Make your own free website on

We The People

HSUS Supports Terrorism?
AB 1122 CA BILL by ASM Ted Lieu
Breed Specific Legislation
News !!!

Jake, accused of being dangerous for guarding his home

The AR Mindset

I used to be a prolific poster years ago. I got tired when people just would not believe the truth and even argued against it. Even when time proved me right again and again I gained no ground in the situation.
The next prediction was ignored as had been the last and the march toward the elimination of animal possession continued without hesitation.

I came to realize that several forces were working against me,
primarily programming and the wishful thinking it engendered. Some just retained a childish belief that things in the far future are not of concern. Their opposition is not so limited and time has an unfortunate way of passing.

From an early age we are bombarded with AR propaganda. Much of it comes, not from the AR people themselves, but from others who have been fooled by their propaganda or heard only nice things through hearsay.

"A spoonful of sugar" may help the medicine go down but it can also make poison palatable. Many people with similar political leanings also "drink the Kool-Aid." It is hard not to. We are surrounded by it and most is encased in a hard shell of pleasantries or dire warnings that we had better swallow it or else.

The public face of the AR movement is always a mask of concern for animals, their feelings, comfort, treatment, etc. Most people share those concerns and so consider the AR person a fellow believer, if not worthy of support then at least not worthy of being opposed.

But the term "Animal Rights" is a lie too. AR is not a goal, it is a
TOOL. The real aim of the movement is "Animal Liberation" and only a few are bold enough to come out and say it. Many of their followers are not even aware of it.

The underlying motivation is not love or even a real concern for animals but a loathing of humans. Humans are seen as a mass of unwanted and undeserving creatures who destroy everything they touch.
Humans have NO right to anything on Earth - its space, resources, animals - nothing.

To the deep believer - the Earth Liberationist (ELF) - there is not even an elite core of humanity that deserves to survive. Humans are evil, a plague, and must be treated as such. Restrained, discouraged from reproducing, confined, even eliminated.

Some of you reading these words are offended. You share some of these beliefs. You dislike some humans having land, animals, harvesting resources, using them, owning certain things. Your view of others has been colored by a resentment engendered by those who play the class warfare, environmental, animal concern, and other cards. You can't
help it. THOSE people should not be allowed to do THAT, whatever it is. And you will side with and vote for others who promise to harm those people. (Our founders could hardly have envisioned people voting to harm their fellow citizens.)

These divisive feelings are an inherent xenophobia left from our tribe/clan days. WE are right, others are wrong. This innate instinct is the tool the enemy uses to achieve their goals: division and hatred. Like the devil, they whisper in your ear, "THEY should not be allowed to do that, have that. Only the 'right people - if any' should."

To the AL/EL mind there is no 'right person" outside of him/herself, if then.

The goal is not to make animals happy in human companionship or even to have animals/the environment and humans live in harmony. It is to completely separate them. Just as a normal person has a zero-tolerance
attitude toward contact with rabies, so too does an animal/earth liberationist have no tolerance for human and nature contact.

But even this is not enough for the deep AL/EL. They want to be gods.
They want humanity gone and nature ordered to their conceited view.

It is gone now but for several years there was a website that admitted a little TOO much of the goals of these people. It called for the elimination of predators from nature. Prey species lived in a tyranny of fear of lions, tigers, wolves, eagles, hawks, foxes, etc. Only the elimination of these creatures would free the rest of the animal kingdom from eternal tyranny.

This is the ultimate "tell". People who have these leanings are not happy with liberty, human or animal. They want their morality and personal belief imposed on all of Earth. And in varying degrees those in the layers around them share those feelings and beliefs. When push comes to shove they will throw their support behind those who can advance those beliefs.

The concept of freedom from coercion by government is alien to these minds. As long as they can see someone else hurt they are content. As long as they can impose their morality on others they are proud. But heaven forbid anyone try to do the same to them!

In the end these are mean and petty people cut from the same cloth as all of history's tyrants. They feel no pity or kinship toward other humans, especially those who hold different beliefs. A rock has more rights than a hunter, animal trainer, breeder, or pet owner in their eyes. They are unmoved by the stories of the tears shed by those who lose their animal to an arbitrary law. "They shouldn't have had it in the first place."

Although they cloak themselves in claims of love, concern, and wanting to help, these people expose by their actions their callousness and lack of humanity. Those in the layers around them have varying degrees of this hardness, sometimes limited to small areas but there all the same.

The next time you find yourself thinking or saying, "those people" should not have or do something and you agree with a law to force them to give up a historic freedom or practice, ask yourself where that attitude came from. Odds are that it goes way back to something you were told/taught and never were adult enough to question the logic or consequence of it.

EVERY one of these AL/EL moves has bad consequences but only the most adult and logical can see it before it is too late.

Once a right is taken away it is never given back because it proved to be a bad idea.

Only a fight may win it again.


R. Rooney


A Philosophic Basis for the Animal Rights Movement

Or, if you thought animal rights is like a religion, you are closer to correct than you realize

By Tim Stoffel, September 2007

While laid up sick in bed, I took it upon myself to start reading some of the works of the great Christian philosopher Francis A. Schaeffer. In his first two books, The God Who Is There and Escape From Reason, Schaeffer lays out the philosophical underpinnings of many of the moral and spiritual worldviews that are in use today. Although his application of these principles was in an overtly Christian context, a number of things stood out to me that have immediate application in understanding the animal rights movement, and why it has become 'religiously radical'.
Even if you are not a believer in the Christian faith, I urge you to read this with an open mind, as the events described here take place in a society that had long been deeply influenced by social principles and norms derived from Christianity. You may be able to see that Christianity is not the only religion that these 'new' philosophical ideas have altered. And for those of you who are familiar with these philosophies, you will see that I have greatly simplified them to avoid inundating the reader with a lot of complex details.

To begin this journey, we must travel back to the early part of the late Middle Ages. Up to this time, a strong Christian religious belief permeated society. So strong was this belief system that everything was affected by it-- art, culture, philosophy, and people's everyday life. Although it could be said that your religious beliefs should thoroughly permeate you as an individual, it could be argued at this time, that the Church had gone too far. So powerful was the influence of this belief system that art of that period had grotesquely distorted proportions to represent 'holy' and 'less than holy'. Even the 'holy' entities were represented more-or-less symbolically.

The theologian Thomas Aquinas saw things differently. He saw that in the process of emphasizing the Holy entities, much of creation was in effect, being ignored. So, he suggested a new philosophy that put more emphasis on the natural world. After all, that too, was God's handiwork. Little did Aquinas realize that he was actually planting the seeds of the Renaissance.

From the time of Aquinas until the Renaissance, this interest in nature (and man) continued to grow until it balanced out, or perhaps more than balanced out the influence of the church. People started enjoying nature for its own sake and beauty.
Although this 'return to nature' heavily influenced philosophy, the Christian values of 'absolutes' continued to be the main controlling factor. This principle of absolutes (If X is right, then the opposite of X must be wrong) was so ingrained that one even gave a serious thought that there may be another way to look at truth.

