The Big Lie from ASPCA

The ASPCA sent out a post via email blast this week:

It'll be a cold day in hell when I donate anything to this group.

Imagine this scene: More than 100 dazed and frightened puppies are picked up one-by-one out of filthy, cramped, wire cages and crammed into a windowless van. Missing their mothers, they spend a week hurling across Interstate highways—crying, yelping, barking and suffering—until the van pulls up to deliver them through the back-door entrance of a shopping mall pet store. In the pet store, the cute but likely malnourished, impaired, disease-carrying or emotionally scarred pups are left to do what puppies have always done: look for love in a kind, smiling face. They are bought by an unsuspecting person, and the cycle begins again.

Wow, this sounds horrible! Why, they just described the cycle of abuse perpetrated by Retail Rescue! This is EXACTLY what happens when so-called "rescues" truck dogs across the country, and subject them to thousands-of-miles-long journeys into the US from around the world! These dogs are intended to replace puppies in pet stores sourced from breeders. And yes, predictably, many of these "rescued" dogs are sick and malnourished. Some have even been infected with RABIES! 

Yep, there is no documented history on these animals at all. No way to know what sort of diseases, inherited or acquired, may be lurking. No insight as to inherited temperament. When one of these "rescued" dogs is bought by some big-hearted but dumb, unsuspecting person (like YOU), he is not covered by any "Puppy Lemon Law" protection. That means, when he bites your kid or requires expensive veterinary bills, TOUGH LUCK. You have NO RECOURSE. There is NO GUARANTEE, NO consumer protection, and no financial compensation to you.

But wait! ASPCA doesn't care about any of that....in fact, golly gee gosh! I just realized with a little more reading....they actually aren't talking about Pet Flipping "Rescues" at all.  

This is the tragedy of a puppy mill. Animals bred, born and abused in commercial breeding facilities are the very same animals destined for pet store windows in cities and towns all across America. Scenes like this play out week after week, year after year, but these tragic facilities are usually only brought to light when they are raided by animal welfare groups like the ASPCA.

Whoa! The ASPCA is trying to convince us that dogs bred by licensed and inspected breeders are all abused!  What a crock of manure! If commercial breeders are heavily regulated (and they are), how many do you think need to be "raided"? How many of their puppies are "diseased"? Do they regularly starve and beat their puppies? REALLY??

In fact, pet insurers charge much lower premiums for commercially-bred pet store dogs than they do for dogs from any other source. The reason? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary care in the first weeks of their life than puppies from any other sources, and as a result, the dogs who come from pet store have FEWER INSURANCE CLAIMS. 

Got it, ASPCA?? Commercially bred puppies are HEALTHIER than dogs sourced from small breeders and shelters. How do you like them apples, you lying scumbags? 

But wait! The ASPCA isn't finished just yet! They set the stage with fraudulent lies, and NOW.... the HOOK!!! 

With your support today, we can strengthen our work to advocate against puppy mills. We can assist in raids to expose their cruelties, fight as hard as we can to regulate commercial breeders and, most importantly, find loving homes for every innocent animal. Imagine how much suffering we could stop, and how many dogs, cats and other animals we could save, if we eliminated puppy mills in our country. That is what your gift to the ASPCA can help make possible. Please make a donation right now.

Sorry, you two-faced sheisters at ASPCA,  but when you LIE claiming that commercial breeders are not already heavily regulated, claim that their puppies are sickly and abused, and slander the name of dog breeders in general, you won't get a dime from anyone who has two brain cells to rub together. 

No breeders=no pets. 

The real goal of the ASPCA....PET EXTINCTION. 

Broadway Joe vs. PETA the Pet Killers

Joe Namath drew a lot of attention last weekend with his appearance at the Superbowl wearing his coyote and fox fur coat.

Nice coat, Joe!

Hey, looks like Joe has gotten some good use out of that coat. Here he is in 1971 wearing the same or a very similar coat.

Naturally, the hypocrites at PETA were quick to squawk about Joe's fabulous coat. They called Joe a "Caveman" and asked him to donate his coat so that they could "give it a proper burial."

Pot, meet kettle.

Here's PETA's idea of how to conduct a proper animal burial rite. First, answer the phone when veterinarians call asking for help to find homes for a cute, adoptable litter puppies or kittens. Then, drive over and pick the youngsters up. Next, kill those animals in the van; and last but not least, dump the bodies/evidence in dumpsters around the city.

In fact, PETA kills thousands of animals each and every year. Since 1998, PETA has killed over 31,000 animals at their Virginia headquarters. Yep, that's THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND.

www.petakillsanimals.com

In this day and age of shortages of shelter animals in many areas, importation of pets from foreign lands,  and "No Kill" methods becoming the norm with progressive shelter management, we think that the sadistic killers at PETA are the real Neanderthals.

As Joe said in his interview with Hannity when asked about PETA:

WHO?

Rescue and Shelter Abuse

What is "rescue", exactly? My online dictionary tells me it is defined as:

:  to free from confinement, danger, or evil :  save, deliver: as

a :  to take (as a prisoner) forcibly from custody
b :  to recover (as a prize) by force
c :  to deliver (as a place under siege) by armed force

I'd have to agree that most pet "rescues" involve taking forcibly or recovering a prize through use of force. And if the "prize" happens to be a desirable small breed dog, so much the better for the rescue raiders! Their prisoner is then offered up for sale in a rescue retail store.

However, I'm betting most pet "rescues" view themselves as freedom fighters; nabbing animals from their horrible confinement.  By Jove! They derive a great sense of satisfaction and self-worth from this altruistic activity.

Sometimes this feel-good feeling is justified. When we rescue a pet from a shelter, we are saving it from certain death. But what about other situations?

What about "Rescuing" animals from their owners? Who decides what constitutes a dangerous situation for the animals? Could it be possible that this is not always the humane course of action? And if there is abuse and/or neglect involved, why isn't the first thought to provide assistance to the person involved? Many times animals are rescued from genuinely bad conditions, while the humans (usually elderly or poor, or both) are left behind, broken and forgotten. How "humane" is that, really?

