Can’t we pull back the curtain on the real anti-animal welfare agenda?

No Gravatar

Here we go again – to a ramped-up degree. Those who want to protect puppy mill operations and factory farming are out to pass a Constitutional amendment in Missouri to shut down new measures to protect animals from abuse and neglect.

But the folks backing the amendment are couching it as a movement to defending farming.

No – No – No. We are not within any universe where farming is going to be shut down. Sure – “Dawn of the Planets of the Apes” is going to a popular movie. But is anyone going to walk out of the theater and rush to their elected officials to ask for laws against apes taking over cities?

We can go outer space or we have a reasonable debate about animal welfare. What animal-welfare advocates are asking for is reasonable protections for animals. Those who abuse animals as they are being raised for sale or farming should be shut down.

What is so hard to understand about this? And why can’t some on the other side just be honest? It seems the real goal – from protecting puppy mill operations to criminalizing the acts of recording cruel acts on factory farms with Ag-Gag laws – is to protect the abusers.

It hasn’t been about protecting the traditions of farming and dog breeding. It’s more about hiding the abuses that go on behind the scenes.

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

AKC continues to fight against improved protections for puppy mill dogs

No Gravatar

The American Kennel Club continues to make statements that have no basis in logical thought or in facts – where breeding regulations are concerned.

One of the AKC’s primary arguments centers on the false premise that minimum standards of care and/or inspections will hurt  breeders. But here’s the clinching argument: Good, quality breeders already meet or exceed the standards being proposed across the nation.

So it is the bad breeders – the puppy mills – that will face problems under new guidelines. This is the main issue after all. The AKC’s position leaks more than the BP Gulf Oil Gusher.

If a breeder is not taking their dogs in for veterinary care or never allows them play time outside of their cages or is not cleaning their cages or kennels, then that breeder should be shut down.

To suggest these minimum standards are too much, is showing support for puppy mills.

On the AKC website, the group states a new proposal in North Carolina – “Creates unprecedented new levels of regulation of private property ownership.” I cringe when I see animals put in the same category with sofas and subdivision lots.

WNCN reported on June 9 about the AKC’s efforts to speak out against NC Governor Pat McCrory’s proposal to move animal welfare enforcement to the NC Department of Public Safety. WNCN quoted from a letter sent by the AKC to North Carolina House members:

“The Governor’s recommendations would create unprecedented new regulation based on the ownership of private property, create new inefficiencies as responsibilities are shifted between departments, and do nothing to improve the well-being of animals.”

They are wrong about this notion of private property, as it about the welfare of living, feeling beings. They are wrong about the shift, as enforcement should be a law enforcement issue – naturally. And they are completely off base about the well-being of animals. Protecting dogs and cats in puppy and kitten mills is all about the well-being of animals.

I don’t know how one group can reach this level of being so wrong about this subject.

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

The attacks on the Humane Society, ASPCA and PETA are really attempts to block anti-cruelty efforts

No Gravatar

It happens constantly. An article or column or blog post reports on an undercover video showing abusive acts inflicted on animals or reports on legislative efforts supported by animal-welfare groups – and the attacks follow in the comment section.

People crawl out to slam PETA, the Humane Society of the US, the ASPCA or whatever group might have taken the video or pushed for the protection of innocent animals.

It’s time to call it what it is – pure propaganda in an effort to divert the reader’s attention from the effort to protect animals from abuse.

Every time an HSUS representative is quoted in an article about an anti-puppy mill bill, the propagandists slam the organization with wild accusations that show the person commenting is clueless to what the mission of the group really is.

Continue reading

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

I found another editorial featuring wacky mentality, on the topic of animal welfare

No Gravatar

This one is off-the-charts wacky – out of Australia. An editorial posted on the 9News website explains a so-called industry think tank claims fighting for measures to protect animals from cruelty is making life worse for animals.