This all started to change in the late 1800's. An alternate philosophy, one not based on absolutes was hinted at by Immanuel Kant, and then developed by the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Frederic Hegel. This philosophy was instead based on coming up with a new idea by considering the merits of an old idea and it's opposite. This new idea in turn became the basis for another round of comparisons. Thus, the whole system had no real absolute reference, but gradually built on its own thought. This kind of philosophical thinking is sometimes called a 'dialectic'. This idea of a dialectic was the biggest change in philosophy to happen in 2,000 years.

As a result of a loss of an absolute frame of reference, a number of new ideas started to emerge from philosophers. These ideas would go on to have a profound effect on our world, as we shall see a bit later. These ideas included:

NO ABSOLUTES – This is the underpinning idea of the whole dialectic concept. Since there was no longer an absolute frame of reference, there were no ideas or activities that were absolutely wrong-- or absolutely right, either.

NO GOOD OR EVIL – As an important extension of the idea of 'no absolutes', there was no real distinction between good and evil, either. Thus a murderer, for instance, would be on the same philosophical footing as their victim.

A DEVALUATION OF MAN – One of the surprising outcomes of this new thinking was a view that mankind is nothing special in this world. Man could be no more or less important than a rock, a plant or an animal.

A SENSE OF HOPELESSNESS – People found that these ideas, although they seemed to give them a lot more freedom in how they could act, were utterly devoid of hope. Despite this, people were reluctant to give up this new freedom, simply because they were free of restraint. Instead, they would try things that were farther and farther from the old social norm to try and find some sort of meaning to life. This would eventually lead to the use of drugs, etc.

A UNIFORM CULTURE – Cultural norms were shifted by this new philosophy to the end that culture would become uniform-- everyone would hold the same views on every subject. This can also result in a suppression of freedom of expression. Maybe this is one of the reasons that some modern liberals, in discussing their ideas with others, cannot figure out why other people do not automatically agree with them.

A LOSS OF MEANING – Because of the loss of absolutism, 'absolute' concepts started to become shells of their former self. Many terms used in religion that had deep meaning previously were manipulated to have any meaning (or no meaning) the philosopher wanted to assign to them. Yet, the words continue to be used because they tend to attract attention. Many, if not most people at least vaguely understand what they used to mean.

The astute reader may already recognize where these thought patterns are leading us.

At first, this thought pattern remained with the company of philosophers. But with philosophy being the basis of the arts, it started to show up in art, especially painting. The impressionist movement, and what follows is the first place where average people began to be exposed to these new philosophies. Painters like Van Gogh and Picasso were heavily influenced by these ideas. It was also about this time that there started to be an interest in some facets of society in enhancing animal welfare, an idea that up to that time had not been given much thought. (The urbanization of America was not helping matters, either.)

About this time, another important philosophical branch of our society began to be affected by this concept of a dialectic, the government. Among the most philosophical of our government is the legal system, and it was here that we can really see a major shift in thinking. Starting sometime early in this century, the courts shifted away from the classic ideas of 'right and wrong' and started to move towards the concept of 'precedent'. With no absolute standard to return to, a bad court decision in the wrong place at the wrong time could set a 'precedent' that future judges would follow almost lock-step. When an idea like this was finally exposed for what it really is, the precedent could be overturned and a new precedent set. You can see how this would set the entire legal system 'adrift' to reflect changing values, rather than the fundamental values laid down by our founding fathers.

From painting and literature, this idea of a dialectic started to influence music, resulting in our often distressing modern art music. Visual arts were affected next, and these principles are easily seen in many of today's films. Especially in the films the film critics love the most! (The critics, too have been influenced by the 'new dialectic'.)
Finally, this thought pattern returned to the church. Surprisingly, there was little resistance to it, because it tended to create a church that was more 'human', or 'humane' if you please. The concept of a God with fixed moral standards came to be replaced by a God who was more interested in the human condition, whatever that may be. Like the legal system, thought in the church soon 'went adrift'. Ideas that were considered abominations a few decades back were now welcome with open arms. This shift would end up being important to the animal rights movement.

Little by little this new thought process soon permeated society as we know it. The devaluing of human life has brought with it some really terrible things. The holocaust, and all the 'ethnic cleansings' that have followed are good examples. So is the concept of abortion on demand. (There have been some steps forwards during this time as well, such as the civil rights movement.)  As the years went by, this devaluing of human life had an interesting anti-parallel-- a revaluing of nature in general, and for the purpose of this discussion, animals. This was helped greatly by a growing realization that were systematically destroying the earth.

Although the damage to the earth's ecosystems is clearly shown by reasonably objective science, the message has not reached as far as it should. More importantly, in the eyes of a few, it falls far short of reaching the people of the world. So, from this you start to see the emergence of the environmental movement. Although there are many legitimate groups working to improve environmental awareness, there is a minority that have taken a militant stand on these issues. These people are the ones that have bought into the 'new dialectic' idea entirely. A subset of this movement, but one that is a bit separate from the environmental movement is animal rights. Animal rights is an outgrowth of a legitimate concern for animal welfare, just as the environmental extremists are an outgrowth of groups generally promoting environmental awareness.

In 1954, a new animal welfare group formed, called the Humane Society of the United States, or HSUS for short. Its founders were leaders from the church. Some of these people were from the new, 'more humane' churches where the traditional views on owning and using animals had begun to 'drift', just as had everything else touched by the principle of the 'new dialectic'. Like any of these sorts of things, there were some areas of our society that clearly needed to treat animals more humanely, and this gave the new HSUS purpose.

But starting about 1980, there was a sharp shift in the thinking of the HSUS. Instead of promoting animal welfare, they started to promote animal rights. This happened about the time that other animal rights groups were starting to become prominent. Chief among them is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and the Animal Protection Institute (API). (There are many others now.) Animal rights falls right down the lines of the 'new philosophy of dialectic'. It equates man on a par with, or even below animals-- mankind has been devalued. Most of these groups are not afraid to twist the truth to their own end when they need to. This shows a departure from the absolutism that prevailed before. To them the truth is 'whatever is convenient for the cause at the moment'. It started to use religious terminology in an an overtly perverted way. A good example of this is PETA claiming that 'Jesus was a vegetarian', even though the bible clearly shows that He was not a vegetarian. Thus, they have devalued the meaning of the religious name/term 'Jesus'.

Last but not least, the concept that there is no difference between good and evil is really beginning to permeate the animal rights movement. A segment of these people have gone so far to believe that any action is justified in the furtherance of their cause. This typified by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the closely related environmental group the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). These groups believe that violence is justified in promoting their cause. So far is their slide into the new dialectic, that some of these groups vociferously protested a new law making such violence illegal, believing that had a right to use violence to promote their cause. And as time goes by, they are edging closer and closer to really heinous crimes, and have recently started to directly threaten people's lives.

So as you can see, the animal rights movement is a dangerous mix of thought and twisted religious principles. They have lost the ability to truly discern what is right or wrong, replacing it with their own concept of 'right' and 'wrong'. When they make statements like Ingrid Newkirk did equating a rat with a human, you can see how far into the new dialectic their thinking has gone. The fervor that these groups pursue their ideas can only be described is a 'religious fervor' Some people may choose to use the term 'Jihad' or 'cult'. Many of the animal rights groups meet the current definition of a 'religion' rather nicely.

