The truth about welfare and rights for animals

Arguing with stupid

A friend told me today that you can't argue with stupid - it's a good message. Of course, I still do try to argue with stupid, I'm just stubborn that way.

Recently, a new website was launched - humanewatch.org. I didn't post a link to it because I have some issues with the author - a guy who works for Center for Consumer Freedom. I have mixed feelings about CCF. They are funded by alcohol, tobacco and agribusiness. I don't have anything against those groups, but they are closely allied with a lobbyist group. BUT, facts are facts and CCF does post and publish and expose facts. The problem, of course, is that anyone who disagrees uses the strawman argument that they are supported by key players in the animal use business. It doesn't change the facts they are posting, but it makes using their information difficult when arguing with stupid. Of course the "facts" presented by the AR folks are tainted since they come from vegan, AR, liberation or abolitionist sites. But that FACT is ignored.

Animal rights advocates aren't generally stupid, but they are fanatical. They are fundamentalists in the truest form. There are several AR "arguments" that are used when discussing animals, HSUS, PETA and BREEDING with those of us that actually love our animals and don't feel guilty about having them in our lives.

1. Owning, using, eating, wearing any animal is akin to slavery. In fact it is slavery.

2. All humans are inherently evil and by our nature cannot possibly have anything but an exploitive, cruel relationship with animals.

3. Any dog, cat, horse, gerbil, etc that is purposefully bred takes away a home for a homeless animal, consequently any purposeful breeding is bad and evil.

4. Anyone who purposefully breeds an animal is doing so for nothing but profit, consequently they are bad and evil. For some reason in the world of AR, profit is a four letter word. I haven't quite figured that one out.

5. Humans do not need to eat meat to live a healthy life, therefore we shouldn't.

6. You must provide PROOF of all claims that indicate any AR organization might be deceptive. The proof of course will never be accepted.

Those are just a few of the standards. There is actually a website for how to argue with a meat eater:

http://www.eatveg.com/argument.htm

It is next to impossible to discuss any of the above rationally with an AR advocate. It isn't because they are stupid, it's because you are challenging the very core of what they believe. I have been posting on a website - care2.com in the last few days. An article was written about Humanewatch.org. Because of the authors (CCF), the blogger was trying to debunk the content of Humanewatch. The blogger posed a question - Do you think the HSUS campaigns try to trick the public?

The public has overwhelmingly voted yes - 62% to 39%. There are several of the usual suspects (AR supporters) posting on the message board. Rather than answer simple questions regarding deceptions by HSUS, they immediately jumped into the standard lines above. When presented facts, they demand MORE proof of those facts and anything remotely related to an organization that support "animal use" or exploitation (read - AKC, NAIA, humanewatch, CCF, USDA, etc) the facts become tainted. I have asked one question over and over and have received NO answer.

The question asked was if the HSUS is all about improving the lives of animals, why did they advocate the deaths of the confiscated pitbulls from Michael Vick? After three days, still no answer. Regardless of what I post, the answer is that slaveholders in the 1800's didn't see they were abusing their slaves either, I'm an evil breeder, making money on the backs of my dogs, I'm an animal abuser who only sees my animals as money machines, blah blah blah. They never respond.

So why do I continue to post on that board. Every post I make is slammed with BREEDER, ANIMAL user, etc. Not one AR person has changed their mind. Why do I continue to post? Because maybe, just maybe one person reading the board might actually use some critical thinking skills and say, wait a minute that makes sense. Because maybe one person who is on the fence about welfare vs rights will think about the consequences of animals having rights.

I'll continue to argue with stupid in the hopes that just one person will see the truth about animal welfare and rights. I don't think I'm all that smart, nor can I change the world. We as animal lovers have to start standing up for ourselves. We can't sit on the sidelines anymore. We have to remember that the ultimate goal of animal rights advocates is the elimination of animals in our lives. They do not compromise, we can't either.