The Australian Farm Institute, obviously a pro-factory farming group, spins the heck out of this one and so does the writer. The example of the sow crate is used – in claiming that if these crates are not used, it puts piglets at risk. The argument doesn’t hold water, as the piglets would only be in danger if the farmers forced them to live in close quarters.

Before the advent of factory farms, pigs lived in the farm yard and the piglets were fine. Then writer claims cage-free systems for egg producers would lead to bird flu outbreaks, as the chickens would be infected by wild ducks and water birds.

Again, before factory farms came along, chickens did just fine, thank you. The writer actually claims in a free-range system, it would be impossible to stop the chickens from mingling with water birds. Actually, if you take their smart phones away, they can’t text the water birds to come over.

The Wacky Meter just spiked way over to the red zone.

 

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

Clueless commentary misrepresents the animal-welfare movement

No Gravatar

Once again, we find someone trying to justify the abuse of animals – as somehow something that should be protected as freedom.

An individual named Michael Rubin produced an editorial for Commentary Magazine, which was posted on March 19 under the headline – “Are Animal-Rights Activists Really Concerned About Animals?”

The writer jumps into two huge propaganda strategies often used by those who wish to defend the abuse of animals. He calls it “animal rights” and he attacks PETA.

In reality, the movement is about animal welfare and yes, we feel animals should be protected from abuse. If he wants to call that animal rights, fine. But anyone suggesting animals should not be protected from abuse is way over on the extremist end of the scale.

And look, PETA is PETA. It sometimes uses provocative means to draw attention to animal abuse. No matter what opinion anyone might have about PETA, talking about it does nothing to alter the reality animal abuse.

But Rubin goes beyond these two diversions to defend the use of animals – particularly elephants – in circuses. First, the use of hooks to train elephants is terrible. Secondly, elephants belong in their natural habitats.

He claims elephants are “healthy and stimulated” in circuses and “often become bored and depressed” when their entertainment days are over. And he uses the typical greyhound-racing defense in calling them working animals. And then he attempts to make two wrongs into a right by suggesting the dangers of poaching means it’s okay to pull them from their habitats for circus entertainment.

The far better option is putting the full effort into protecting the habitat from poaching.

Rubin certainly has a right to express his opinion in a commentary, but this doesn’t mean he can get away with misrepresenting the animal-welfare movement. And certainly he needs to educate himself in the area of animal suffering and self-awareness.

And getting back to the headline, he does nothing to show “animal-rights activists” are not concerned about animals.

 

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

Columnist asks if Christians should care about animal welfare

No Gravatar

Christianity Today blogger Ed Stetzer put this question out to his readers on Thursday: Should Christians Care about Animal Welfare?

My answer? – Of course; absolutely; with a doubt. After all, compassion was a primary focus for Jesus. From the Bible to Saint Francis of Assisi to most recently, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, we’ve seen a long history of compassion for animals from Christianity.

In addition, studies are showing those who engage in animal cruelty also end up abusing people.

There is one key statement in Stetzer’s piece that I take a bit of exception to:

Furthermore, the radicalization of the animal rights movements has, I think, scared away many Christian leaders. Yet, as the video shows, that’s not always been the case.

This is misconception that too many people are stepping into. Sure, some groups have ramped up the actions in protesting animal cruelty. But this does not change the fact that animals are being abuse in horrible ways all over the country and the planet.

I’m not at all accusing Stetzer here, but the phrase “animal rights movement” usually comes from the crowd who wants to shut down any progress in protecting animals from cruelty. These folks hate on groups like the Humane Society of the US or the ASPCA, in an effort to discredit anyone who wants to protect animals from abuse.

And in so many cases, the effort comes from those with a monetary stake in defending industries from any regulations.

But I should focus back on Stetzer’s main theme. Yes – Christians and those from all religious affiliations should care about animal welfare. Compassion should be a primary focus of all religions. And compassion should not have a such a narrow focus that it is limited to one species.