So, in lieu of the small likelihood of society returning to its absolutist philosophic roots, there is a real need to see the animal rights people recognized as a new religion. And as a religion, they have to conform to the legal standards of a religion to be able to 'play' in this society. These are the same rules (which descend from the new dialectic) that limit how much influence the Christian church or any other religious entity can have on influencing or shaping our laws. In the end, this may be the only thing that will stop the animal rights movement from their relentless march to rid society of animals.

Tim Stoffel enjoys working with African lions and other big cats. He is a strong believer in our right to responsibly own the animals of our choice. You can reach Tim at or visit his website

Click on this link for one of the best primers to why property rights are critical to freedom


This is Molly. Look into her eyes.  She is beautiful, even sad.  Maybe she knows what her fate might be.

Molly's owner in Aurora, Colorado needs to give her up, in fact he said he would dump her in the shelter.

And if Molly ends up in the shelter, there's no doubt she'll go out the door in a body bag.

For many dogs like Molly, shelters are like a Roach Motel  -

And you  can thank HSUS and PETA for that................

wvery fiOh- what's that - you DIDN'T know that PETA thinks that every pitbull in every shelter needs to be euthanized to make room more more adoptable dogs?

Are you saying you DIDN'T know that HSUS consistently paints pitbull owners as dog fighters, crack heads and criminals, and pushes breed-specific legislation behind your back?

You're telling me that you didn't know that the two largest "animal protection" organizations that rake in MILLIONS don't operate a single shelter NOR do the fund any shelters on the local level?

Next I guess you'll tell me you didn't know that HSUS and PETA  publicly advocate for policies that will make sure that Molly ends up DEAD?

Pitching Pitbull Hysteria

Don't worry - I was once naive too, just like you.  Here's what I can tell you.

I started writing this blog just over two years ago.  We owned a rescued Greyhound and two rescued cats.

Then I found Zsa Zsa on the streets of Newark.  Zsa Zsa, of course, turned out to be a pitbull, and that's when I tumbled down into the rabbit hole of breed bans and breed specific legislation.

My social standing on my block also tumbled.  The doctors and lawyers who were and still are my neigbors, used to greet us warmly as we walked Cleo - a tall, sleek, elegant Greyhound. When it came to Zsa Zsa, they then sneered - "Is that a pitbull"? 

The doctor across the street - a physician in public health -  accused me of deliberately endangering the children on our block by even owning such a dog.  "How DARE you bring THAT dog here!" (He's still a snot).   That's how it all began.

Working in marketing - I wondered where did all this hate and fear come from? Where did the public AND the media get their information from?  What was the source of all the media hysteria that consistently fed the fear and loathing of pitbulls and their owners?

Driving Fear-Mongering & Media

Since I analyze media strategy for a living, I whipped out my trusty databases, and for two years tracked keywords in news items and press releases  - and BOOM.  There it was.

Over and over and over and over "Pitbulls are the dogs of choice of drug dealers and gang members". 

Fortunately, Ingrid Newkird is a press slut.  And fortunately HSUS , Wayne Pacell and his dogfighting czar, John Goodwin, never met a paper or TV station they didn't like.

In analyzing every article about pitbulls, dog bites, and dog fighting in which HSUS and PETA are quoted, they share the exact same messsage points - over and over and over and over,  "Pitbulls are the dogs of choice of drug dealers and gang members".   

And all that anti-pitbull sentiment from Nancy Grace and other so-called journalists?  Thank GAWD Nancy and other "news" organization have HSUS as that invaluable resource for dog-fighting footage.

That way - whenever there's a dog bite or fatality - Nancy Grace can replay dogfighting clips in the upper corner of her screen, while she's busy sneering at anyone who would own a pitbull.

Let's not even touch upon the fact that dogfights have NOTHING to do with dog bites. NOTHING. But that''s the magic of spin.

The Fire Starters

HSUS is happy in their work, I can tell.  Pitching anti-pitbull stories, mixing dog fights with dog bites. And ya gotta give HSUS big snaps - they are are good at getting media placements - a lean and mean marketing machine.

In fact, HSUS can set any issue on fire in the press.  Wayne Pacelle and John Goodwin, and their "issues specialist" Adam Goldfarb  are like media arsonists - dousing gasoline onto any dog-related situation, lighting the match, and standing back and watching the flames with glee. 

But never fear - HSUS will rush in with a fireman's hat on promising to put out the fire (with their anti-dog, anti-pitbull legislative solutions, of course).

Now - lest I forget Ingrid, let's talk about that self-annointed "press slut".  Busy telling people that animals are not ours to wear or eat - in otherwords - kill - Ingrid is actually OK with all that killing.  That's right, but just as long as PETA is the one that get's to kill, or at least recommend it.

Last year, PETA and their Angels Of Death were busy combing the hills of poor, rural counties in North Carolina, deceiving animal owners and shelters bypromising new homes for the animals - all the while adminstering liquid kindess in a needle and dumping the carcasses in the trash behind the Piggly Wiggly.

ANd let's not forget they have their own storage locker at PETA headquarters to make room for all the dead bodies, since they kill about 90% of all the animals they collect.

Not only does IngridNewkirk  thinks that all pitbulls in shelters should be euthanized, PETA sends letters to local officials advocating for breed bans. You can download one of the letters here: Download PETAWantsPitbullsBanned.pdf

Two years later, I've come to realize that the very people and organizations I thought were in the fight against BSL - breed-specific legislation -  are actually the very people who support BSL.

And of couse PETA and HSUS will beg for money from all of you, never mind that the money goes to marketing programs and legislation that actually help KILL animals, not save them - especially pitbulls.

HSUS & PETA use slick marketing programs and push for legislation that create the condistions whereby dogs are dumped in shelters, and push euthanasia rates up.

Trashing The Competition

RedemtionnathanwinogradIn fact, I hear that PETA, HSUS and even the ASPCA were critical of Nathan Winograd - the founder of the No-Kill Movement - in a recent USA Today article. They had the nerve to call No-Kill a failure.

Or -  is it may that they're worried what Mr. Winograd has to say in his soon-to-be-released book entitled, Redemption - The Myth Of Pet Overpupulation and The No Kill Revolution In America.

Apparently, Nathan Winograd, like myself, takes exception to the message points put out by PETA & HSUS.  And while I have never met Mr. Winograd - we certainly do share the same sentiments about PETA & HSUS and we both think that we must stop the killing of innocent animals.

OK - so back to Molly, and why PETA & HSUS is killing her with kindness.

The Killer Marketing Campaign

Molly needs a home.  Her owner's mother wants him to get rid of her  - would that be because of pitbull hysteria?  If so - you can thank HSUS's killer marketing efforts.

Now Molly's owner has to get rid of her but he lives in a town where there's a breed ban - Aurora, CO.   Again - you can thank HSUS and PETA  for their support of breed bans and other breed-specific policies.

Now  unfortunately since there are soooooo many towns near Aurora that also have breed bans, and pretty much anyone willing to adopt Molly can't.  Thank you HSUS and PETA once again for your overt and convert support of breed bans and your momumental efforts to disparage pitbulls and their owners, which in turn lead to anti-pitbull publi policy.