There are actually many "rescue" situations which fall under definitions "a" and "b".  The elderly are often preyed upon by rescuers. The elderly don't often have the resources or the energy to fight for their ownership rights.

Take, for example, a situation in this week's news. A "rescue" deceptively confiscated an elderly couple's pet Chihuahua. The couple believed they were sending their pet off to training school. Instead, their dog was taken from them to be offered as product on the shelf of the rescue retail store.

This news team gets it, and the newscaster tells it like it is. "They intend to sell him for profit" she stated in the news report.

Here's the link to the news program. Check the lovely house the director of the "rescue charity" lives in. It pays to rescue! And they are not above taking advantage of the elderly in order to profit.

http://fox17.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/animal-charity-accused-taking-dog-19150.shtml?wap=0

And sometimes, the very groups that supposedly "shelter" and "rescue" are the very places that animals need to be rescued FROM.

Even as dogs in some areas are being taken from their rightful owners by animal rescuers who believe that double-coated dogs can't be kept safely outdoors in the winter weather, a shelter in Oklahoma left their door wide open and allowed their charges to freeze to death in the concrete-floored cages.

http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/Healdton-animal-shelter-closed-242584451.html?llsms=675591&c=y

Where is the public outrage? If this were a private party they would have already gathered up the pitchforks and torches for a fine lynching. But because it's an altruistic "shelter' there's barely a ripple in the news about it.

Shelters and rescues need to be held to the same standards as any other pet store, seller, breeder or broker. Heck, they need to be held to the same COMMANDMENTS as the rest of us.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL!

Instead, the current trend is to give these unregulated rescues and shelters preference in the marketplace.

While breeders and pet stores typically must be transparent in their dealings and provide health guarantees on the animals they sell, shelters and rescues can literally lie, cheat, steal and abuse with impunity. They have no ethical standards. They have no regulation. They provide no health guarantees and rarely any history on the animals they sell.

And for all these abuses, what is the penalty? Why, no penalty at all! They are even being rewarded  with a market monopoly in some areas.

That'll Never Happen!

What do veganism, the movie "Blackfish" and the proposal to ban Central Park carriage horses all have in common?

They are all results of the extremist animal rights agenda to eliminate animals from our lives.

The official “Animal Rights Agenda” was drafted in 1987 and included in the Green Party platform, and was also published in ‘Animals Agenda’ magazine. The “Agenda” includes these statements of policy:

• We strongly discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or purebred dogs and cats.
• We encourage vegetarianism for ethical, ecological, and health reasons.
• We call for the eventual elimination of animal agriculture.
• We believe that animals should be left in their appropriate environments in the wild, not showcased for entertainment purposes.
• Hunting, trapping, and fishing for sport should be prohibited.

People scoffed at groups like PETA. "Those crazy ideas will NEVER take hold!" they said.

But here we are, nearly 30 years later.  And we can see that the campaign for animal rights has had a definite influence on society. Inch by inch, bit by bit, these animal rights concepts are taking root in the public psyche.

Veganism is promoted in our schools and in many commercial food enterprises.

Laws restricting breeding of pets are being seen in many areas.

Pet stores are being attacked for selling pets, and laws are being passed to prohibit them from doing so.

Humaniacs are infiltrating agriculture with moles and fabricating videos that supposedly demonstrate "abuse".

In California, the name of the Department of Fish and Game was recently changed to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. A subtle but disturbing shift. The term "wildlife" is not necessarily synonymous with "game".

Animals have lived outdoors in a wide range of temperatures since time immemorial, but suddenly the government is confiscating dogs that are kept outdoors. "Too cold", they claim.
 
Demonstrators attacked the Sea World float at this year's Rose Parade in Pasadena, and masses of ordinary people who saw the movie "Blackfish" are now proclaiming "I'll never go to Sea World again!"

The film "Blackfish", filled with misrepresentations and lies, was produced by anti-captivity animal rights activists with an agenda. The lies are being slowly revealed, but the damage to the reputation of marine parks has already been done. It's a little too late to put the toothpaste back into the tube now. Animal activists know that getting in the first strike is imperative to shock and sway the attitude of the public.

Horses have been bred for centuries to pull carriages, but according to animal rights extremists, this is now an abusive form of "slavery".

The comparison of animals to human "slaves" or animals to human victims of genocide should be deeply offensive to people everywhere.

New York City's new mayor DeBlasio has vowed to put an end to the horse carriage industry in that city. He is not only pandering to animal rights groups; he has an ulterior motive for banning horse-drawn carriages. The pricey real estate currently occupied by the stables has been promised to a campaign contributor. 

The mayor has hidden his agenda to pad his own wallet behind wild-eyed humaniac crusaders who want to "free the horses". Freed, to join the masses of other horses who are slaughtered because of lack of resources to feed and house them. A horse without a paying job is a dead horse.

The campaign against animal agriculture could not be more clearly delineated. Miyun Park, HSUS Vice President from 2005-2009, said at an animal rights conference in 2006: “We don’t want any of these animals to be raised and killed [for food]…unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of waiting until we have the opportunity to get rid of the entire industry. And so because of that….we work on promoting veganism.”

And thanks to this "work", humane and ethical measures designed to keep animals safe, such as cages for chickens or prods to keep cattle on their feet, are now viewed as "cruelty".

Our largely urban society does not have any realistic understanding of agricultural animal management. Few people nowadays live on farms, and those who never gave a second thought to where their dinner came from see a video with trumped-up incidents of farm animal cruelty, and suddenly they embrace veganism with a born-again religious fervor.

The end justifies the means, to radical activists. Lies about supposed animal cruelty and abuse justify the goal of getting people to reject the very basic and natural human-animal relationships. Once the humaniacs gain public acceptance of their claims of exploitation and abuse, it is easier to push through more and more laws that restrict animal ownership.

