HSUS endorses OBAMA

I've seen this stated on this forum several times, that HSUS and PETA are against pet ownership.  I don't know where this information is coming from.  Both these organizations are against BREEDING, not pet ownership.  They both fully support adopting homeless pets from shelters, obviously since the HSUS adopts out homeless pets.   While I don't fully agree with their stance, since both of my dogs are from breeders, I can understand their reasoning and that their stance is in the best interest of the animals  (the reason these organizations exist in the first place), versus the rights of people to do what they want with animals. 

 I think it's wonderful that Obama is supportive of animal welfare.

jenns

I've seen this stated on this forum several times, that HSUS and PETA are against pet ownership.  I don't know where this information is coming from.  Both these organizations are against BREEDING, not pet ownership.  They both fully support adopting homeless pets from shelters, obviously since the HSUS adopts out homeless pets.   While I don't fully agree with their stance, since both of my dogs are from breeders, I can understand their reasoning and that their stance is in the best interest of the animals  (the reason these organizations exist in the first place), versus the rights of people to do what they want with animals. 

 Wow you have really fallen for what HSUS and PETA propaganda - hope you don't so easily accept everything people want you to believe without research.

  HSUS does not have a shelter nor adopt out homeless animals. PETA does run a shelter but it is extremely high kill. Their stats for 2006:

Out of the 6,375 cats which came into PETA's  shelter
> 4,410 were reclaimed
> by their owners. From the unclaimed  cats, PETA adopted out
> 2, transferred 21
> to other shelters and killed  1,942.
> 
> Out of the 3,175 dogs which came into PETA's shelter
> 2,131  were reclaimed by
> their owners. From the unclaimed dogs, PETA adopted out 8,
> transferred 25 to
> other shelters and 3 were classified as
> "miscellaneous". 988 of the
> unclaimed dogs were killed by  PETA.
> 
>  Out of the 86 "other companion animals" which
> came into PETA's shelter, 34
> were reclaimed by their owners. From the  unclaimed pets,
> PETA adopted out 2
> and killed 50.
> 
>  The total for pets taken in was 9,637 with 6,575 lucky
> enough to have been
> claimed by their owners. Of the 3,062 unclaimed pets, PETA
> adopted out only
> 12, transferred 46, classified 3 as
> "miscellaneous", had 3  die in the shelter
> and killed 2,981.
> 
>  And they did even worse with wildlife taking in 249  live
> wild animals,
> release 1 and killing 248.
>  http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2006

 Sure they may promote adopting right now but that is only as an alternative to breeding/buying from a breeder because they know people want pets. They want a "no birth nation" meaning no new pets are born, ever.

From PETA's website:

"We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed." http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp

 and even more clear statement (bold added by me):

"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest, raising their young and following their natural instincts in their native environments. Domesticated dogs and cats, however, cannot live “free” in our concrete jungles, so we are responsible for their care. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting an animal from a shelter or rescuing an animal from a perilous life on the streets. It is important, also, to keep our companion animals from reproducing, which perpetuates a class of animals who are forced to rely on humans to survive." http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=133

 Both HSUS and PETA support kill shelters over a move to no-kill. Hard to have a campaign (and most important get people to give you money) against breeding when you make people feel guilty about all the dead homeless pets. Although there is evidence that the "overpopulation" promoted by HSUS and PETA is a falsehood and that the number of shelter animals euthanized every year has been on a steady decline. PETA and HSUS continue to support killing animals because it is in the best interest of their organizations:

http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/05/myth-of-pet-overpopulation.html

http://www.mofed.org/Redefining.html

 

jenns

I've seen this stated on this forum several times, that HSUS and PETA are against pet ownership.  I don't know where this information is coming from.  Both these organizations are against BREEDING, not pet ownership.  They both fully support adopting homeless pets from shelters, obviously since the HSUS adopts out homeless pets. 

