to remove the profit from these scams.
It is worth noting that parasites cannot live without their hosts. They die back after they have used too many hosts. When they get desperate they attack stronger people and they get knocked back. The program of the animal rights activists is to attempt to saturate the world with enough of their poison to weaken those who would be strong against them and they have just a few people who would kill those who would stand strong against them. If they do get obvious enough about the killing then strong people will find ways to kill them and that is an unequal war because strong people are smarter, can get away with more, and they will do a more thorough job of it. Good people are getting sick of a one-sided shooting war. Make no mistake about it. When they set things on fire, destroy cars and homes, vandalize, and release valuable animals, this is a shooting war.
The content of this essay reflects a lot of internalized abuse. One should, like Ralph Helfer, be able to talk about the desire to have a pet tiger or lion or other animal without even mentioning the damned animal rights activist or their antics.
People are afraid of the power of life, we really are. It doesn't seem to take much to tip that fear into self-destructive action and action that is destructive of other human and non-human animals.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
"The Ends Justify the Means."
I was browsing some of the entries at the Blue Dog State blog. In this entry the writer made a very pertinent and useful statement:
It seems to be working, doesn't it? When Scottlund Haisley terrorizes middle-aged ladies, when Bill Smith lies about pipes being shoved down the throats of dogs, when teenage children set cars on fire, they get what they want. Come on. There should be a natural intransigence against this kind of abuse.
Their kind of "the end justifies the means" involves the illegal and corrupt use of force against people who are engaged in legal activities. Often the people they use this force against are better for the animals than they are,not a high standard to beat. Often they kill the animals that they tear away from loving owners, or they put them in degrading conditions. That's the point of the exercise, to damage humanity first by destroying our animals. The word from Chicago and New York recently is that the animal control people are horribly abusing their own volunteers and the animals. This is a deliberate program of emotional and physical abuse.
Now suppose we took this "the ends justify the means" and look at it another way. Suppose that not the human participants in the program are more than willing? If the means can ever be justified by the means, when the means are most benign that's when. They're telling us that the environment is being destroyed at the same time that they work ruthlessly and maliciously to stamp out private breeding.
The "ends" include the maintenance of populations of animals that are of inestimable worth to the human race. Most of us are willing to contribute time, energy, and money to the cause. "Risk" seems to be an issue, as if only brown-skinned people should risk their lives to allow lions to be their neighbors. The push to erase risk is a swindle. If you look at the means that we sort of let slide, it becomes clear that there is less risk in a more or less properly contained pet tiger than there is in a spread of gasoline bombs in an otherwise quiet suburb.
The "means" are not just benign, but pleasant and life-enhancing. The animals take to it well. Happy animals reproduce and you know that an animal that showers you with love is in some way pretty happy. Animals are pretty easy to keep happy. Good food, good company, comfortable places to sleep, you generally have a happy camper.
What "means" do we want to justify? Burning down civilization or keeping a few pets that are somewhat more dangerous than teddy bears? That's my take on it. I don't know about you but I think that a house that is on fire is a lot more dangerous than a pet tiger.
What kind of word games are these people playing?They really do act as if they are above the law and their actions remind me of a sequence in "Free the Animals!" (only buy used and if you must buy it, buy it from me, please *grin*). "Valerie" and her black-bandannaed friend are at a terrorist camp dreaming out loud and one of them says "think of the things that we will outlaw." There's a statement to make a real American try to get his legislators to impose some social justice upon their hides.
It's all about the animals. [Not.]
Frequently cited, rarely clarified -- and often thoughtlessly uttered -- this statement needs translation. What it really means is:
The ends justify the means.
It seems to be working, doesn't it? When Scottlund Haisley terrorizes middle-aged ladies, when Bill Smith lies about pipes being shoved down the throats of dogs, when teenage children set cars on fire, they get what they want. Come on. There should be a natural intransigence against this kind of abuse.
Their kind of "the end justifies the means" involves the illegal and corrupt use of force against people who are engaged in legal activities. Often the people they use this force against are better for the animals than they are,not a high standard to beat. Often they kill the animals that they tear away from loving owners, or they put them in degrading conditions. That's the point of the exercise, to damage humanity first by destroying our animals. The word from Chicago and New York recently is that the animal control people are horribly abusing their own volunteers and the animals. This is a deliberate program of emotional and physical abuse.
Now suppose we took this "the ends justify the means" and look at it another way. Suppose that not the human participants in the program are more than willing? If the means can ever be justified by the means, when the means are most benign that's when. They're telling us that the environment is being destroyed at the same time that they work ruthlessly and maliciously to stamp out private breeding.