Now I hear Molly's owner is now desperate and will take her to the shelter, but guess what?  Molly won;t have a chance and will be euthanized pretty much right away, since pitbulls are basically unadoptable in that area.

Thank you PETA & HSUS.  Thank you Wayne Pacelle and Ingrid Newkirk for all that you do in the name of kindness. 

Thank you for killing Molly with kindness.


I find it so interesting that so few are willing to publicly comment on any stories or essays critial of PETA or HSUS.  The silence is deafening.  Continued silence is complicit with killing more innocent animals. Speak up NOW!


I strongly oppose AB 1634 and any future effort to mandate neutering and spaying of dogs and cats statewide.  I strongly opposed SB 861 and all breed specific legislation. While I share these beliefs with the builders of this site, neither I, nor any of the organizations with which I have been affiliated, in any way, shape or form, would support or endorse a Referendum, Initiative, or Model Ordinance.   I have had almost twenty years of experience in fighting averse dog and cat ordinances. Those of us who have been in this fight for all these years know that this is not the correct path to take.  To continue down this path would be to put a serious rift in the group that opposes AB 1634, where continued unity and togetherness is so important to ultimate victory.  Therefore, I cannot advise you strongly enough to drop the referendum idea.







Several years ago I came across the following definition in an old (1980) edition of William Safire’s Political Dictionary, subtitled the New Language of Politics:


BIG LIE:  a  falsehood of such magnitude and audacity that it is bound to have an effect on public opinion even if it is not given credence by a majority; a propaganda technique identified with Adolph Hitler.


Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:  “The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad.  The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones.


Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most impudent lies, a fact which all bodies and individuals concerned with the art of lying in this world know only too well, and hence they stop at nothing to achieve this end.”


The discussion went on to cover the McCarthy era hearings and the lies perpetrated by them.  What does all of that have to do with AB 1634?   The rationale for this misguided proposal is based on false and misleading figures.   Can I provide you with correct figures?  No.   No one can, but, the proponents of this bill are making false and misleading claims because reporting on euthanasia and shelter surrenders is neither accurate nor complete in this state where there is no standardized or uniform reporting from each shelter in the state.  Those of us who have been observing these figures over time see, even with the inaccurate and incomplete data, a steady downward drop in euthanasia and in shelter surrender, even though the human population has risen precipitously over the past three decades.   We also know that several districts, beginning with San Francisco, which paved the way, have achieved a no kill goal without any adverse dog and cat legislation, whatsoever.  


Richard Avanzino, whose innovative and marvelous ideas led to this breakthrough, has since left and moved on to administer the Duffield Foundation’s Maddie’s Fund, which helps poorer districts replicate this by providing advice and funds with the qualifying proviso that there must be no adverse dog /cat legislation in that district.   Passage of AB 1634 would effectively cut off those funds.  The secret to Avanzino’s success lay in free and reduced cost neutering and spaying for dogs, cats and feral cats as well as lots of public education.   He was neither judgmental nor confrontational, and this attitude and willingness to work with all factions (animal welfare and animal rights) of the pet world set the tone at the SF SPCA, resulting in record amounts of donations in both volunteer hours and in monetary contributions.  He formed a partnership with the public, rather than setting up an adversarial role, as most adverse dog and cat legislation is apt to do.  His example, not that of Santa Cruz, the single district that passed a mandatory s/n law, is the one we should all be emulating.


The Big Lie is that there is no statewide pet overpopulation problem in this state. 


There are some districts that have not yet reached no kill that have local pet population problems, and in all of them the numbers of adoptable dogs and cats that are euthanized are going down without adverse legislation.   Notice, I said “adoptable dogs and cats,” because those are really the only ones we should be counting.   There will always be euthanasia because there will always be animals too old, too sick or too vicious to be placed in a family home environment, and there will always be owner surrendered animals.


The exaggerated, inflated, and fabricated numbers of animals put to sleep is not something new.   It has been going on for many years, now – in fact, since 1990. The original San Mateo proposal was just such an outrageous attempt at change with its complete moratorium on breeding to be followed by mandatory neutering and spaying of each and every dog and cat (with no exceptions), as well as to make it illegal to transport animals for the purposes of breeding.  This  1990 proposal was made in San Mateo County, and the County Supervisor, Tom Nolan, and Peninsula Humane Society (PHS) Director, Kim Sturla, posed for T.V. cameras in front of barrels of dead dogs and cats with paws and tails grotesquely hanging over the barrels.  They claimed that 10,000 animals were being euthanized yearly.   Fortunately, no action was taken, and two task forces were formed that met regularly.   I monitored one of them.   “Where did that figure of 10,000 come from,” we asked?  After getting the requested breakdown of the 10,000 figure, we discovered that when the unadoptable animals were eliminated, 650 adoptable dogs had been euthanized.   Today that figure has been reduced to zero in San Mateo County, and without mandatory n/s laws. 


So, what about the claims of the proponents of AB 1634?   First of all, this is not a statewide problem and is not in need of statewide solution because one size does not fit all.   The Big Lie is being used to try to convince law makers that it is a problem, and we can prove this unequivocally, and without playing our opponents’ “numbers game.”


Fact:  Shelter euthanasia has been going down statewide, even in the worst areas. 

Testimonial Truth:  In the City of Los Angeles at a recent public meeting (May 2, 2007) the following was revealed in a report to the Public Safety Committee: 


“Since 2000, ASD has reduced the euthanasia rate by 20 percent using licensing incentives, promoting adoption programs and strengthening alliances with the animal rescue community. In addition, ASD has reduced the number of impounds by a similar percentage through aggressive voluntary spay/neuter programs.”


From Assemblywoman Shirley Horton from San Diego County:  The primary reason I opposed AB 1634 is because it is overreaching.  For example, about 7 years ago, San Diego County adopted a voluntary spay/neuter program with education as a centerpiece.  They had the chance to adopt the Los Angeles model, which was very similar to what AB 1634 does, but they chose to take the less forceful, voluntary route.  This has, in fact, reduced the euthanasia of adoptable pets by 100% and is one of the most effective programs in the state.


Supply and Demand Proof:  The numbers of adoptable dogs, especially the medium, small and toy sized dogs, in many district shelters have been reduced so much that the demand far exceeds the supply, forcing shelters like Animal Care & Control in San Francisco to send employees to the Central Valley shelters to find and bring back adoptable dogs.  Some shelters and some prospective owners have even gone so far as to import these dogs off the streets of Mexico and Asian countries, all without health inspections.  Sickly dogs have been reported imported from Eastern European countries, too.   


Yet, the hobby breeder, who will be most adversely affected by this bill, is the least responsible for dogs and cats winding up in shelters.  A responsible breeder checks out the home of the prospective buyer before selling a dog and always is willing to take the dog back if things don’t work out.  The irresponsible breeder probably is one who does not license a dog (less than 20% of dog owners buy licenses) and undoubtedly won’t follow this law, either.   The tariff on each intact dog will not only raise the cost of these dogs to the average buyer, but will make it impossible for many breeders to keep extra intact dogs to preserve the gene pool.  It will result in more breeding of closely related specimens with more genetic diseases as a result.   Some of the rarer breeds will probably disappear.  Epidemiological studies in 4 major universities, including U.C. Davis, have shown that hobby breeders are the least likely source of shelter surrenders.  They also provide a setting where a buyer can inspect the source (sire, dam and breeder) of a prospective puppy and check on its genetic background and its early socialization.