Step by step, eliminating the human-animal connection. That's the goal of groups like PETA, HSUS, and the ASPCA, and that goal is  gradually becoming reality.

Irreconcilable Differences.... INDEED

When it comes to the No-Kill Sheltering movement, I have always been squarely on board. Years ago, I read Nathan Winograd's books on the subject and found them enlightening, uplifting, and just plain exhilarating! California Federation of Dog Clubs, along with PetPAC, co-sponsored a no-kill sheltering seminar given by Winograd in Ventura, California at the July dog show cluster just a few years back. This was during the time when we were in the throes of battle with humaniacs who wanted every pet in the state to be spayed or neutered. 

At that time, I found Mr. Winograd to be a reasonable and earnest proponent of the cause of shelter reform. While he never mentioned being opposed to our mandatory spay-neuter proposal, he never outwardly advocated for it either. I had assumed that the groups asking him to do a presentation might have questioned his philosophy to see if it jived with the world view of animal owners and breeders.

In Mr. Winograd's seminar and his writing, there was never any blame placed on breeders or the public at large for issues with shelter killings; the blame was always placed squarely where it belonged, on regressive shelter management.There was certainly no mention made of blaming nebulous "abusers" for animals in shelters. Non-judgmentalism was the order of the day. 

It was a refreshing change from the lynch-mob mentality of the so-called "animal rights" groups who have always profited solely by highlighting pornographic pictures of animal abuse and neglect. In fact, Mr. Winograd is usually at odds with groups such as PETA, the HSUS, the ASPCA and is a very vocal critic of these groups who proclaim to be pro-animal but instead push for programs and policies that encourage needless shelter killings. At least, he criticized their killing ways, so one would think he also opposed other insane and illogical animal rights world views.I was happy to have him autograph my copy of "Redemption". I drove home with an exhilarating new hopefulness for the future of America's shelter animals.

I wrote a glowing, positive review for Winograd's book on Amazon. I joined the California Federation of Dog Clubs in order to help in the cause of public education to promote humane and responsible pet ownership, while at the same time ardently fighting to preserve ownership rights.

Meanwhile, as time passed, I noticed some disturbing trends. Clues that should have alerted my normally steady radar when it comes to trustworthy people. Winograd came out with a vegan cookbook. Well, OK, he's a vegan, but not an ARist who would ever try to legislate his way of thinking on the rest of us, right??

Wrong. Boy oh boy, was I ever WRONG.

Next we began to hear ramblings from Winograd about "puppy mills". In this blog post from 2012, Winograd answers a question about pet store sales:

 “Given that pet overpopulation is a myth, should we still fight to stop pet stores from selling puppies?” My answer was “Yes.” Because even if every shelter embraced the No Kill philosophy and the programs and services that make it possible, even if no dog or puppy was killed in a shelter again, we’d still want to close down puppy mills.

Say WHAT? Where to begin? Pet stores as evil peddler of abuse and greed, all the other bogus stereotypes. He goes on to describe his view of the horrors of dog breeding in establishments he slurs with the "PM" term. Naturally, we get no specific examples. Just hysterical ramblings.

And further down in the same blog post, Winograd states his opinion about breeders and the AKC quite clearly:

Moreover, I’ve held workshops on shutting down puppy mills or closing down their markets at every No Kill conference. I bashed the AKC in Redemption. And I believe that though dogs are not dying because of pet overpopulation, they are still dying. And as long as that is true, I believe people should adopt from a rescue or shelter. I also could not care less about maintaining breeds and never have. As far as I am concerned, if all dogs become all-mutt, that would be fine with me and probably healthier for the dogs. I’m a Heinz 57 man myself.

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=10853

Funny, I attended that conference of his years ago, hosted by a dog show and dog interest groups. Oddly enough, he never made mention of his belief in "puppy mills", "adopt, don't shop", and had he mentioned his aversion to DOG BREEDS...well, I think you can imagine it would not have garnered a warm reception. I also read "Redemption" and honestly do not remember any jab at the AKC, but I'll have to go back and see if the stars in my eyes blinded me to the subtle displays of Winograd's ulterior anti-breeding motives.

Vegan...strike ONE. Puppy mill rhetoric, strike TWO! Bashing AKC for no apparent reason, other than the fact that it represents dog breeders: Strike THREE. 

But hey, we even have AKC breeders who buy into veganism and who call other breeders that "PM" slur, who are heavily involved in rescue; some even have those "until there are none, save one" and "if you breed, rescue. If you don't breed, rescue anyway" signature lines in their emails. They don't believe in their hearts that people should have the freedom to breed in an unrestricted manner. How about all the breed club people who believe no one should breed without health testing and dogs being titled? Hey, folks, these people are supposedly on our side and they walk among us.

Now we here at this blog have been openly critical at times of the AKC; But there is ONE big reason why AKC deserves our support. 

AKC is US. It represents the vast majority of dog breeders in this country. Rightly or wrongly in our methodology, we are the AKC and they are us. It's our family, and it is exactly what we make of it; no more, no less. Our delegates vote on the actions to be taken and on who will ascend to the upper hierarchy of the managing Board of Directors. The flaws of AKC are all our flaws. On the other hand, the very promotion and proliferation of dogs as pets in this country is due in large part to the AKC.

This is what separates us from animal wrongist "humaniacs". They don't want people to breed pets, or in fact to even OWN pets! That's the ultimate goal from their point of view.....NO PETS, no animals in our lives at all. "Enjoyment from a distance".

 

Does Winograd really differ from other humaniacs? Here is a quote from PETA's  president Ingrid Newkirk:

 "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."

Why, these words could have come directly from Winograd's mouth! He has paraphrased the exact same sentiments on his blog!! Ingrid and Nathan, long-lost twins separated at birth?