The "ends" include the maintenance of populations of animals that are of inestimable worth to the human race. Most of us are willing to contribute time, energy, and money to the cause. "Risk" seems to be an issue, as if only brown-skinned people should risk their lives to allow lions to be their neighbors. The push to erase risk is a swindle. If you look at the means that we sort of let slide, it becomes clear that there is less risk in a more or less properly contained pet tiger than there is in a spread of gasoline bombs in an otherwise quiet suburb.
The "means" are not just benign, but pleasant and life-enhancing. The animals take to it well. Happy animals reproduce and you know that an animal that showers you with love is in some way pretty happy. Animals are pretty easy to keep happy. Good food, good company, comfortable places to sleep, you generally have a happy camper.
What "means" do we want to justify? Burning down civilization or keeping a few pets that are somewhat more dangerous than teddy bears? That's my take on it. I don't know about you but I think that a house that is on fire is a lot more dangerous than a pet tiger.
Monday, September 13, 2010
What I do to fight animal abuse.
I give the animals adequate shelter, food, water, and medical care.
I endeavor to make the animals not just comfortable but happy and well socialized.
I check on them during extreme weather conditions, sometimes at a substantial risk to my own health and safety.
I continually seek to improve my care of those animals.
I do not cause unnecessary suffering. The phrase is always "unnecessary suffering."
What I do not do is manipulate people emotionally to get them angry at someone else who might be abusing their animals. I do not vandalize people's property for the "crime" of inconveniencing the animals.
I decide what suffering is "necessary" and freaky little immature twits from the A.L.F. can talk to my shotgun if they don't like it.
I take care of my own business because any responsible owner has their hands full taking care of their own business.
If you don't like what I just said,you can go and fuck yourself I don't really care.
I endeavor to make the animals not just comfortable but happy and well socialized.
I check on them during extreme weather conditions, sometimes at a substantial risk to my own health and safety.
I continually seek to improve my care of those animals.
I do not cause unnecessary suffering. The phrase is always "unnecessary suffering."
What I do not do is manipulate people emotionally to get them angry at someone else who might be abusing their animals. I do not vandalize people's property for the "crime" of inconveniencing the animals.
I decide what suffering is "necessary" and freaky little immature twits from the A.L.F. can talk to my shotgun if they don't like it.
I take care of my own business because any responsible owner has their hands full taking care of their own business.
If you don't like what I just said,
Friday, September 10, 2010
My little declaration
When I touch a big cat I live. I'm a lot like the autistic boy who came out of his shell when he touched a cheetah. I know very well that it doesn't take "years of experience" just to be able to survive handling a big cat. If it did most of the people who handle them would already be dead.
I am not going to go through any years and years of "training" with so many months no-touch, so many years touching only through a fence, maybe ten years before flying solo. Some would think it suicidal, but with an owner's permission I would go into a situation where they give a few hours instruction and a few days supervised practice then allow me to be a handler. If there is a slightly increased chance that I would be injured and/or die, so be it. I think that anything beyond a few weeks training would be trying to put way too fine a point on it. Any increase in survivability would be too small to measure within the limits of error in that measurement. Doing the ten year stretch would simply be OCD.
When a person tries to have a life, he's screwed if he spends hours and hours of angst-filled introspection and lengthy philosophical discussion over things that can't be decided by the entire community with centuries to cogitate. (Guess how I know.) This is why at least hypothetically in the United States an individual is free to live in his own way. In practice even your best buds will lock you in a closet when in their opinion you are too free.
Since I don't want to do what they want me to do and won't be what they want me to be, the "professionals" of the exotic animal community will refuse to attempt to help me except to warn me that I am going to die. I'm sorry, the people who I have met online seem like decent people, but this ten years of ascension, with the permission of the guru, on a tightrope, is not my thing and I do not believe in it. It might impress the rubes but if it is an attempt to persuade people that their group of animal handlers (definitely not "we") is safe, they're missing some points.
One point is that everything that we do to try to impress the animal grabbers is wasted. They have a vested interest in doing things their way. You and I, if you are also interested in working with big cats, are "dangerous" unless we belong to their group, then we get a free pass on everything. As long as we are not caught with dropped trou in the town square we're fine. We would have to very very very blatantly embarrass the grabbers, which is very hard to do, and even if we manage that, they will just pretend that they don't know us. It works for the animal rights activists.
We simply don't know how to fight back. Too many people people started out trying to impress the cat grabbers in the beginning and the realization still doesn't seem to have sunk in, not in the right place in so many minds. The people who want to grab our animals away from us are going to tell any lie that it takes. They are going to negate any effort to impress them favorably by lying and by being the same sociopathic jerks that they always have been. Trying to impress them is spinning their wheels.
If this sounds like an appeal for someone to invite me to their home to play with their big cat, hey, I'd love it, I'd put my money and my tender body where my mouth is, but don't fall for it. If you as a responsible animal owner decide that I should be kept at arm's length, said arm ending in a hand resting on a keyboard, please do so. As everyone knows, if a person such as me benefits from any such idea, he is a selfish bastard who is manipulating things to get what he wants and that proves that his idea is of no benefit to anyone. Just tell yourself that you have my number.