AB 1634 does not begin to address the feral cat problem, which in San Francisco was much improved by a policy of aiding the feral cat caretakers by providing free cat fixes to ferals that were brought in to the shelter.   These cats are then placed back in the colony, which keeps other ferals from moving in, and which stabilizes and eventually reduces the size of the colony.  In all probability (without complete data), feral cats are the single largest number of animals being euthanized, and these are all without owners.


So, even without accurate reporting figures, we can accurately state that the proponents of AB 1634 have been perpetuating the Big Lie that has been part of their propaganda since 1990.  We know that the ultimate aim of the Animal Rights groups is the complete elimination of purebred dogs and pedigree cats through the elimination of breeding of these species.  This bill goes a long way towards that goal. I still remember the chilling sight of a young man in his twenties sitting in the front row at one of the hearings in San Mateo in 1990 wearing a tee shirt with the letters “ALF” emblazoned on it.


AB 1634 is also draconian and outrageously manipulative, as was the similar proposal in San Mateo in 1990 which frightened hobbyists and breeders into seeking compromise.  Social scientists in the mass communications field have found that the size of a requested opinion or behavior change is important to the degree of change effected.  Herbert Adelson, of Opinion Research Corporation observes:  “The more extreme the opinion change that the communicator asks for, the more actual change he is likely to get…”  In other words if you want to produce a change, the more outrageous or extreme the requested change, the more likely you are to get it.  The original San Mateo proposal was just such an outrageous attempt at change because some who opposed the mandatory n/s proposal thought that compromise of a lesser sort would help prevent the original proposal from being adopted.  And, so the unincorporated part of San Mateo County got an ordinance that included breeders licensing, something that would have had little or no chance of passing had it been the original proposal.


John Hamil, DVM, a past president of the California Veterinary Medical Association, founder of the California Council of Companion Animal Advocates that sponsored biannual Pet Overpopulation Symposia (now the Animal Care Conference), member of the American Veterinary Medical Association Animal Welfare Committee and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, author of the CVMA and AVMA positions on early spay/neuter, is undoubtedly the leading authority on this subject.   The following quotes are made with his permission and should effectively debunk the proponents’ propaganda, adding considerable weight to the list of proofs cited above. He has stated that “The number of animals being euthanized in California shelters has dropped steadily for more than two decades despite the continuous population increase in families with pets.  Importantly, the numbers continue to drop faster in shelters that are in jurisdictions that do not have mandatory spay/neuter.”


He further states:  “The  majority of dogs euthanized are medium to large mixed breed individuals …… belonging to irresponsible owners who are hard to identify and who will never comply with this law and are noncompliant with  many other community laws. The number of young, healthy, well socialized, adoptable animals euthanized is much smaller than the humane and sheltering community has claimed.


The number of animals euthanized continues to decline each year and varies greatly from area to area within the state.

Why do we need a coercive, punitive and intrusive "broad brush" state law, when this is clearly a local issue?”


And the answer to that last question is a resounding   We do not need such a law.   It is totally unnecessary.


One of the more preposterous claims is that it will reduce the costs of shelters and to the public throughout the state.  Dr. Hamil effectively debunks this spurious argument:


“Even if it was possible to ‘turn off the faucet’, as Assemblyman Levine likes to say; there would be little reduction in the cost of shelter operation.


As hospital owners know, most costs are fixed (facilities, administration, trucks, equipment, etc.) The shelter can't even reduce staff as we can in private business. Unfortunately, a reduction in the numbers of animals entering the shelter will only effect a small reduction in the overall cost to the taxpayer. This is demonstrated by the steady increase in animal control budgets over the last two decades despite the number of animals entering the shelters and the number of animals euthanized decreasing significantly.

The method of accounting, linking the overall cost of animal control to the number of animals euthanized, exploited by the sponsors of this bill is very misleading. Using this method, the cost of each euthanasia goes up as the number of euthanized animals goes down. The use of this tactic is dishonest, disingenuous or, at best, misinformed.”


They would also have us believe that this would save the state millions of dollars because of reduced euthanasia.   Not so.  The animal control shelters and pounds would not close their doors.   Euthanasia is a miniscule cost in the overall picture of animal rescues, rabies checks, animal abuse, dog fighting, reuniting pets with owners, etc. that animal control officers engage in every day.


It is time to set the record straight and to tell the truth .The truth is that there is a pet population problem in some parts of this state, but not statewide.  The truth is that those areas having problems should emulate the techniques and efforts made in the successful areas, and perhaps the state should contribute money to assist with more public education and more low cost and free spay and neuter clinics in those areas having problems.  


A special aside to Democrats, many of whom seem to support this bill:  The truth is that the public is tired of big lies, whether they be about mushroom clouds, W.M.D.’s and other false reasons for going to war, or about a supposed pet overpopulation problem and use of propaganda, based upon inflated, incomplete and inaccurate data.   Dog and cat owners come in all sizes and belong to all political parties.  We are united in our desire to see the truth prevail.  We are tired of propaganda and spin, and we will cross party lines, if needs be to vote against those who propagate it.  Every poll I have seen shows that the public overwhelmingly opposes this overly intrusive bill.   If it were brought to a vote in this state, it would most certainly go down to defeat.  We should be able to count on our elected representatives not to perpetuate the Big Lie and not to enact such an unpopular and unjust law.






Dr. Ronald E. Cole


Member Board of Directors San Francisco Dog Training Club

Member Board of Directors The Animal Council (TAC)

Member and former Vice President & Chair of Legislative and Legal Affairs Committee of the American Dog Owners Association



"Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt
to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and
direct behavior to achieve a response that
furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. "
Source: Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell,
Propaganda And Persuasion, 4th edition, 2006.

A Rhetorical Analysis of  "Animal Rights Uncompromised:
   There's No Such Thing as a 'Responsible Breeder'"

By Sandy Jordan, Ph.D.

Let's take a look at the rhetorical strategies of
PETA's propaganda, and how the language is used
to deceive the public into giving up their money
to a cause that may not be what it presents itself to be.

    Animal Rights Uncompromised:
    There's No Such Thing as a 'Responsible Breeder'

The title is uncompromising, and without
qualifiers.  Not "most' breeders, or "some," but
every single breeder who ever existed.  We know
the law of averages nullifies any absolute
statement like this.  Absolutes are used by
persons who are not willing to admit any other
point of view than their own.  We should as
adults realize that there is never any single
perspective from which to view a problem.

"No such thing" allows no margin for any
responsible breeder, anywhere, to exist.  Since
those who know the purpose and responsibility of
breeders know that they breed genetic imbalances
OUT of stock, this takes advantage of those who
don't understand things like why white cats are
often deaf, or collies have eye problems.  If you
don't understand the biological reasons for these
things, it is easy to posit them in the realm of
mythology, as in "ALL white cats are deaf," and
"pit bulls are ALWAYS vicious."