Winograd's objective was insidious but is now becoming crystal clear. His goals are the same as any other radical animal extremist group. Those stray sheep in our own flock need to eventually recognize the animal rights wolf at the door. And not just recognize the threat but ATTACK with our full force of effort! We hang in there with our own crowd, hoping they will "come to Jesus", because they are our eventual only hope to preserve a way of life that deserves preservation.

Winograd is exponentially more dangerous than assorted misled dog owners, because he sets himself up as an expert on matters of public policy regarding animal ownership.....while he doesn't believe in dog breeding!! According to him, dogs should just randomly mate and become free-ranging "Heinz 57" purposeless creatures. Or, worse, should all be sterilized until they no longer exist.

And what step would best separate people from their pets and from breeding? How about an ANIMAL ABUSER REGISTRY. Yes, this is the latest brainchild of this very dangerous wolf in sheep's clothing, this snake in the grass named Nathan Winograd. A registry with the intent to enshrine the names of “abusers” so that they will have a scarlet “A” emblazoned on their chest. Only not for anything quite as fun as adultery. The idea is for “Offenders” to be publicly known, and barred from animal ownership way beyond any legal penalties they may have already paid.

I went to Nathan Winograd’s Facebook page, which I had previously “liked” and tagged as a favorite for California Federation of Dog Clubs as well, to weigh in on this very onerous idea. I posted a few thoughts. Minor offenses like failure to license are considered animal offenses, should you be denied animal ownership due to that? What about dirty teeth? Chimed in another commenter. People have been prosecuted for that. Be careful what you wish for, someone else said, because when your rescue is busted for being over a numbers limit, you will then be branded “abuser”. One defender of the idea remarked “your veterinarian can speak in your defense!” To which I replied that there had been many unjust animal busts over the protestations of the accused’s veterinarian. I finished off my comment by stating that I believed that the rights of humans were being violated by misanthropists such as those in support of this registry. My friend Mr. Kirby also posted some thoughtful comments. We were met with venom such as this:

 "Brenda Mcnulty and I would say that THOMAS KIRBY and his ilk have shown their true colors......do u have children? how about I abuse them and see how u like it assholes."

Within a short period of time, lo and behold, all opposing comments were removed by Mr. Winograd. Also, I and other critics may no longer comment on that page! However, the offensive comment flinging the “asshole” insult and threatening our CHILDREN with their particular brand of misanthropist violence remains. Subsequently, Winograd posted a long, pompous statement, which for sake of brevity I will only include the beginning portion::

NW: Thank you for trying to respond to the inane, conspiratorial, anti-animal positions from Kirby and other trolls with your thoughtfulness and compassion. I’ve deleted and banned them.
I welcome criticism because criticism—when it is fair, thoughtful, and truthful—helps the No Kill philosophy I champion, grow. But criticism that defends an immoral status quo through selective use and even disregard of the truth is unconscionable. I used to spend a lot of time answering each of their criticisms, trying to educate them and others, and it’s been largely a waste of time. Instead of dialog, they attacked; instead of discussing the issues, they accused. Recently, you may have heard that Popular Science magazine no longer allows comments on their articles. This is what they wrote: “Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off.”…. I would add that trolls are bad for the truth, too. I am joining Popular Science in two ways: I am turning off comments on my Huff Post pieces going forward and I am deleting and banning anti-animal, pro-killing trolls on this page.

WHOA. Let’s stop right there! Those who disagree with Winograd are automatically “anti-animal, pro-killing trolls” in his teeny tiny little mind! And the hypocritical Winograd, who proclaims to welcome criticism, shuts off comments and bans any disagreement. All in the name of science! He believes that his political machine gun of a registry is….scientific! He is omniscient and any disagreement is, well, simply wrong; and, worse than that, EVIL in intent!

What a giant crock of crap!

The concept of animal rights flies in the face of science. Science decrees that there is a food chain. Dogs and cats are not vegans, and neither are people according to the biology of our bodies. Science is the reason we include dogs in our lives to assist mankind as guide dogs, police dogs, military dogs, guardians, herders, and hunters (watch the animal rights nuts heads explode trying to process the concept of HUNTING in the natural order of life). Science also has proven that pet ownership confers health benefits on humans; reduced blood pressure, lower stress levels, better heart health. Those who breed animals so that people can enjoy pet ownership are doing society a SERVICE.

Now THAT’S science.

Another commenter to Winograd’s page noted: Nathan Winograd I firmly support your no kill and totally believe in it but THIS I can not get behind. A registry like this will be abused. If someone was once convicted of animal abuse but is now legally able to get animals NOBODY has the right to say that they should not. I do not like the sex offenders lists for the same reasons. People will get put on the list for things that are not really abuse ( no water at the time of inspection, very minor things or having too many animals) these people do not deserve to be haunted for the rest of their lives by their conviction Many people that are convicted of animals abuse took a plea (I have talked and read many abuse cases) to escape a worse sentence even tho they really did not do any abuse. Many cases are bogus raids. This is like on a sex offender registry where the girl was 17 and the guy 21 (my parents) but girls dad filed charges. That guy does not deserve to be called a sex offender or harassed. Nor do those that are accused of abuse but no abuse happened. As for the ones that did abuse for real will continue and that will be found out.

But guess what?? A candidate for Los Angeles City Council, David Hernandez, has not had the opportunity to read any of the opposing points to this “abuser registry” concept, which as we have noted were removed. Only glowing comments with praise for this program remain. Mr. Hernandez writes on NW’s Facebook page:

“Can we implement this at a Local Level? As a candidate for LA City Council I am will to make this part of my platform…..Thank you, will get under way in presenting this to the Neighborhood Councils in Los Angeles with the goal of getting them to request the Los Angeles City Council adopt it.”

Just peachy!

I believe I will never use the phrase “No Kill” again because it is inextricably entwined with misanthropist Winograd. From here on out, I’ll only note “successful shelters”. Leave the drama to the drama queens like Nathan Winograd.