They will use any "safety measure" to harass the exotic animal community. If they increase the required height of a fence from 12 to 14 feet and say that everyone has to "comply" it will cost tens of thousands of dollars at the very least per facility. They just claim that this makes things safer. It absolutely does not matter to them if we can prove that the savings in lives will be so few that they can't even be measured with any degree of certainty. As long as they can maintain a pretense, in other words, until the end of time, they will use that. People who believe in freedom, i.e. "suicidal idiots who are a danger to the community and should be Baker acted", are obviously wrong because 14 feet is safer than 12 feet.
And "our side" which I am not even nominally a part of wants to go them one or more better on training requirements. Does "our side" want to have enough members to fill a Suburban?
Because I am a selfish git in addition to being a suicidal idiot who should be Baker acted and who walks and talks funny anyway, I don't see the point of hanging on to something that is emotionally unrewarding. I want the joy of living with animals along with the work. This joy will not be happening. It will be ground out of me if I even reach the place where I am so lucky as to be in the grinder. Then I guess I won't be selfish anymore, anyway.
I am not going to go through any years and years of "training" with so many months no-touch, so many years touching only through a fence, maybe ten years before flying solo. Some would think it suicidal, but with an owner's permission I would go into a situation where they give a few hours instruction and a few days supervised practice then allow me to be a handler. If there is a slightly increased chance that I would be injured and/or die, so be it. I think that anything beyond a few weeks training would be trying to put way too fine a point on it. Any increase in survivability would be too small to measure within the limits of error in that measurement. Doing the ten year stretch would simply be OCD.
When a person tries to have a life, he's screwed if he spends hours and hours of angst-filled introspection and lengthy philosophical discussion over things that can't be decided by the entire community with centuries to cogitate. (Guess how I know.) This is why at least hypothetically in the United States an individual is free to live in his own way. In practice even your best buds will lock you in a closet when in their opinion you are too free.
Since I don't want to do what they want me to do and won't be what they want me to be, the "professionals" of the exotic animal community will refuse to attempt to help me except to warn me that I am going to die. I'm sorry, the people who I have met online seem like decent people, but this ten years of ascension, with the permission of the guru, on a tightrope, is not my thing and I do not believe in it. It might impress the rubes but if it is an attempt to persuade people that their group of animal handlers (definitely not "we") is safe, they're missing some points.
One point is that everything that we do to try to impress the animal grabbers is wasted. They have a vested interest in doing things their way. You and I, if you are also interested in working with big cats, are "dangerous" unless we belong to their group, then we get a free pass on everything. As long as we are not caught with dropped trou in the town square we're fine. We would have to very very very blatantly embarrass the grabbers, which is very hard to do, and even if we manage that, they will just pretend that they don't know us. It works for the animal rights activists.
We simply don't know how to fight back. Too many people people started out trying to impress the cat grabbers in the beginning and the realization still doesn't seem to have sunk in, not in the right place in so many minds. The people who want to grab our animals away from us are going to tell any lie that it takes. They are going to negate any effort to impress them favorably by lying and by being the same sociopathic jerks that they always have been. Trying to impress them is spinning their wheels.
If this sounds like an appeal for someone to invite me to their home to play with their big cat, hey, I'd love it, I'd put my money and my tender body where my mouth is, but don't fall for it. If you as a responsible animal owner decide that I should be kept at arm's length, said arm ending in a hand resting on a keyboard, please do so. As everyone knows, if a person such as me benefits from any such idea, he is a selfish bastard who is manipulating things to get what he wants and that proves that his idea is of no benefit to anyone. Just tell yourself that you have my number.
They will use any "safety measure" to harass the exotic animal community. If they increase the required height of a fence from 12 to 14 feet and say that everyone has to "comply" it will cost tens of thousands of dollars at the very least per facility. They just claim that this makes things safer. It absolutely does not matter to them if we can prove that the savings in lives will be so few that they can't even be measured with any degree of certainty. As long as they can maintain a pretense, in other words, until the end of time, they will use that. People who believe in freedom, i.e. "suicidal idiots who are a danger to the community and should be Baker acted", are obviously wrong because 14 feet is safer than 12 feet.
And "our side" which I am not even nominally a part of wants to go them one or more better on training requirements. Does "our side" want to have enough members to fill a Suburban?
Because I am a selfish git in addition to being a suicidal idiot who should be Baker acted and who walks and talks funny anyway, I don't see the point of hanging on to something that is emotionally unrewarding. I want the joy of living with animals along with the work. This joy will not be happening. It will be ground out of me if I even reach the place where I am so lucky as to be in the grinder. Then I guess I won't be selfish anymore, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