Ziyadah Clarken Making Waves - Gidget

 

Words mean things

 

Sometime in the last twenty years, words have changed meaning. I don’t understand that. I know times change, and I swore I’d never say “When I was a girl…” when I was a girl. But words have meaning and I’m tired of the perversion of them.

 

Let’s start with adoption. According to the dictionary

 

verb (used with object)

1.

to choose or take as one's own; make one's own by selection or assent: to adopt a nickname.

2.

to take and rear (the child of other parents) as one's own child, specifically by a formal legal act.

3.

to take or receive into any kind of new relationship: to adopt a person as a protégé.

4.

to select as a basic or required textbook or series of textbooks in a course.

5.

to vote to accept: The House adopted the report.

6.

to accept or act in accordance with (a plan, principle, etc.).

—Verb phrase

7.

adopt out, to place (a child) for adoption: The institution may keep a child or adopt it out.

 

There is nothing in the above that mentions animals or pets. When you go to a rescue or shelter and pay money for an animal, you are buying that animal. You are not adopting it. You are exchanging money for goods. I know it’s an animal, not goods. Nope, still goods. You exchange money for goods and services. Animals fall into that goods category.

 

Before you all go screaming away – oooohhhh Kathy thinks animals are products and that’s terrible. No it’s not terrible. Does it mean that I think they do not deserve our utmost care, love and concern, no. It just means that I don’t really think they are furry humans. When is the last time you saw a human delight in rolling in dead things? When is the last time you saw a human digging in a cat box, eating “kitty tootsie rolls”? When is the last time you saw a human cleaning their offspring with something other than a baby wipe?

 

Yes, they are endearing, loving, wonderful creatures. They complete our lives, they enrich our lives, but they are not humans. I could not live without my dogs and my horse, but I love them precisely because they ARE dogs and a horse.

 

Let’s take the word MURDER now. I’ve been called a murderer because I have bred and sold puppies. I’m called a murderer on a regular basis, actually.

 

noun

1.

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

2.

Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!

3.

a group or flock of crows

 

Aside from that flock of crows thing (I love A Murder of Crows – wonderful movie with Cuba Gooding, Jr.), murder appears to be a crime against humans. According to Animal Rights activists, we (people who own or breed purebred dogs or purebred anythings) are murderers – we kill dogs that are available for sale through shelters and rescues. They’ve made it illegal in West Hollywood to sell puppies in pet stores unless they come through a rescue group or a shelter.

 

Note to self:  Please explain to me why it’s okay to buy a dog from a shelter or rescue, but not from the breeder through a pet store? It’s the same dog, with the same health issues, the same breeding, the same everything. The only difference is the middle man – the shelter or rescue.

 

People who want purebred dogs buy them from breeders or buy them from rescues and shelters. Not everyone wants a random bred dog. Some people have specific needs in their lives, where they live, how they live. They have determined a specific breed of dog fulfills that need. More than likely they would not want a large black dog of unknown parentage, unknown health and unknown temperament. To deliberately choose a dog that fits for you and your family is responsible, in my opinion. It’s a true commitment. It acknowledges that you expect the dog to be with you for his lifetime.

 

The ARistas were furious because President Obama got a purebred dog. He had some very specific needs – allergic child, never owned a dog, isn’t home a lot <bg>. He chose a dog (well, Ted Kennedy chose Bo – but the PWD was on the ‘list) that was right for his family. Would it have been better for them to take a dog from a shelter that made Malia ill that was too boisterous, and would have to be returned? Ridiculous.

 

But, to the AR fanatic – President Obama murdered a shelter dog. Every puppy I sell murders a shelter dog. Using the word murder makes it more horrific. Murder equates the life of an animal to a human life and in many cases elevates the animal’s life. By using the word murder, AR fanatics are saying buying a dog deliberately takes the life of a shelter dog, it’s intentional, you mean to KILL a shelter dog.

 

If one were to follow that same train of thought, it would stand to reason anyone having a natural child is murdering a homeless child. It is as illogical. That is the heart of it all. AR thought and dogma has nothing to do with logic, it is simply a belief system. One has to BELIEVE for it to work.

 

Christians are Christians because they believe in the divinity of Christ. People who believe in animal rights believe that we do not have the right to OWN an animal. That is the basic philosophy.

 

Words mean something. I will continue to try and discuss words and meanings as well as ideas, facts and beliefs. Thanks again for coming out! 

 

 

Ch. Clarkens Castaway - Wilson tolerating Bruce petting him.
  

What this blog will not be about - a little about me and a little more.

I've already received some excellent feedback and I appreciate it. I thought I'd share a little about who I am and who I am not.

This blog will never be about "tea parties", right wing agendas, gun rights, or how the federal government is out to get us. I am a basically very liberal person with progressive views. While I appreciate input from others, I want to keep the conspiracy theories, the far right more hysterical websites off of here. I feel the best way for us (animal lovers who do not believe in rights) to educate and keep our freedom to own, exhibit, eat, wear, ride, and breed our animals is to present fact. I feel we need to encourage critical thinking skills, we need to allow people to read the simple facts about illegal seizure, about the anti human agenda of the purist animal rights activists, about the deception of HSUS, PETA and other more prominent groups.

I am not doing this to inflame, I am doing this to educate. I'll leave the petitions to IRS to others. I'll leave the reporting of tax returns to others. I want to get people to think, to draw logical conclusion based on facts. I don't want to wave goofy signs, wear goofy costumes in protest. I don't want the people I'm trying to educate look at me as foolish as women in lettuce bikinis.

Example - Mandatory spay neuter diminishes shelter population - the premise is false. The vast majority of animals in shelters are "unowned" or "surrendered". The overpopulation theory contends that breeders are pumping out masses of puppies and that is what fills the shelters. Let's look at that premise.

Shelter populations are young adult, adolescent dogs of particular mixes and feral cats for the most part. How is demanding that everyone s/n going to change that paradigm? Answer - it's not. The people who are responsible enough to keep track of and s/n their animals are already doing so. If we have overpopulation, why are shelters not overrun with puppies? Mandating that an unowned dog be neutered is ridiculous.

What happens with MSN? - people who cannot afford s/n surrender their dogs and cats. The same number of unowned animals is still out there, the same number of feral cats is still out there. We've simply added to the numbers. Those who are concerned with being legal will s/n, consequently the responsible breeders will eventually wind up having to spay and neuter themselves out of existence. Here's how that works - if something cant' breed no new ones are made. While Wayne's often used quote of "one generation and out" is about purebred cattle, he and others in that crowd have made it clear that purposeful breeding of dogs, cats, rabbits, all "domesticates" (as they are called by ARistas) is unacceptable and in their perfect world would not be allowed. Domesticates currently living would all be spay/neutered and the species would die out, period.

Instead of forcing MSN, why don't the organizations with millions and millions of dollars use those dollars to fund free s/n clinics. Why don't they build modern, efficient shelters that offer rehab and behavior training to make more animals adoptable? A beautiful facility in Rancho Sante Fe, CA is the Helen Woodward Foundation. Their kennels are well run, easy to clean, allow for exercise and are NO kill and have been for decades.

.

Please, continue to comment, continue to advise and continue to read. I'll try to keep this fresh and enlightening. If I make factual errors, please let me know. Be kind - I'm very new at this.

Clarkens Syriana being forced to love on her puppies by Ch. Croesan Clarken Actin Kool (Biff).

Who are the players and why should we care?

Thanks to everyone who stopped by yesterday and left comments, and those who stopped by and just read. I appreciate it.

This would seem to be a relatively simple issue - you are either for animal welfare or animal rights. You love and care about animals, want to see them cared for well and want to continue to have them in your life or you think we should see them from afar. Unfortunately, it's not. There are larger than life public players, like PETA, HSUS, AKC, UKC to name a few. They are "in your face" with welfare and rights. There are other players, however, who need to be recognized and addressed if we are to "win" this war for our animals.

HSUS and PETA are the most visible. They thrive on publicity. PETA doesn't care if it's good or bad, the more outrageous the better for them. HSUS tries to be more "moderate", more main stream. The truly dedicated, fanatic AR supporters, however, think HSUS and PETA are lightweights.

The true believers think PETA and HSUS are "new welfarists" because they are willing to compromise with care to reach the end of domestic animal use. The true believers can be broken down into several categories:

1. Abolitionists - animals should be free from all interaction with humans; "domesticates" here should  be cared for, but no breeding to maintain the species - dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, etc.

   2. Animal rights supporters - animals have intrinsic rights to be free from ownership.

Rather than turn this into a dry, dusty treatise, I suggest the following website for research. This one really lays it out well:  www.animalethics.org.uk . This website gives a thorough breakdown on the differences in each group.

The players in that world are vastly different from Wayne Pacelle (CEO, HSUS) or Ingrid Newkirk (Co-Founder of PETA). The players in the true believer world are professors, lawyers and scholars. They are TEACHING our children at universities across the country and world about animal rights law, animal abolition, speciesism, and how we as humans are morally and ethically obligated to stop "using" animals in all walks of life.

While HSUS & PETA the most public adversaries, we need to make sure we are aware of these others. I used to post on an AR/AW debate board on Yahoo. One of the strongest AR proponents I dealt with went by the silly name of "Rags". Rags, it turns out, is a professor of sociology in Wales, he's a former executive committee member of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, a form ALF press officer and a co-founder of the Fur Action Group. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment for conspiracy to commit criminal damage for ALF, and has a PhD - his thesis was the subject of human/non-human relations. He continues to teach.

Rags made no bones about it - I was a slave holder, an exploitive, perverse, evil human. I regularly allowed my male dogs to rape my female dogs, I strung them up by their necks and dragged them around the ring for my own pleasure, I sold their children for money. In short, I was someone with less value than most animals. One of his favorite AR colleagues is Joan Dunayer. You've never heard of them have you? You need to know their names, they are teaching young people that YOU and I are evil doers of the worst kind.

Joan Dunayer brought us the joys of Speciesism. According to the theory of speciesism a spider or ant have the same value of life that a dog, a human or a horse has and all due consideration must be given to them. As humans we have the moral and ethical capability of choosing to not harm them, so we must under any circumstance subrogate ourselves to avoiding harm. Of course, any interaction is harm.

The other darlings of AR are Dr. Steven Best, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Humanities, University of Texas, El Paso; Tom Regan, Professor Emeritus at North Carolina State University, retired; Gary Francione distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas deB Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosopy at Rutgers University of Law.

We must, of course be ever vigilant of the nefarious doings of the HSUS, ASPCA, PETA, AHA and Best Friends to name a few, but we need to be aware that there are forces with much sublter approaches to grabbing the next generation and teaching them about our "evil" ways.

I don't want to be hysterical or a gloom and doom crepe hanger, but this is serious. One only has to look at how in the last 10 years more and more of our rights as pet owners, dog breeders, and exhibitors have fallen away.  Bob Barker, of Price Is Right fame has donated the following in order to further his own agenda of animal use abolition:

$1,000,000 to Georgetown Law school for Animal Rights Law studies

    $1,000,000 to SHARK to stop pigeon hunting in PA

    $1,000,000 to Drury University for Animal Rights Law

    $5,000,000 to Sea Shepherd to commit piracy on the high seas

We can combat this with education of our own. It means going to Bark in the Park and handing out brochures, it means participating in Meet The Breeds, it means doing therapy work with our dogs, it means no more apologizing for having purebred dogs, it means being armed with FACT not a belief system.

Here are a few websites to peruse and take a look at who is teaching the next generation:

www.drstevebest.org

www.abolitionistapproach.com

www.vegancrowd.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Yates

More as I'm able. Please feel free to leave me suggestions (be kind, please).