What this is saying, literally, is that there is
no such thing as responsible BREEDING.  But by
saying "breeder," it assumes an accusatory stance
towards those who breed to improve and strengthen
stock as well as those who truly are careless
about what animals they breed.  Therefore, a
negative attitude and suspicion is cast upon
everyone who has ever gotten a pup out of two dogs of the same breed.

    Most people know to avoid puppy mills and "backyard" breeders. But
    kind individuals fall prey to the picket-fence appeal of so-called
   "responsible" breeders and fail to recognize that no matter how
kindly a
    breeder treats his or her animals, as long as dogs and cats are
dying in
    animal shelters and pounds because of a lack of homes, no breeding
    be considered "responsible. "

By using the term "kind individuals, " and the
image of "picket fences," the author is hoping to
connect the audience, who is reading this article
because of their interest and (presumably)
affection for animals, with what is actually a
condescending term, like "well-meaning. "  Placing
the word "responsible" in quotation marks
suggests it means the opposite of what it
says.  ("So-called" would have done the job as
well.)  It is an attempt to play on the
conscience of the reader the way late night
infomercials play on the sympathy of parents by
showing starving children in Africa.  The
implication is that if your children are
well-fed, you should feel guilty that others are
going hungry. ("Eat your liver; children are
starving in Africa.")  There is simply no logical
connection between these two things.  It is an
attempt to make people feel guilty, to use pathos
to wring dollars from the "kind individuals" who
can be convinced that if they don't give money,
this puppy will be killed.  It's much like the
old magazine cover that had the picture of a cute
dog on the cover with a revolver at its head, and
the caption, "If you don't buy this magazine, we'll shoot this dog."

"No breeding can be considered 'responsible' " is
the actual thesis of the essay.  But first the
reader has to be convinced that they are in a
position to ease the suffering of dying cats and
dogs by accepting these animals into their
households WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT.  It is false logic.

    All breeders fuel the companion animal overpopulation crisis, and
    time someone purchases a puppy or a kitten instead of adopting from
    animal shelter, homeless animals lose their chance of finding a
    will be euthanized.

Again, this sounds logical on the surface, but
examine the statement's implications.  What about
all the orphans in the United States?  Every time
you have a child, you are stealing a home from
one of these orphans? Technically, this could be
true.  It's analogous to the spiritual belief
that we should give away our belongings to those
who need them more than we do.  Some agree with
this, some do not.  But no one should be able to
force us to follow a belief system to which we do
not ascribe.  This is yet another way to try to
forcibly milk human kindness from a
bull.  Orphans will not die if we don't adopt
them.  Neither will most shelter puppies and
kittens, because they are usually in great demand.

Shelter animals are spayed or neutered, by the
way.  So if everyone just adopted an animal, the
dog and cat species could be exterminated from
America--in theory.  But the author does not want
the audience to follow the thesis through to its
logical conclusion.  The article depends almost
entirely on one false premise and heavy use of emotional language.

Many breeders don't require every puppy or kitten to
   be spayed or neutered prior to purchase, so the animals they sell
   soon have litters of their own, creating even more animals to fill
    that could have gone to shelter animals-or who will end up in
    shelters or so-called "no-kill" animal warehouses themselves.

This is a revelation of one of the
true  intentions of the article, which is to
chastise breeders for not being forced to spay or
neuter animals according to  the author's  belief
system that we should eliminate all pet
companions.  The fact is, if a cat or dog is not
neutered when sold, its price usually places it
among one of the more valued possessions of the
owner, so random breedings are unlikely.  The
puppies or kittens of these valuable animals will
also be sold to those more likely to care for
them than someone who gets a puppy or kitten for nothing.

Most newspapers recognize this, and advise people
to not advertise puppies or kittens for free,
because people tend to not value these pets as
much as they do purebred animals.  Go to any
vet's office and count the number of purebreds
taken there for care as opposed to the number of
mixed breeds.  People tend to care for their
valued possessions (and beloved companions) if they pay more for them.

    put, for every puppy or kitten who is deliberately produced by any
    breeder, a shelter animal dies.

This is a nifty way to scream at the reader
"MURDERER!" if they get a purebred puppy or
kitten.  It is absolutely ridiculous to even
consider this statement as fact.  It tries to
implant in the reader's mind that for every well
bred puppy they buy, something must die.  Note
they say "shelter animal."  So if I buy a Borzoi
puppy from a breeder, an adoptable horse will die?    This premise is

At this point the author openly  reveals her
accusations:  It is YOUR fault all these animals
are in shelters.  No, you never bred a puppy or
kitten, you never let your dog out of your fenced
yard, you never dumped a dog or gave one up, and
yet it is YOUR FAULT that these animals suffer
and die, because you wanted a puppy that would
grow up to be the size your family could handle,
or the breed your grandfather raised, your
parents raised, and you hope to continue to raise.  Shame, shame,

   Producing animals for sale is a greedy
    and callous business in a world where there is a critical and
   shortage of good homes for dogs, cats, and other animals, and the
    "responsible breeders" are ones who, upon learning about their
   contribution to the overpopulation crisis, spay or neuter their
    and get out of the business altogether.

Off with the kid gloves!  Breeders are greedy and
callous people. The Monks of New Skete, who
produce the occasional litter of carefully bred
German Shepherd are greedy and callous.  The
raisers of certain strains of Labradors and
Golden Retrievers for service dogs are greedy and callous.

The author simply allows no room for logic, for
choice, for common sense.  Breeders, to the
author, are evil, callous, greedy, and
irresponsible.  Some probably are, many certainly
are not.  The reader at this point may be
squirming, but if they look closely at this
inflammatory rhetoric, they'll realize how hard
the author is pushing this agenda.

Is it because the author is so concerned with the
welfare of animals?  Much could be forgiven if
this author was indeed "well-meaning. "  But there
is always a bottom line agenda for people with
this much passion and bile, and it usually boils
down to one of two things:  power, or money.  So
look very carefully to see if at the end
somewhere this author is trying to get the
audience to reach in their pockets and give up
some money.  He or she is obviously trying to
wring something other than emotion from the audience….

    Breeding Trouble

   Producing more animals-either to make money or to obtain a certain
    "look" or characteristic- is also harmful to the animals who are
   by breeding.

Let's have a look at this rhetoric, given the clever title, "Breeding

Dogs and cats don't care whether their physical appearance
    conforms to a judge's standards, yet they are the ones who suffer
    consequences of humans' manipulation. Inbreeding causes painful and
    life-threatening genetic defects in "purebred" dogs and cats,
    crippling hip dysplasia, blindness, deafness, heart defects, skin
    problems, and epilepsy.

First, although the statement is probably true,
we have no way of knowing what dogs and cats care
about.  Many people have reported anecdotal
evidence that their dogs recognize their own
breed.  Using the word "manipulation" denotes
something negative and bad, and "distorting"
(below) echoes this subliminal message that
breeders are manipulative and twist animals like
clowns shaping balloons­as if Nature had not been
doing this for millions of years.  The dog has
been called the most "plastic" of all mammals,
which is in part why it has been such a
successful species.  If people didn't do it,
climate and environmental changes would.  That's
why the fox and the wolf and the wild dogs of
Africa are so different in shape, size, and temperament.

Distorting animals for specific physical
    features also causes severe health problems. The short, pushed-up
    of bulldogs and pugs, for example, can make exercise and even
   breathing difficult for these animals. Dachshunds' long spinal
   often cause back problems, including disk disease.

The breeding of these animals for dog shows may
indeed cause deformities that affect the health
of individual animals. This is true and should be
addressed BY BREEDERS.  Dachshunds have been bred
for going down holes after vermin, an example of
many breeds that have been shaped to serve the
needs of human beings for utilitarian
purposes.  These were selected long before the
dogs were shown, for utilitarian purposes.  Show
animals are indeed stretched beyond function in
many cases.  The only thing that can restore them
to their previous heath and vigor are intelligent, careful, planned

    Adoption: The Only Compassionate Option

   There is no excuse for breeding or for supporting breeders.

This makes the reader feel they are facing an
ultimatum.  But it is as illogical as saying,
"There is no case in which killing someone is
defensible."  It infers that any compassionate
human being could not possibly support a breeder
by buying a puppy.  The two things,
compassion/purebred puppies, are not mutually
exclusive terms.  But it forms the major
premise:  "All breeders are evil."  If this is
true, the conclusion is true.  If it is false, as
shown in the rebuttal, then the conclusion must
also be false. (see bottom of page)

   If you love
    animals and are ready to care for a cat or a dog for the rest of
    animal's life, please adopt from your local animal shelter, where
    are dogs and cats galore-tails wagging and hearts filled with hope,
   looking out through the cage bars, just waiting to find someone to

The imagery of this wrings the tender hearts of
animal lovers­lovely touch "tails wagging and
hearts filled with hope."  It really is
effective, imagining those poor animals behind
bars.  But the implication is that they are there
because YOU PUT THEM THERE by getting a purebred
pup is simply too far reaching to make
sense.  Unless you really did put them there, you
can be absolved of guilt for their sad little
faces.  And because there is so much truth to
this particular part of the propaganda­all
propaganda MUST have some basic truth to
it­there's nothing to keep people from adopting
an animal as a companion while at the same time raising purebreds.

Again,  it is absolutely false that the two things are mutually

    Shelters receive new animals every day, so if you don't find the
    companion to match your lifestyle on your first visit, keep
    back. When you find your new best friend, you'll be glad that you
    to save a life-and made a new best friend as well.

It would be very hard to find the perfect
companion if you had no idea what the puppy would
grow up to look like.  People base most life
decisions on looks.  Most of the time, we are
attracted to our life partners originally by the
way they look to us.  But the basic point here is
that many people want to start with a puppy
because their purpose is not to save a creature
from death row, laudable as that action would be,
but to find an animal that will more or less
perform the way they need it to in order for it
to adapt to their lifestyle.  Placid, quiet
people can't tell from a shelter encounter if
their dog will grow up to be a couch potato or an
obsessive herder, or a quiet dog that will match
their lifestyle.  Responsible breeders can give
them a much better chance of finding that
companion that is so satisfying they will not be
tempted to dump it at a shelter for turning out
to be too big, too wild, too lazy, etc.

"Save a life" is a very, very persuasive
lure.  What fish does the author hope to catch
with such powerful bait?  Power? Money?

    If you know anyone who is considering purchasing an animal instead
    adopting from a shelter, please forward this article to them, and
    consider making a donation today to support PETA's vital work to
save lives.

Ahhhhh….Translated, this means "GIVE US
MONEY."  As previously mentioned,  the object of
propaganda is to get the audience to do something
that serves the agenda of the author, couched in
language that will use the most tender mercies of
that audience to fork over some cash.

Whenever ANY letter ends in a plea for money, it
should be read and reread very carefully with a
great deal of suspicion.  Then, challenge the
statements, such as "PETA's vital work to save
lives," which can be checked out online.  Has
PETA ever saved an animal's
life?  When?  Where?  Ask questions.  Do they
have a facility where animals can be
adopted?  What else has been written about PETA,
not in blogs or opinion articles, but in
statistical facts that can be proven?  And
finally, if you are convinced that you should
give money, thoroughly investigate the shelter
you give money to.  Make sure it doesn't go to
lobbyists, advertising, or administration.


The fact is that purebred animals have been
around for thousands of years, not by accident,
but because people need different kinds of dogs
for different kinds of tasks.  Dog shows are
beauty contests that many breeders do not
participate in.  How successful the breeding for
tasks has been can be determined by performance
activities­animals breed true in mental
characteristics as well as in physical
conformation.  Some people, probably most, want a
dog as a companion animal, a family member.  For
this purpose a shelter animal is wonderful, and
saving its life, while incidental to the needs of
the adopter, still is a noble and kind thing to do.

But hunters want dogs to hunt and retrieve, the
blind need dogs of a certain size and temperament
to guide them, the police and military need dogs
with a certain size and drive, people who are
retired and live in apartments often need a tiny
dog that loves to be held and treated like a
baby.  Breeders attempt to provide these animals
by careful selection, and any breeder that wants
to continue with a good reputation is going to
try as hard as they can to breed out diseases and deformities of their

The article by PETA, simply translated, says that
you are a cruel, callous person lacking in all
compassion if you ever buy another purebred
puppy, and that for every puppy you buy, you are
murdering another puppy that is staring big-eyed
and sad from the bars of a shelter.

Don’t believe it.

------------ --------- ------

for the class:

major premise:  All breeders are evil.
minor premise:  Buying a purebred puppy makes you a supporter of
conclusion:  If you buy a purebred puppy you are evil.

false premise:  all breeders are evil.



Do You Know the Real PETA and

Humane Society of the United States?

By Alice Fix

(links will open in a new window)

You will not often see negative articles in our newsletters, but every now and again we are forced to make a stand, and to speak out about what we know is for the better good for all involved. This is one such instance. We can no longer stand back and watch to see what will happen. I think that it is past time to publicly expose the real agenda of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and their cohorts in crime, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and the animal rights agenda.

For many years we have all enjoyed the companionship of our dogs and other animals. We have been busy playing with them, taking care of them, finding fun things that we could do with them, and generally just having a great time with all the animals that live in our houses. While we have been enjoying the love and fun that our animals provide to us, there have been groups out there organizing on a grand scale trying to get our rights to own those animals taken away. Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Make no mistake about it. These people have organized on a large scale to infiltrate many major city councils and governments in the country to spread their propaganda. Their agenda is easily defined and simple. Their main objective is to take away your right to own animals. They do not want you to have the companionship of any animal, whether that is a dog, cat, horse, mouse, frog, fish or any other animal that you can think of. They are pooling their resources to get this accomplished, and have millions of dollars in there war chest for this effort.

This is a statement made by Ingrid Newkirk, the President of PETA: “I don’t use the word 'pet.' I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow  breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a  distance.” The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

It is interesting that Ms. Newkirk used the word “speciesist”. defines that word as follows:

1. The discrimination against, and exploitation of, animals by humans in the

belief that humans are superior to all other species of animals and can

therefore justify putting them to their own use.

One of the animal rights mantras is that all animals are created to be equal to all humans, and should have the same rights as humans.