Legislation proposal from those who wish to ban breeding and ultimately eliminate animals from our lives.

Cruelty to Humans

Recently, the Texas Supreme Court overturned a judgment that would have awarded “emotional” damages for pain and suffering resulting from a dog pound negligently killing a family's pet dog, 'Avery'. The owner had come to claim Avery, but didn't have enough money to pay the fines. He was told to return by the 10th of the month with the money, but on the seventh of the month, the shelter mistakenly and negligently killed Avery. When the owner returned, he found that his dog Avery had been killed. For most pet owners, this is our worst nightmare, and surely even more egregious an offense than the new laws popping up that require spay/neuter as a condition of release. Hey, at least you'd get your companion back alive, even if he or she was missing a few body parts.

Are companion animals worth more than their market value? Groups such as Nathan Winograd's No-Kill Advocacy Center believe that they are. On the other side of the fence we have the American Kennel Club, the Cat Fancier's Association, and the American Veterinary Veterinary Medical Association. Surprisingly, these prominent animal groups claim that pets should have no sentimental or emotional value in a court of law.

The ruling by the Texas Supreme Court was supported by “amici curiae”, or written briefs/petitions by third parties who offer their information as "friends of the court” in hope of influencing the eventual decision. These amici curiae were submitted by the AKC and the Cat Fanciers' Association, both of whom urged that NO “emotional” damages be awarded to Avery's owner. The high court's ruling upheld the view of dogs as property, and declared their value be limited solely to their economic worth. Presumably, that means literally NO value in the case of most pets, if the owner obtained them from a friend, neighbor or shelter/rescue as so many people do. Avery did not have any financial worth, and therefore, the family was unable to recover any monetary recompense for his loss.

One has to wonder about the motivation of these national organizations in aggressively supporting this ruling. There is a general consensus among members of the public that pets have a value to society above and beyond their market value. How can you put a price tag on an animal whose function is companionship? Is the mixed breed dog adopted from the shelter by a lonely senior citizen really worth less than the dog who is a champion and produces high-priced pups for the owner? The AKC says "yes". Perhaps they worry that mixed breed animals might garner monetary awards exceeding those for expensive, prizewinning purebreds? Perhaps they feel that pets really aren't all that important in the grand scheme of life? Maybe they don't believe that pets are irreplaceable companions who provide a source of comfort and joy in our otherwise mundane lives? I honestly don't understand WHAT is going through the minds of some of these folks.

Treading the line of neutral non-committalism we have the so-called "Animal Rights" groups like HSUS and PETA. Of course they can't support emotional or sentimental value for pets because they themselves kill so many of them. In fact, they actually hold seminars for shelters instructing them to kill pets swiftly and without remorse.

What are some typical scenarios that might be affected by this ruling?
A shelter wrongfully kills a pet even as they know the owner is on the way to come bail him out.
Police go to investigate at the wrong address, and kill the family dog in his own home or yard.
A veterinarian kills your 10-month-old puppy during a routine spay or dental procedure.
A pet food company includes toxic ingredients into their product, and thousands of animals die.
An animal control or animal rights agency performs an illegal raid and steals animals (which are NEVER returned, even if the person involved is eventually exonerated of any wrongdoing)

If you lose your dog as a result of one of these situations, you might not be so supportive of this court's decision. What happens when an SPCA wrongfully seizes your dogs? We have seen MANY cases where just this has happened, and usually before the owner can blink, the dogs are spayed and placed, leaving the owner with a huge emotional hole in his heart. Wendy Willard's Basset hounds were seized and some DIED during botched spay surgery done by the SPCA. No emotional distress there, was there? Cases of cruelty inflicted upon animal owners sometimes result in such severe emotional distress and despondency that suicide results. But we are led to believe that NO emotional damage occurs, or, if it does, TOO BAD SO SAD. No compensation. Why should these animal control agents restrain themselves from stealing your animals when they suffer virtually NO penalties as a result of the horrendous suffering they cause the people involved?

Let's address some of the objections of these organizations to the awarding of emotional damage in a case of negligent pet death. The AKC is worried that awarding emotional or sentimental damages might cause pets to lose their status as property. A pet's status as property would in no way be affected by a ruling for emotional damages. In fact, other types of property can merit sentimental or emotional damage awards. Grandma's quilt, an old photograph or an 'heirloom' doorstop can garner awards for their sentimental value. Is there less emotional damage to a pet owner from losing a pet than there is from losing a piece of furniture? Most pet owners, given the choice, would give up all their “heirlooms” just to keep their pet.

If dogs are even LESS valuable than inanimate possessions, as this Texas court has upheld, then why is animal cruelty any sort of criminal offense at all? Whose business is it WHAT you do with your “property”? Just sayin'.

The AVMA claims that lawsuits will drive up the costs of veterinary care for all of us. This concern, while valid, is negligible, because cases of veterinary incompetence remain relatively rare, and such cases would have to be proven in a court of law. Yet, if there IS genuine negligence, shouldn't the offender be held accountable? I say, YES. Sunlight is ALWAYS the best disinfectant for cases of medical or veterinary malpractice. Sunlight, as well as some sort of penalty to ensure that the perpetrator doesn't repeat the offense.

The hysterical claim that people will sue frivolously every time a dog is hit by a car is not credible. Anyone can sue NOW for such an event, but one would be laughed out of court with no possibility of attaining any sort of monetary compensation. In fact, courts are so fed up with frivolous lawsuits that judges who feel that a claim wastes valuable resources and time may sanction the parties involved, or even hold them in contempt of court.

This ruling is a victory only for the careless and cruel in our midst. It is a slap in the face to anyone who has suffered the emotional trauma of losing their pet under horrific circumstances. Even if there was a slight increase in litigation, does the possibility of rising costs for all offset the virtual disregard for an individual owner's pain and suffering in such cases? Monetary damages do not bring back your pet, but they DO serve as a deterrent to prevent the negligent killing of other folks' pets in the future.