 

     PETA does not support shelter dogs. They'd rather we "adopt" a neutered mutt than buy a purebred, but that's about the extent of it. Animal rights groups do not support ownership of animals, however you have to do some digging into thier groups founders to learn this. Not going to be in bold letters on their websites, becuase who'd be crazy enough to donate to them? You cannot abolish pet ownership without first doing away with the breeding of dogs. Breeders have been villianized by the AR movement. They started with "puppy mills". No one supports unethical, neglectful, cruel breeders keeping their dogs in poor condition. So it wasn't hard to turn the public against mills. Everyone in rescue has seen mills. Dirty, filthy places overbreeding sick dogs. BUT. Pet store dogs come from breeders that must be INSPECTED by the USDA and if they are AKC, then the registry sends out an inspector as well. It behooves licensed breeders to have healthy, well kept dogs. But I digress. The ARs are now going after show breeders with a vengance. The goal is to stop ALL breeding. What happens when breeding is stopped and all you can get is a neutered dog from the pound? How long do you think it will be before dogs are a distant memory?

     Second fallacy. PETA and the like do not support homeless pets. THEY KILL THEM. PETA members were put on trial last year for animal cruelty. See, when PETA holds their adoption drives, it's been a klnown fact for many years that they DO NOT make the slightest attempt to adopt these dogs out. They euthanize them, routinely. See here for mroe info: www.petakillsanimals.com
     The members were tried for the inhumane/illegal way they disposed of the remains. http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3227
     This was nothing new, it just so happened they got caught that time around.

     To answer your original question, if you need to see what the ARs stand for here it is straight from the horse's @$$ ... er, mouth:

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by  neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist."
-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic, PETA 1982, p.15.

"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership."
-- Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997

FROM HSUS

"Human care (of animals) is simply sentimental, sympathetic patronage."
-- Dr. Michael W. Fox, HSUS, in 1988 Newsweek interview

"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ... One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."
-- Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President oF HSUS, formerly of Friends for Animals; Quoted in Animal People, May, 1993

"The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration."
-- Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President oF HSUS, formerly of Friends for Animals - In Inhumane Society, 199

"The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect."
-- Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President oF HSUS, formerly of Friends for Animals, The Associated Press, Jan. 15, 1989

 Make no mistake about it. ARs are not animal lovers. It is a fascist concept (and one could argue that Obama has some fascist ideals - i.e. income redistribution but that's another thread entirely, lol). It was concieved by Hitler under his Nazi regime and again sufaced in the early 1970s in England. And of course, was popularized by Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA.
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id11.html
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Nazianimalrights.htm

WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS: http://purebredcatbreedrescue.org/animal_rights.htm
   

 

I'm not in on the discussion of the AR/Obama connection, but AR didn't start in Nazi Germany.  Animal welfare awareness began long before that.  Remember the novel Black Beauty? - that was basically to raise awareness of the plight of the horse in Victorian England.

Everything was nationalized in Nazi Germany.  So there were laws (dictated by Hitler) about everything.  That's why uber-control-freaks in any context are often called "***."   Nazism had more in common with the extreme right though, not the left.

Okay, I will comment on the AR/Obama connection.  Trust me when I say I have no reason at all to defend him - I'm very conservative.  But, I must say in fairness that it's more useful to evaluate a potential President on issues which are the most important roles he will have in a constitutional sense.  I am pro-life.  But I literally do not care whether any future President is pro-life or pro-abortion.  That's not his call to make.  My questions are, what are his views on foreign policy?  The bureaucracy (executive branch)?  Budgetary directions?  Judicial selection?

I don't care where McCain or Obama, Palin or Biden, stand on animal rights or any other issue I think should be handled at the local level, unless it matters so much to them that they think they should do something about it at the national level.  Then I put a mark against them because I'm a pretty traditional thinker in those matters.  Again, that means, for instance, that I view a POTUS wannabe with suspicion who wants to make national laws about abortion, too.  That cuts both ways for me.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled HSUS thread. 

PETA and the HSUS are closely aligned and both are bad.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

One of the replies said that HSUS and PETA are not against dog ownership, but only dog breeding.

Think about that!

If dogs are not bred, there will be no dogs to own.

Shelter and rescue dogs are all spayed/neutered for adoption...close to 75% of dog owners voluntarily spay/neuter...other places mandate it...there is a growing crackdown on owners of intact mixed breeds...

If it were not for breeders, there would be no more dog ownership because, in just a few years, there would be no more dogs.

HSUS and PETA lie through their teeth!

Their goal is the complete elimination of companion animals in America.

As Wayne Pacelle said, "One generation and out."   

Nope...saw that a while ago...when it comes down to my dog...and my daughter...my daughter is going to win, every single time. Her future must include someone in the Oval Office who is pro choice and pro woman...period. I'll always do my part to make that happen.

Far from impressed tho!

 

jenns

I don't know where this information is coming from.  Both these organizations are against BREEDING, not pet ownership. 

 

I don't know about HSUS, but as far as PETA goes the info is correct and it's come from Ingrid Newkirk.

Carry on.

denise m

Mike Markarian wrote the following in support of Obama. Does this influence your opinion? .....

Meanwhile, back to the original question.... Uh, no, that fact that HSUS endorses Obama does not influence my opinion, and it would not influence my opinion if HSUS endorsed McCain either. Brookcove wrote a nice thoughtful post about why the endorsement of HSUS shouldn't influence our choice of president. I add that the fact that HSUS endorses any particular candidate does not necessarily mean that the candidate endorses all the goals of HSUS. Look at the actual list of legislation that the original post cites Obama as supporting. How many people here disagree with Obama's stand on those specific pieces of legislation? Is there anything in that list of legislation that remotely suggests that Obama is plotting to take your pets out of your back yard if he is elected? Who here is just incensed! that Obama supported legislation banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption? If people oppose Obama because of his level of experience, or because they don't like his health care plan, or they don't approve of his approach to foreign policy, then by all means vote for someone else. But to try to link him to a movement to ban pets because HSUS endorses him his just pure baseless scare tactics.

Well put.

Another thing to consider: If PeTA and HSUS are successful in their ideas, all the schools that breed, raise and train Dog Guides for blind folks will be gone. Most of the schools have their own breeding stock, and interbreed between schools for greater diversity and to avoid genetic disorders. All of the Guides awarded to blind people are already altered, but the onerous regulations that the HSUS and Peta wish to enact would place such a burden on the schools that they would no longer be able to provide this valuable service.

On a side note, there have been numerous attacks upon blind handlers of Guides by the PeTA crowd, in an attempt to "free" the Guide from "its unwilling servitude to man".  There are actual cases where they wait in elevators of buildings in large cities for a Guide and its handler to enter, then restrain the handler and loose the dog. My wife has actually been followed by some of these nutcases while using her Guide, having them scream "Animal abuser, animal abuser" at her.

 HSUS and PeTA are in bed together on a lot of issues, which, in our experiences, makes neither one of them a trustable entity.

But maybe others have had different experiences and opinions. This is just what we have seen.

I went to a local "animal rights" meeting. First of all, it was ludicrous. They were sitting there, eating freaking SHRIMP and HAM. Aren't most AR people vegans or at least vegetarians?

 

Anyhow, this group has all sorts of literature and support from the HSUS and their goal is to alter ALL domestic animals. That means no more dogs, no more cats, no more pet rabbits or guinea pigs. They'd all be gone in a generation if they were all neutered. I got pretty upset at that meeting, being the owner of an intact dog. Someone there found out that I "parade purebred dogs around a ring" in my spare time, so I've been officially uninvited.

These people that would treat any disabled person with a service dog like you described are just nuts and dangerous. Why don't we ever see these stories on the news?!  I can't imagine the multitude of emotions your wife must have gone through being treated like this.

  OT but just wanted to add that friend of mine is in Washington D.C. on a little vacation.  They were at a very busy intersection and saw a GSD guide dog waiting for the light to change in order to lead his person across.  She said it was so incredibly loud, traffic rushing by, horns honking, people talking and that dog was so focused on it's job that it just amazed her.  She has donated a dog to the Southwest Guide Dogs and that dog is close to retiring now. 

 

You dont hear about these happenings on the news due to the fact that the type of activity propogated by the "animal rights" nutjobs is a "Hit and Run" action. They observe the target, plan the attack, execute the action, then melt away before anyone really has a chance to react or do anything about it. Sort of like a terrorist--------plan, attack and run. And this is done with the blessing and encouragement of PeTA and HSUS.

 

On the other note, yeah----those dogs are really amazing. The independence and freedom my wife now has is 100% better than with her white cane. As she says: "Once you try Dog, you wont go back to stick." The partnership between Handler and Guide is even closer than marriage-------but I dont mind. After all, the dog doesnt get to sleep in the bed-----shes on the floor in her cozy crate.