Just in case it still isn’t clear to you what their agenda is, here are a few more quotes from Ingrid Newkirk:

One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV. The Chicago Daily Herald, 3/1/90

In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether. Newsday, 2/21/88

Who is Ingrid Newkirk, and why should we care what she has to say about anything? In the 1970s, Newkirk worked for Montgomery County (Maryland), and then for the District of Columbia, as an animal protection officer and deputy sheriff, before becoming DC’s first female Poundmaster in 1978. She co-founded PETA in 1980 with established animal-rights activist Alex Pacheco. (1) PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, but there is nothing ethical in what they do.

Ms. Newkirk has very close ties with several groups identified by the FBI as known terrorists groups, such as Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The animal rights groups are very well organized, and when you check closely, you will see many of the same names sitting on the boards of these radical groups. They are intertwined and closely linked through their finances, and the work that they do.

PETA operates on an annual budget of $ 29,000,000. Most of this is from donations made by ordinary citizens that don’t know the real work of PETA. Many people think that they are out to save the lives of animals after seeing all of their ads on TV and in the newspapers. That is why millions are donated to them each year.

In Virginia, the home state of PETA, in 2004, PETA adopted out 361 animals, and euthanized 2,278, according to their records. (2) Those figures aren’t good. That means that they euthanized 86.3% of their animals and only adopted out 13.7%. These figures come directly from PETA’s Annual Report and from their 2004 Tax Return. It doesn’t seem like they used that $29 million for the betterment of the majority of the animals that they came in contact with. So where is the money going? It is being spent for publicity to raise more money for one thing. It is also being used for legislative purposes. They have placed key people in city governments all over the country to try to influence legislation to take your pet ownership rights away. And they are having a lot of success with it.

You need to understand the basic difference between the “animal welfare” groups and “animal rights” groups. Although the names might sound like they have the same objectives, there is a big difference. Animal welfare groups are working to see that all animals are treated humanely. Animal rights groups are working to see that all ownership of animals comes to an end.

As I said, PETA has close ties with many other organizations. One of those organizations is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). People donate millions to the HSUS each year, thinking that their money is going to save the lives of millions of animals. Nothing could be further from the truth. The HSUS does not own a single animal shelter anywhere in the country. Although many shelters have the words Humane Society in their names, they are not associated in any way with the HSUS. The HSUS does not sponsor any spay or neuter clinic anywhere in the country. They do donate a very small percent of the annual budget to a few local humane societies, around $2 million annually, which just happens to be less than the amount that they spend in travel each year. Their major money is sent on fund raising and legislative activity. In 2005 they spent $28 million for public mailings, $6 million in vegan education, $10 million in legislative campaigns and litigation. Their income for that year was close to $125,000,000.

The HSUS was founded in 1954 as an animal welfare organization. But in the early 1980’s, just about the same time as PETA was founded, they began to change to an animal rights organization. In the 1990’s the personnel began to change to better fit with their new purpose, and today many of the personnel at HSUS have ties to PETA, including the current President, Wayne Pacelle.

This is an interested quote from Wayne Pacelle: “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” - Animal People News (May 1, 1993) (3)

The meaning of this statement is that if we could spay and neuter all animals, we could eliminate pet ownership within one generation.

Quietly sitting back and maybe not being aware, we are now allowing the HSUS to make presentations at our local schools, with the definite purpose to education our children about how bad pet ownership is, to indoctrinate children to the thought that animals should be free and not kept as pets. They are doing this in the same way that they have infiltrated city councils and local governments all across the country, quietly and matter-of-factly.

Shortly after taking office, Pacelle announced a merger with the Fund For Animals which have assets of over $20 million, and the Doris Day Animal League. The combined group estimated its 2005 budget at “over $95 million” and also announced the formation of a new “political organization,” which will “allow for a more substantial investment of resources in political and lobbying activities.” (4)

So that is where we find ourselves today. With the HSUS and PETA combined annual budgets of over $124 million for political and lobbying efforts to take away our rights to own animals. And that figure does not include the many splinter organizations that have been formed from these two major organizations. We are in an uphill battle now, and it will be the fight of our lives to keep our rights to own pets.

They are going at it from many different angles. One way is to get Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) passed. The banning of Pit-Bulls all over the country is a good example. That has caught on like wildfires. The animal rights groups have said if they can just get one breed banned, then it will be easy to add others to it at a later date, until eventually all breeds are banned. Another way that they are going about it is to have a mandatory spay and neuter law in place. Just think about it, if all domestic animals are spayed and neutered, when they die, there will be no more domestic animals. Those same words have been said by Wayne Pacelle, the President of the HSUS. They have a very well thought out and planned agenda, and they are counting on the ignorance of the American people to get their agenda accomplished. Well guess what: Ignorance can be overcome by education. The American people may be ignorant about the facts, but they are not stupid. They can be educated.

We were ignorant before 9-11, and look what effect that had. It caused all Americans to become educated and unite and fight to prevent that from happening again. The difference here is that we are being attacked from within our own country. We are under strong attack by the animal rights groups, and I hope that we don’t just stand by and allow it to happen.

The animal rights groups are publicly stating that we need to get laws passed so that they can close down all the puppy mills and commercial breeding facilities that have their animals living in inhumane conditions. Just about everyone would agree with the idea that animals should be treated humanely. But that is just the vehicle that they are using to try to do away with all animal ownership, period. And that is not a statement that they are being all that public about.

You can become active in this fight by telling your friends and neighbors what is going on. You can be an instrument of education. You can also fight this kind of legislation when it is presented in your area. Go to the City Council meetings and make your voice heard. Write letters to the state and federal government officials to offer your services to be on any animal related committee. In short get the word out to any and all of your friends that own pets. Let them know what is going on. If enough people stop funding the animal rights organizations, we can put them out of business. There is not much that they can do without operating funds.

The next time you think about making a donation to any of these organizations, you had better think long and hard about whether you really want your money being spent to take away your rights.












Right now the HSUS has started their “First Strike Campaign”. I find that an interesting choice of names. At they define first strike as follows:

First strikeAn attack that is intended to seize or inflict damage on or destroy an objective.

Most people think that attack is on inhumane treatment of animals. They still don’t know it is an attack to take your animals away from you. Last year over 10 million people donated money to the HSUS because of their massive spending on advertising. Most of those 10 million people had no idea what their money was actually going to support.

Better places to donate your money that will fight for your right to own animals are listed below. These groups are working hard to protect your right to own animals, and to expose the true agenda to much of the animal legislation going on all over the country.




You can either make your donations work for you or against you. That decision is yours to make.

Footnotes for Reference:


2)- http://www.nokillnow.comPetaDVACreporting.pdf



(links will open in a new window)

This article will first appear in the March, 2007 issue (Volume V Issue 2) of the Rocky Mountain Wrinkle, the newsletter of the Centennial Chinese Shar-Pei Club, Inc. Any reference to this article must give full credit to Rocky Mountain Wrinkle, and the Centennial Chinese Shar-Pei Club, Inc.

Permission must be granted to use any articles from our newsletters, and we must get a credit line for any article that is granted permission to use, with a link to our website. Anyone wishing to reprint any of our articles should contact the Rocky Mountain Wrinkle Editior for written permission.

Reprinted from the March 2007 issue of the Rocky Mountain Wrinkle, the newsletter of the Centennial Chinese Shar-Pei  Club, Inc.


Free counter and web stats