Me torturing yet another corgi - U GrCh/Ch Castell No Time to Kill, Cowboy

We were in New York at Bryant Park

A first step - Defining Animal Rights and Animal Welfare

For years I've complained, railed, fought, and argued about animal rights vs animal welfare. Being a dog lover, owner and competitor as well as a breeder (once in awhile), my friends always assumed I was an animal rights person. You know - animals have the RIGHT to be treated well, not be abused, to be loved, etc. However, those are not "rights". Those are welfare issues, not rights. To truly understand, I have to go back and explain a few things. As I blog, I will do my best to produce these entries with good grammar, good spelling and coherent sentence structure. However, I was not an English major and would ask your forgiveness in advance for any errors in these areas.

I was first introduced to the concept of Animal Rights about 12 years ago on the ACLU boards of AOL. I stumbled on a group discussing "animal rights". It was a lively discussion, but it was also quite volatile. I could see immediately that the ARistas (Animal Rights advocates) were almost religiously fanatic in their application of their beliefs. There was little in the way of logic applied to their beliefs, they were instead simply that - BELIEFS. Their arguments were filled with phrases and words made up to support their belief that animals were indeed exploited by humans in all cases of interaction. There was almost no fact in their side of the discussion. Lots of talk of morals and ethics, though.

It was on those boards that I first learned that to argue against something, I had to be able to define it. Rights, as we know them, are a human construct. Rights are those ideas that allow us to live together in society without pure chaos. As our economic situations and governmental situations improve and change, rights are expanded to more citizens. Rights are not something you see in nature. The rabbit has no right to life in the wild, the coyote sees to that. There are no moral obligations from one group of animals to another.

In the world of humans, as a species, we are capable of understanding and constructing rights. Rights are not "god given" - there are simply too many "gods" for that to be true. As a species, humans can, and do, develope societies and governments and rights are what keep us civilized. No one in the US is freely allowed to violate another human's rights, even those who are physically or mentally unable to understand what rights are. Our system of laws is written in a way that those who are not able to understand are given guardians to help them do so.

Rights, as such, cannot be afforded to entire groups that will never have the capability of understanding what those rights are. Non-human animals (for the purposes of this blog and all my entries the term animal will mean NON-HUMAN animals) will never have that capacity as species. A wolf does not morally understand it should not eat a sheep, depriving it of life. A cow does not have the capacity to understand that 10 months down the road she made be headed to a slaughterhouse, she doesn't contemplate her future or death. Prey animals have the instinct for flight, predator animals for fight. Do animals have "feelings", yes of course. They are not, however, furry humans. To the best of my knowledge humans do not regularly roll in dead things, eat their own feces or the feces of other species, do not eat their own young if they feel threatened, or mate with a sibling to keep the pack going. These are all things animals do with great regularity.

Animal rights philosophy in its purest form is simple. Animals have one right - the right not to be owned. That means just what it sounds like - no pets, no farm animals, no service animals, no zoos, no rodeos, no riding horses, certainly no fur, no food animals. AR believers have one conviction - all humans will eventually become exploitive and cruel and just by confining a pet, a dairy cow, a seeing eye dog the human is cruel and inhumane. In the world of animal rights, there is no compromise. They may use welfare issues as a means to an end, but make no mistake the end is the same. As a human, you will never be able to be anything but cruel and exploitive when you interact with animals in any way.

Animal welfare - that's simple. We as humans must simply be sure that any animals in our homes, farms, businesses, whatever, are cared for in the best possible way for THEM. Whether we are raising animals for food, for companions, or simply have a dog or cat or fish tank - we must be the best stewards we can for them. If they are destined for food, it is our obligation to see that their lives are lived in comfort, with plenty of food, shelter, water and whatever else is needed to make them happy as their species needs it. NOT as we as humans think it should be. More to come...

 

That's my first entry! Hope you enjoy this and that you will come back for more. As I learn more about how this "blogging" thing works, I'll add more features!

Kathy Clark

This is me, cruelly exploiting one of my dogs, Lark (U-Ch/Ch Brynlea Clarken Unforgettable)