In any event, it seems offensive for the very groups who claim to champion pets to trumpet their proud role in this ruling. Where is the care and concern they profess to possess? Have they genuinely NO qualms whatsoever in supporting inept animal control departments, malicious animal rights groups, unscrupulous pet food manufacturers, bumbling police, and careless veterinarians?

Perhaps it's best to concentrate on the criminal arena, where standardized penalties or fines are assessed once conviction for such egregious offenses occur. Stiff fines should be levied for shelters who kill animals without following their own protocol; or for police who shoot and kill your animal when they invade your property without a warrant or probable cause; or for veterinarians who are found to be grossly negligent by a review board of their peers upon a consumer complaint. Maybe a food company that either carelessly or intentionally poisons your pet should be fined heavily or even have their license to do business revoked, if they are not liable for the emotional trauma they cause to people who own pets.

We've seen already how government absolves itself of any liability in cases where its agencies are involved by writing exemptions in for those agencies from animal welfare statutes. Maybe it's time to start challenging such laws or lobbying to have them changed. Since courts are not going to uphold our rights as pet owners to be fairly compensated in civil court for our emotional distress, perhaps it's time to change the criminal laws to make these incompetent agencies squirm when they screw up royally.

Maybe, just maybe, they'll be a little more cautious if they have the threat of monetary penalties looming when their carelessness result in the death of someone's beloved pet.

Sorry, but I think that's a GOOD thing.

Swap Meet Sales Targeted by Animal Rights Fanatics

I received the below message in my email inbox today. Here we have the quintessential example of the deception foisted upon society by animal rights fanatics. The message features pictures of puppies and kittens while imploring us to help stop sales of animals at swap meets.

 

Problem is, dogs and cats aren't generally sold at swap meets. What we would normally find sold at swap meets, auctions, fairs etc are various birds like parakeets, canaries and finches, along with assorted farm animals such as chickens, ducks, sheep, goats and so on. No puppies. No kittens.

 

But truth means nothing to these animal rights nuts. And even while we have come to expect them to routinely lie through their teeth about animal issues, still they needs to be taken to task occasionally.

 

What in the world is inherently "wrong" with offering animals for sale in a public place? This practice has existed since the dawn of human history, but now is suddenly taboo in the minds of a population that is increasingly urban and severed from agrarian roots. The very act of selling an animal is "abuse"? Absurd! And even one were to offer dogs and cats for sale in public, so what? There is nothing cruel about selling dogs and cats.

 

There is another arena targeted by AR groups as inherently "abusive" even when no blatant abuse is evident....the sales of animals in pet stores. Elizabeth Oreck of "Best Friends" is at all the hearings in southern California lobbying to prohibit sales of animals in pet shops. Instead of having purposely-bred dogs and cats available to consumers, she would like us to instead have only "rescued" animals available.

 

Because, you see, animals can be offered as impulse purchases in a pet store as long as they are from unscrupulous origins, with questionable genetic backgrounds and sketchy health histories. If originating from a known entity and  having received veterinary care since birth, the animals obviously would not be suitable for pets and should therefore be forbidden by law. Makes perfect sense.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for finding homes for animals that need them, but "rescue" is an industry that is completely unregulated. Dogs are imported from other areas, other states and even other countries to provide inventory for many shelters and rescues. (Check our post "It's Raining Dogs From Other Countries" for the proof of that statement.) With nationwide shelter intakes and death rates at the lowest point ever, we no longer can legitimately claim that "overpopulation" and "abandonment" are the pressing issues that they once were. Our nation is on the right track, and we need not fall for the animal rights propaganda to further their agenda of a future devoid of domestic animals.

 

The message below is a typical AR manipulative tool, rife with hypotheses contrary to fact and the overall "red herring" deception of conflating pets with livestock in the mind of the public. How much longer are we going to let them get away with their lies and deception? Enough already!

 

I believe the free market works, and it will work naturally to regulate the pets available for sale. Sick and overpriced pets don't sell very well (unless of course they are sold by "rescues" and shelters.) Allow consumers freedom of choice in the market and let the chips fall where they may.

 

These AR groups are allowed to blatantly LIE in their advertising and their lobbying. No other group of sales people could get away with such unethical behavior. Where is the California Attorney General?

 

 

 

 

 

CA: Let's Put an End to Swap Meet Animal Sales     Dear Friends,   Existing law in California prohibits the sale of animals in most unregulated public venues, such as parking lots, alleys and highways. However, the law does not include swap meets and flea markets, which has created a major loophole for irresponsible and unscrupulous breeders to sell their animals virtually under the radar. These sales contribute to unhealthy animals and breeding practices, overpopulation and animal abandonment.   Fortunately, Assembly Bill 339 has been introduced to close that loophole by prohibiting the sale of animals at swap meets and flea markets. This bill is designed to protect purchasers who may unknowingly buy an animal that is unhealthy or too young, or from a pet mill or backyard breeder who doesn't provide safe and humane conditions for the animals bred and sold.   Your representatives need to hear that you care about the way animals are treated and that you support this important bill to protect pets and consumers. Please urge your representatives to support Assembly Bill 339.     Click here to take action now.   Thank you for all you do for animals.     Warmest regards,   Elizabeth Oreck National Manager, puppy mill initiatives puppymills.bestfriends.org

 

 

 

__._,_.___

 

   

.

__,_._,___

Love Hurts

Americans have always had a love affair with pets. Stories about pets are common subjects for “human interest” pieces in news publications. We read about dogs who save human lives and the lives of their canine companions. We read stories about long-lived dogs, talented dogs and ugly dogs. We read about dogs who are so faithful to their owners that they remain steadfast at their gravesite.

Cats also provide displays of affections for their owners that inspire news reports. We read about Toldo, an Italian cat who regularly visits the grave of his deceased owner. The man’s widow, Ada, said the cat “brings little twigs, leaves, toothpicks, plastic cups. A bit of everything really,” everyday to the grave of his former owner who has now been deceased for over a year. 1

Then there was the story just this week about the cat in Florida who spent nearly two months walking home after being lost from the owner’s motor vehicle almost 200 miles from home. 2

We also often read stories about animal cruelty and abuse. Tales of “hoarding” and “puppy mills” grab the interest and sell news. These stories serve to solicit contributions by the organizations who are the self-appointed saviors of abused animals. This is mostly a black-and-white issue, or so it might appear on the surface. Animal abusers need to be stopped and they need to be punished, while animal saviors desperately need our financial support. A no-brainer, right?

Well, maybe things aren’t quite as black-and-white as they might seem. Some “abusers” have themselves been affected by financial ruin, a sudden turn in their health, loss of job or home, or even a death in the family. All these factors can affect the ability to care properly for their pets. Even if the accused abuser is completely broke, or physically or mentally disabled, the reports of abuse are completely lacking in sympathy for the person down on his or her luck. Oftentimes, rabid followers publicly call for a lynching of purported “abusers”. If we were talking about children in these households instead of animals, there would be assistance available. Instead, we deliver only scorn.

Pet “rescue” on the other hand, has become the trendy activity. “My pet was rescued” Jane announces proudly. Her friends and relatives congratulate her for her largesse. Win-win, she gets to enjoy a companion and get a boost to her self-esteem at the same time. Proclaiming that you just BOUGHT a new puppy or kitten does not produce the same warm public accolades. On the contrary, you may be derided with jeers about supporting evil breeders, causing shelter deaths and contributing to pet overpopulation (all of these silly notions have been thoroughly debunked here in the past).

And never mind the fact that you do BUY pets from rescues. They aren’t giving them away, folks!

Then, oddly enough, we sometimes also have cases of saviors-turned-abusers. There are also plenty of news stories recounting tales of animal “rescues” where the care has gone sour, and the animals have to be rescued from the rescuer. Generally, what happens in such cases is that a rescue entity becomes overloaded with more animals than it has the resources to care for. Now, the very group that we trusted to “rescue” has suddenly become the “hoarder”. How can that be? How can a hero one day become a villain the next?

“Hoarder”, “abuser”, and “puppy mill” are all pejorative slurs that are thrown about handily in the popular news media. Similarly brainless terms like “rescue” and “shelter” are thrown about in a self-congratulatory, feel-good manner, when in actuality they are meaningless and do not necessarily reflect any actual beneficence on the part of the person or group being described. Such stereotypical monikers do not often reflect reality, and that is a major reason why we should refrain from using them.

Americans donate to various animal charities by hand over fist each year. The ASPCA rakes in $144 million per year, with net assets of $188 million, while the HSUS receives about $177 million each year. 3

This is mostly accomplished through donations from a generous, pet-loving public who are urged by these self-appointed saviors to please donate a certain monthly amount. Say around $19 a month? Just a suggestion, since hey, you really want to help poor suffering animals. “Look at these horrific pictures and please open your wallet!!!” And people do, by the hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year.

In February, 2012, a cat “rescue” called Caboodle Cat Ranch Sanctuary near Tallahassee, Florida was raided. The rescuer had hundred of cats on the premises. Animal rights operatives spent many months gathering up “evidence” in the form of photographs taken of sick animals that were being housed on the premises. The cats were removed from the rescue and remanded to the care of the local law enforcement agency. ASPCA immediately stepped in and sent literally HUNDREDS of people in to care for the cats.4


The ASPCA subsequently asked for $1.8 million dollars in reimbursement for care of
these “rescued” cats. From their website:

“In a letter to the judge, Director Tim Rickey of the ASPCA details how $1.2 million [as of June 22] has been spent on care for Caboodle Ranch cats. In addition to medical care and basic necessities, the cats are receiving behavioral enrichment to “remedy the effects of the severe neglect and lack of socialization they experienced during their time at Caboodle Ranch.”

Problem is, the itemized list of expenses was released to the public, and very little of those expenses were related to actual care of the cats. Most of it was for airfare, hotels and meals for the humans involved. The expense statement the ASPCA turned in was simply outrageous! Listing “plumbing”, “carpet cleaning”, “chocolates for the ladies”, “lunch at Panera’s for 100+” (totaling over 1200.00), resort hotels, $400 thousand in airfares and rental cars and the list of vacation expenses goes on and on. $1000 for snacks in a two-day period. One person even submitted the charge to replace her cell phone battery. What gall! Very little was listed in the way of actual veterinary expenses. 5

On the other hand, the owner of Caboodle cat ranch claimed to be able to produce over $90,000 in veterinary bills for the cats, that he personally had paid when the cats were in his possession. Hmmm. Which “rescue” was truly legit here? The jury seems to be still out on that.

Knowing the manipulative history of animal rights fanatics, I am very skeptical about the Caboodle Cat Ranch Rescue. If you’d like to read more information about the case, check this post on YesBiscuit (and please do read the comments):

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/700-cats-seized-from-cat-sanctuary-in-fl/#comments

So just how reliable is the ASPCA.....really?

Recently, the ASPCA agreed to pay Feld Entertainment a whopping $9.3 million settlement in a suit brought against them under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Seems they manufactured evidence. Are they admitting guilt? It certainly seems so. 6

Well, now we know how the ASPCA will use your $19 per month automatic payments; they will be sending them to the Ringling Brothers circus, even though they originally conspired to bring the circus down. Poetic justice! At least THOSE donations will actually to go care for some animals. Good deal.

The request for the $1.8 million dollars expenses reimbursement was denied. Here is the trial court ruling:

“The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, hereafter referred to as ‘ASPCA’ did NOT have an agency relationship...”

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEJ5J_n7tIqY0hTcEF5VEVyOFE/edit?pli=1

Perhaps the courts are waking up to the blatant abuses of groups who, despite their self-proclaimed sainthood status, are not necessarily the do-gooders one would expect based on their names.




1http://digitaljournal.com/article/340666#ixzz2HVRbXSEo

2 http://www.wafb.com/story/20533966/lost-cat-walks-190-miles-to-get-home

3http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/14/charities-11_American-SPCA_CH0234.html

4http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Caboodle_Ranch_Cat_Sanctuary_Operator_Faces_Cruelty_Charges_140581263.html

5 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhEJ5J_n7tIqdHNTNmJfZ1Fwc2RuazR2RHJpVGVqSmc#gid=0

6 http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/aspca-382414-ringling-elephants.html

Lieu the Panderer

Letter sent to California Senator Ted Lieu today.

How hypocritical that Senator Lieu would oppose hunting with hounds due to his misguided and mistaken opinion that it's cruel to the dogs and/or the bears, yet defend shark finning because of supposed racial connections. I don't care what kind of soup people wish to consume. What is horrific is the way shark fins are obtained. I assumed Senator Lieu isn't concerned about living sharks having their fins amputated, after which their finless bodies are thrown back into the water to drown.


As for SB 1221, it seems to me to be an abuse of power for our legislators to step in regarding policies which come under the purview of California Fish and Game Commission, policies which are determined by science and logic, and by experts on the subject. It is not appropriate for senators and other public officials to make decisions based on input from avowed anti-hunting extremist groups such as the HSUS, decisions that will likely result in harm t o the animals involved. The use of dogs to tree animals that pose a danger to humans is an efficient and humane method of wildlife management, and the California Fish and Game Commission is the appropriate agency to make determinations regarding such methods.

As for the abhorrent cruelty to sharks involved in the finning process, using racial preferences as an excuse for such behavior is spurious and deceptive. I have no objection to shark FISHING, only to the mutilation of live animals in shark FINNING.

By the way, I doubt if the Chinese emperors who so valued shark fin soup were aware that it has a high concentration of a BMAA neurotoxin, which can cause neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's and ALS, in humans. If Senator Lieu really cares about the races he purports to be defending, perhaps he should pass that message along to them.

Carole Raschella

Animal Abuser Registry

I received the below forwarded message regarding the nationwide push for "animal abuser" registries in my inbox this morning.

 

To most people, the idea of an abuser registry sounds peachy. Just register all those convicted animal offenders so we can prevent them from owning animals in the future. Not that registries for child abusers and sex offenders have been shown to work, but hey, such efforts make a nice public show of concern that goes over well at election time.

 

But if you examine the animal abuser registry issue more closely, there are some definite valid, frightening concerns involved here. 

Notice, there are many types of offenses that can be considered "abuse" offenses, including being over legal limits (so-called "hoarding") or failure to license, and technical offenses such as an observed lack of space/food/water readily available. Such offenses are vague and arbitrarily applied. Such offenses could apply to almost anyone. I know of a case from just last week, where the accused "abuser" had animals in excellent condition, and could not have been charged with any neglect, so the raiding agency searched her refrigerator and took any bottles of medications that they could find (including those labelled for the human of the household). They were hoping to find something illegally purchased without a prescription. Never mind that various animal antibiotics, wormers and parasite medications, and even all vaccines with the exception of rabies, do not NEED a prescription when bought for animals. Most of these can be bought 'over the counter' and online with NO prescription. And never mind that if these animal rightist seizing agencies can't find any actual animal "abuse", they will grasp at straws to try to manufacture a technical offense that will stick. Naturally, if anyone is scrutinized enough, an offense can eventually be found...there are so many laws on the books that it is impossible to exist in today's world without being a criminal.

To the AR activists behind such punitive laws as abuser registries, every breeder is a "puppy mill", and every owner of multiple dogs is a "hoarder". There are many, many trumped-up "abuse" cases against animal owners formulated daily in the hope of "getting" animal owners and freeing the animals from their human enslavement.

 

Are you aware of the agenda of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, who formulated this message? They are a radical animal rights group.

 

saova.org/resources_ALDF.html

 

Notice the closing motto of the below message: "Animal abusers should be put down". Calling for the killing of humans for "hoarding" and whatever other oddball charges the AR groups can come up with? That is frightening.

 

Be careful what you wish for. You might be next on the "list".

---

 

First U.S. Animal Abuser Registry Makes Convicts Public Monday, Suffolk County activates the first animal abuser registry in the United States, which will make public the identities of convicted animal abusers. The internet registry will display their names, addresses and photographs. The law requires pet stores, breeders and animal shelters to check the registry and not sell or adopt animals to anyone on it, according to the Animal Law Coalition. Abusers will stay on the registry for five years each, and will face jail time or fines if they do not sign up for and renew their registrations throughout that period. The Coalition reports that in Suffolk County, "animal abuse" includes animal fighting; overdriving, torturing and injuring animals; failing to provide proper sustenance; aggravated cruelty to animals; abandoning animals; interfering with or injuring certain domestic animals; and harming a service animal. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is leading a nationwide effort to pass more laws like Suffolk County's. If registries like this were widespread, they could make a real difference in preventing animal cruelty. Without them, convicted animal abusers, including hoarders, can easily evade court sentences forbidding them from owning animals by moving to a different county or state. Nationwide registries would make it much harder for them to acquire new animals just by changing their location. Registries like Suffolk County's could also prevent crimes that hurt humans. A person who abuses or kills animals is five times more likely to commit violence against humans and four times more likely to commit property crimes, according to a Business Week report on a 1997 study by Northeastern University and the Massachusetts SPCA. Other counties and states have considered similar registries and some plan to implement them, but last February Colorado voted down a law to create one. Objections to the registries include concerns about the civil rights of animal abusers and the possibility that exposure to the public will make offenders even less likely to cooperate with authorities that otherwise might be able to keep them from harming other animals Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/first-u-s-animal-abuser-registry-makes-convicts-public.html#ixzz1uIBmR9h6