Who could reasonably state, on religious grounds or by any standards, that we should not care about the suffering of innocent people and animals? Of course we should care.

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

ALDF releases 2013 state rankings for animal protection laws

No Gravatar

The Animal Legal Defense Fund has released its 2013 state rankings for animal protection laws.

The five best states are Illinois, Oregon, Michigan, Maine and California.

The worst of the worst are Kentucky, Iowa, South Dakota, New Mexico and Wyoming – with Kentucky coming in as the state with where animal abusers are must welcome (my wording).

ALDF-2014-State-Ranks

 

The ALDF has released these annual rankings since 2006.

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

Pack of Compassion Award: Archbishop Desmond Tutu

No Gravatar

Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrapped up 2013 by moving into the animal-welfare debate and showing his support for the humane treatment of animals. He very much deserves a Pack of Compassion Award, going into 2014.

In the forward to the new book, Global Guide to Animal Protection, Tutu states:

The matter of the abuse and cruelty we inflict on other animals has to fight for our attention in what sometimes seems an already overfull moral agenda. It is vital, however, that these instances of injustice not be overlooked.

In an article on the Huffington Post website, the Dalai Lama is also quoted as saying, “With regard to animals, they not only have life, but feelings of pleasure and pain too.”

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

HSUS board member reviews 2013

No Gravatar

A view of the year 2013 for the Humane Society of the US, written by board member Cathy Kangas, was publish Tuesday on the Huffington Post website.

While the list Kangas features contains a number of important facts, some of the information really deserves highlights.

The public also became aware of the American Kennel Club’s ties with the puppy mill industry.

The HSUS also successfully advocated for passage of amendments to the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations bills to defund horse slaughter inspections, which if retained in the final FY 2014 spending bill, will restore the ban on horse slaughter in the U.S.

The HSUS won a big victory in securing an amendment to the farm bill that makes it a federal crime to attend an animal fight.

Let’s hope we see a huge range of success in the area of animal welfare in 2014.

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

Wacky Mentality for Nov. 4: Odd statements on breeding and animal welfare

No Gravatar

Some people just continue to pull in their thoughts from regions beyond our solar system. This, of course, is assuming intelligent life does not exist beyond the Earth. But then again, intelligent life is limited here too.

The Pack News Wire included an editorial posted on HoosierAGToday.com – under the headline: “The Hidden Agenda Behind The Animal Care Movement.”
This was odd enough. Not the ‘animal rights movement,’ as we typically see. The headline suggests the animal care movement has a hidden agenda. What? – your vet is out to take over the world?

But Gary Truitt actually states – “The real agenda behind the animal activist movement is the total domination and, in some cases, elimination of animal agriculture.”

The fact that this is not happening really doesn’t seem to bother Truitt. But his claims are really based on the fact that those who support compassion and animal welfare want to see abuse exposed, in some cases with undercover video of people actually torturing animals.

So since people with compassion want to prevent acts of animal cruelty and see to it that abuse is uncovered, Truitt falsely claims that means they want total domination. That’s wacky.

AND – A headline on RoyalCentral.co.uk reads – “Animal Welfare Act endangers the Queens corgis.”

And why is this claim made? – Because the act bans the act of tail docking for cosmetic reasons for dogs.
So if breeders don’t get to engage in this completely unnecessary but cruel practice, they just don’t want to breed that dog. So the fear is the Queen won’t be able to buy more corgis because those who set the breed standard won’t like the dogs with full tails – the way nature intended.

From the piece –

The ban on docking has changed the look of the corgi; therefore breeders are not continuing to raise the Pembroke Corgi.
Just because they don’t get to chop off each dog’s tail. That’s wacky.
AND -
Falling below the number required will place in on a “vulnerable native breeds list.”

Native breeds list – ? They are all related to wolves. The welfare of the dogs should come first, not a native breeds list.

The Queen should decree henceforth to adopt homeless pets. What a great example that would set.

 

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic