Author Topic: Animal Rights & Animal Welfare - Guardian/Property  (Read 5241 times)

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Animal Rights & Animal Welfare - Guardian/Property
« on: July 30, 2007, 08:23:19 AM »
Quote
Get involved with town meetings of your local government (I mean the most local to you, the town or suburb or District within the city). Propose that they officially recognize their citizens as animal “guardians” by incorporating the term into their city ordinances. Point out the statistics of animal abusers graduating to people abusers. Organize a booth for education on “community day”, labor day, etc.
 

I snipped this out of a post by Max-Rep on the Make a Difference thread.  I do not want to sidetrack that thread by having this discussion in that thread.

Should we be guardians of our pets, or should they be our property?

I personally want them to stay as property.   Once we are "guardians" of them laws can be put into affect saying how you have to take care of them.  This could mean the government will decide when pets must be altered and what vaccinations, what chemicals/poisons must be given, what is the proper way to feed, etc.  As someone who goes against the norm in a lot of my decisions on the care of my pets, I do not want someone telling me I must care for my pets using ways that I believe are harmful and not in their best interest.  I do not want to be found an "abusive or neglectful" person because I chose to do things a different way.

"Guardianship, a word always applied to human beings, implies equality—the highest and perhaps most noble of all goals in this democratic nation. Ownership implies responsibility. Americans who own dogs need to be more responsible for them, literally and emotionally—not more equal to them."


  This is similar to Animal Rights and Animal Welfare.   I am a supporter of Animal Welfare rather than Animal Rights. 


below taken from:
  http://www.sover.net/~lsudlow/ARvsAW.htm

I think it sums up the difference between Rights and Welfare pretty good.


 ANIMAL RIGHTS


To end all human "exploitation" of animals - this includes, but is not limited to, raising  and slaughtering of livestock for human or animal consumption, eating meat, hunting, using animals for any medical or veterinary research, zoos (regardless of how well managed), circuses, rodeos, horseshows, dogshows, animals performing in TV  commercials, shows or movies (regardless of how well treated any of the above are), guide-dogs for the blind, police dogs, search & rescue dogs, and the practice of owning pets.

PETA (People For The Ethical
      Treatment Of Animals) 

HSUS (Humane Society Of The
      United States)   



ANIMAL WELFARE


To prevent suffering and cruelty to animals.  And to provide care and good homes for pets in need.  This often includes, but is not limited to, the funding and running of animal shelters (to provide a sanctuary for abandoned, abused, homeless, or unwanted pets, and to place them in good homes where possible, provide painless euthanasia for those that cannot be adopted, and to educate the public about the need for  spaying/neutering their pets to prevent more surplus animals ending up in shelters), enforcement of anti-cruelty statutes (where their authority permits),initiating, lobbying for, and monitoring enforcement of legislation to ensure more humane standards of care for livestock, laboratory animals, performing animals, and pets.

ASPCA (American Society For The
         Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals)



I have supported the HSUS in the Michael Vick's case, but as a whole I do not. 

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: Guardians or Property?
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2007, 08:36:22 AM »
http://proaviculture.com/guardian.htm

 I snipped out 2 parts, but really suggest going to the link and reading the whole article.


 snipped:

"In essence, if we are "Guardians" rather than "Owners" of our animals, it is the State (i.e., the government), and not the individual, who owns the animal.

If we are "Guardians" rather than owners, then ultimately it will be the State, and not the individual, who has the power to say who will care for the animal, how it will be cared for, where it will reside, what medical treatments it will or will not undergo, and who will make all the other decisions regarding the health, welfare, life and death, or destruction, of that animal. I do not believe animal ownership and care is a function which is, or which should be, properly exercised by the State. Further, when we say the "State" is the owner of the animal, it is unclear which arm of the "State" will have and exercise this ownership. If the federal, state, and local jurisdictions all have "Guardianship" laws, and if they conflict, who will prevail and which laws will be effective? The confusion about who is ultimately responsible for the care of animals subject to "Guardianship" laws can lead to more hardship and suffering of the animals who are allegedly neglected or abused by their owners. Also, the humans who are subjected to these conflicting laws, who care about their animals, will also suffer as decisions regarding the care and custody of their animals remain in legal no-man's land."   ....................

......"So, what is the true purpose behind this push for using the term "Guardian"? From my legal perspective I see that purpose to be to achieve public acceptance for the concept of animal "Guardians" in a general sense, so that the door can be opened to animal rights activists who don't believe humans should have or keep animals and who seek the removal of animals from their owners on simple, perhaps unfounded, allegations of abuse or neglect."

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: Guardians or Property?
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2007, 09:00:28 AM »
http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/owner_guardian_ahi.asp


Pet owner or guardian?
Animal Health Institute
November 2005

Pets play an important role in our lives, and it is common to refer to them as "companion" animals. Increasingly, in fact, Americans think of pets as members of their extended family.

But should pets be treated legally as if they were people? That is what is behind an effort to legally change the way we refer to our relationship with our pets. While proponents of this effort claim that new laws would raise the status of animals, such legislation would more likely harm pets by hurting people's ability to care for their pets properly.

Changes to the law, like the one proposed currently in a number of states and municipalities, would be likely to affect pets, their owners and their health care providers adversely in several ways:

    * They would create legal confusion about the relationship between owners and animals
    * They could limit—or even eliminate—pet owners' ability to freely choose an appropriate treatment for a pet.
    * They could eliminate pet owners' freedom of choice in decisions about the most appropriate way to care for your pet.
    * They could subject decisions about petcare to outside intervention by neighbors, other third parties and government authorities.

To protect against these adverse outcomes to well-intentioned legislation, pet owners should carefully consider the possible ramifications of any legislative or regulatory proposal that comes before local and state lawmakers to change the way we refer to the relationship between humans and their pets.

Are you a pet owner or guardian?

Recently, a number of organizations have begun campaigning to change the legal status of animals by replacing the term "pet owner" with the term "guardian." The term "owner" places responsibility on people to care for their animals, while the term "guardian" shares the decision-making rights and responsibilities with courts and other third-parties who might be able to claim-under new laws-an interest on the animal's behalf.

While proponents of guardianship claim it is a harmless recognition of the growing status of pets, guardianship would, in fact, represent a dramatic and negative change in the legal standing of animals.

There is no doubt that inserting the word "guardian" in place of "owner" in describing the relationship between a human and a pet would be regarded by courts as a meaningful change. Courts would then fall back on the long-established use of the word "guardian," which is typically applied to minors. Guardianship, in legal terms, is a complex fiduciary relationship subject to court approval. It is not a status that is sought to upgrade the status or standing of an individual, but one that is used as a fallback when no natural guardian – or parent – is present.

Historically, the law has classified pets as a kind of property. This status has enabled owners to protect their pets in the same way they can protect other property from undue restrictions and seizure.

Because there are a number of kinds of property, however, pets enjoy a special legal status. The law recognizes, for example, that pets are not the same kind of property as desks or cars. Rather, each state in the U.S. has laws requiring humane care of pets and criminalizing cruelty to animals. Other laws set standards for the care and handling of companion animals involved in commerce. So while pets do not have the same legal status as people, they are treated as a special type of property, a kind of property that requires humane treatment by pet owners and protects pets from irresponsible neglect and other forms of abuse by pet owners.

In contrast, under U.S. law, guardians are not owners; they are merely caretakers. Guardian status could reduce the petcare choices available to the caretakers. Legally, for example, human guardians must always act in the best interest of the "ward." What is "best" is determined by anyone with a self-proclaimed interest or expertise and who is willing to use the court system to force a caretaker to make the "best" decision.

So consider an elderly dog that has developed a severely arthritic hip. Currently, an owner has several treatment options available, from hip replacement surgery to less invasive and less costly alternatives. While some owners may indeed opt for the hip replacement surgery, other owners may choose less expensive options. However, a "guardian" would be required to act in the "best" interest of the animal; and if a neighbor, the local humane society or a local college professor believes that hip replacement surgery is in the best interest of the animal, the dog's caretaker could be forced to accept that option – affordable or not.

Another example: a pet owner may decide the family's dog should be confined to a kennel rather than roaming freely throughout the entire backyard. Under current laws, pet owners have the freedom to make that choice. But a guardian could risk being taken to court by a local animal rights group or by family members who disagree and want the dog to roam the yard freely – under penalty of the law.

Changing the way the law treats pets and the people who care for them from ownership to guardianship raises many questions about how pets will be cared for in the future. If pet owners today become, under new legislation, pet guardians, a number of things could happen:

    * Animal rights organizations or meddling neighbors could petition courts for custody of your pet if they don't approve of the way you care for your pet
    * The treatment options you and your veterinarian decide on could be challenged by the local animal rights organization or other self-appointed experts.
    * It could be illegal to spay or neuter a pet because it deprives them of their "reproductive rights."
    * Veterinarians and pet guardians could be sued for providing what another individual might regard as inadequate care.

Guardianship laws also could have negative consequences for animal care and control organizations, which already have limited resources. They could be forced to deal with changes in euthanasia policies, increased responsibility for investigating animal abuse charges or responsibility for monitoring guardians.

It's important to understand that the attempt to replace ownership with guardianship is part of a broader agenda sought primarily by some animal rights activists. For them, this change is the first step toward placing animals on the same legal plane as people, and they see that step as more important than the fact that such changes will significantly reduce the rights and choices currently available to pet owners to provide for and protect their pets.

Pets are important and valued companions. That's why laws that protect pets from abuse are already on the books. Changing the laws to refer to pets in the same way we refer to family will not provide further protection to pets, but rather will limit the ability of pet owners to make decisions about the care and treatment of their pet.

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: Guardians or Property?
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2007, 05:47:00 AM »
 
No discussion on this?   :-\

Geo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3782
Re: Guardians or Property?
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2007, 07:05:42 AM »
I think as long as dog owners can be ticketed for not cleaning up after thier dogs when they shit in public places or in other peoples yards , dogs fall into the property catagory.

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: Guardians or Property?
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2007, 09:23:29 AM »
I think as long as dog owners can be ticketed for not cleaning up after thier dogs when they shit in public places or in other peoples yards , dogs fall into the property catagory.

    ;D

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
The Difference between Animal Rights & Animal Welfare
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2007, 06:51:54 AM »
http://www.ncraoa.com/AR_VS_AW.html

Animal Activist or Animal Advocate?
Animal RIGHTS or Animal WELFARE?
Do YOU know the difference?


Animal Welfare supports humane use and treatment of animals and believes that humans have a responsibility to care for animals. Animal Welfare includes humane treatment and responsible care of animals used by humans for service, research, food, education, kept in zoos or sanctuaries, and especially those animals kept by pet owners.

Animal Rights (AR) is based on moral and ethical philosophies. While Animals Rights Advocates and Groups talk about humane care, the bottom line is to work for humane care and legislation ONLY until all animals can be removed from human use. The reason for this is the Animal Rights belief that no species on this planet is better than another; therefore, humans have no right to dominate over, use, breed, or eat non-human species. www.animal-rights.com/arpage.htm

"..can the slavery of animals be justified? After all, precisely what characteristic or "defect" is it that animals have that justifies our treatment of them as our slaves, as our things, as property that exists only for the sake of us, the human masters. The reality is that we progressives like to think that we have eschewed all vestiges of slavery from our lives, but the reality is that we are all slave owners, the plantation is the earth, sown with the seeds of greed, and the slaves are our nonhuman sisters and brothers." Gary Francione, (Professor-Rutgers School of Law) Animal Rights Commentary, February 15, 1996: Human Superiority. www.animal-law.org/commentaries/

Additional Quotes from Voices From The Darkside NAIA website

"Probably everything we do is a publicity stunt ... we are not here to gather members, to please, to placate, to make friends. We're here to hold the radical line." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA's president and founder, USA Today, September 3, 1991

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA

"In a perfect world, we would not keep animals for our benefit, including pets," Tom Regan, emeritus professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University and author of “Empty Cages” - speaking at University of Wisconsin-Madison campus, March 3, 2004

"The entire animal rights movement in the United States reacted with unfettered glee at the [Fox Hunting] Ban in England ...We view this act of parliament as one of the most important actions in the history of the animal rights movement. This will energise our efforts to stop hunting with hounds." Wayne Pacelle, CEO, Humane Society of the US (HSUS), London Times, December 26, 2004

"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state. Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP Humane Society of the US (HSUS), formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990.

Current surveys show that nearly 70% of pet owners consider their pets as family members. This is a good thing as this raises the level of care and commitment that owners provide for their pets.

The Animal Rights leaders and grassroots organizations are very adept at blurring the lines between Animal Welfare and Animal Rights. Animal Rights Groups exploit our love of animals to work for various types of restrictive legislation (limit laws, breed specific legislation, mandatory spay/neuter) as well as laws that are steps toward changing the legal status of animals as property.

In a speech to the Animal Agriculture Alliance, Wes Jamison, PhD, an associate professor of agriculture at Dordt College said the animal rights movement, which has its roots in Europe, is here to stay. Dr Jamison says four social conditions cause the movement: urbanization, humanization of animals (anthropomorphism), acceptance of evolutionary theory, and affinity for equal rights among species (egalitarianism). Today’s urban society whose main contact with animals is pets that they view as family members, creates a ready-made audience for animal rights activists. In the late 1990s many animal rights groups started using legislative, regulatory, and judicial processes to work toward their goals. With little success at the federal level, efforts have focused on state and local levels. According to Dr. Jamison, this is where animal rights groups are having a quiet and very significant impact on the way people use and view animals. They have advantages. They have better organization, they have intense activism, and they have local civic support. www.avma.org/onlnews/javma

To quote Gary Francione (Rutgers School of Law) and Tom Regan (Professor of Philosophy, NC State University) – “Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved.” A Movement's Means Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992, pp. 40-42. (NAIA website http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/animalrightsquote.htm.)

Equally important is to understand the philosophy and organization of the animal rights movement. Only the extremists make headline news – ALF (Animal Liberation Front) breaking in to a school or lab and “rescuing” animals housed there, or throwing acid on vehicles owned by pharmaceutical company executives. The activists who work to integrate their philosophy into our legal system one small step at a time through the courts don't make exciting news for the press.

HOW IS THE ANIMAL RIGHTS AGENDA ACCOMPLISHED?
By changing public opinion - By changing the law – by electing pro animal rights legislators. Dr. Elliot Katz, founder of In Defense of Animals says “our efforts to raise the status of animals beyond that of mere property, commodities and things dramatically expanded as the state of Rhode Island, and the cities of West Hollywood and Berkeley, CA, and Sherwood, AR, followed Boulder, CO, in passing legislation recognizing the significance of animal guardianship ... important victories in our relentless war on animal exploitation, cruelty and abuse.” He further claims “Updating city codes to include the term "animal guardian" is a symbolic change that demonstrates a new attitude of public concern for the welfare of all animals. Though updated legal language does not affect one’s legal rights, responsibilities and liabilities, the psychological and sociological impact of this change in language is advancing positive attitudes about animal care.” www.guardiancampaign.com/whatDifferenceWord.htm

In reality, this statement by Katz better explains the motive behind Guardianship: "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," Spring 1997.

HOW DO THE ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUPS CHANGE THE LAW?
Visit the Institute for Animal Rights Law (IARL) website. There you can download their radical version of a model spay/neuter ordinance which reads “it shall be unlawful to harbor in this jurisdiction any unspayed cat or dog over four months of age or any unneutered cat or dog over four months of age. "Harbor" is defined to include legal ownership, or the providing of regular care, or shelter, or protection, or refuge, or nourishment, or medical treatment…”

IARL will also “educate” you on why anti-breeding laws are constitutional. Their website says - The core of a typical anti-breeding law is its “findings,” which usually are that:

· Euthanasia of unwanted cats and dogs is rampant, with totals annually of millions of animals;
· The root cause of this mass killing is the problem of overpopulation, which causes social problems beyond those of euthanasia.

Further, IARL says “Based on these findings, the anti-breeding laws provide for a moratorium on the breeding of cats and dogs, and if that doesn’t reduce the overpopulation problem in that municipality then a mandatory spaying and neutering program is provided.”

As the end goal of animal rights is to end breeding of companion animals, they need to draw a straight line between breeding and euthanasia, whether or not the logic used to make a case is flawed or the information presented is inaccurate. First euthanasia is hardly “rampant”, as figures have steadily decreased over the past decades. Further, IARL, in typical activist fashion, chooses to completely ignore all other reasons for animals ending up in shelters - generally related to a breakdown of the owner’s ability or desire to care for the animal.

CONCLUSION
If you become involved in local legislation issues, it is important to remember that much of the general public and many of the legislators do not understand these differences. They are being manipulated into passing restrictive laws which can be the vehicle for future enactment of measures to possibly eliminate ownership of pets.

Ethics and responsible ownership cannot be legislated – it must be taught, and animal cruelty laws already exist to punish the offenders.

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: The Difference between Animal Rights & Animal Welfare
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2007, 07:00:18 AM »
The HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) full article:
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136



Overview
Humane Society of the United States Despite the words “humane society” on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.

HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a “humane society” in name only. And while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.

Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends $2 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.

HSUS president Wayne Pacelle described some of his goals in 2004 for The Washington Post: “We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts … [and we’re] phasing out animals used in research. Hunting? I think you will see a steady decline in numbers.” More recently, in a June 2005 interview, Pacelle told Satya magazine that HSUS is working on “a guide to vegetarian eating, to really make the case for it.” A strict vegan himself, Pacelle added: “Reducing meat consumption can be a tremendous benefit to animals.”

Shortly after Pacelle joined HSUS in 1994, he told Animal People (an inside-the-movement watchdog newspaper) that his goal was to build “a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.” And now, as the organization’s leader, he’s in a position to back up his rhetoric with action. In 2005 Pacelle announced the formation of a new “Animal Protection Litigation Section” within HSUS, dedicated to “the process of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal protection lawsuits in state and federal court.”

HSUS’s current goals have little to do with animal shelters. The group has taken aim at the traditional morning meal of bacon and eggs with a tasteless “Breakfast of Cruelty” campaign. Its newspaper op-eds demand that consumers “help make this a more humane world [by] reducing our consumption of meat and egg products.” Since its inception, HSUS has tried to limit the choices of American consumers, opposing dog breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos, circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, and fur trapping.

  <cont. at link>

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: The Difference between Animal Rights & Animal Welfare
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2007, 07:04:41 AM »
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/release/207


Humane Society of the United States Misled Americans With Fundraising Pitch

Animal Rights Group Falsely Claimed It Would "Care For" Michael Vick’s Dogs


Washington -- Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) called on the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to return all the money it has raised in the wake of the Michael Vick dogfighting scandal. CCF revealed today that beginning on July 18 -- the day after Vick’s criminal indictment -- HSUS promised on its website that financial contributions would be earmarked for helping it “care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case.” But yesterday The New York Times reported that HSUS is not, in fact, caring for the animals. And HSUS president Wayne Pacelle told the Times that his group is recommending that government officials “put down” (that is, kill) the dogs rather than adopt them out to suitable homes.

“Like most Americans, we can’t stand dogfighting,” said Center for Consumer Freedom Director of Research David Martosko. “But we also can’t stand animal-rights fundraising that smells this fishy.”

The Humane Society of the United States is not affiliated with any local “humane societies.” Although the organization runs no hands-on dog or cat shelters anywhere, some of its fundraising materials hint at a direct connection with pet rescue operations.

HSUS’s online fundraising pitch related to Michael Vick has now been quietly altered to remove the claim that the group is caring for his pit bulls. But there’s no reliable way to know how much money the group raised on the basis of its earlier promises.

“As usual, HSUS is exploiting Americans’ emotions about dogs to build its war chest for anti-meat, anti-dairy, and anti-medical-research campaigns,” Martosko added. “These predatory activists should return every cent and apologize for misleading the public.”

In a similar episode, HSUS raised a reported $32 million in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, promising to use the funds to rescue and reunite lost pets with their owners. But since March 2006, Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti’s office has been investigating what happened to the majority of those funds, which HSUS does not appear to have used for Katrina-related rescues.

    * The New York Times article is online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/sports/football/01vick.html

    * HSUS’s false fundraising claim is preserved online at http://www.consumerfreedom.com/images/hsus_clip.png

For more information about the Humane Society of the United States, visit www.ActivistCash.com/HSUS.

Vet

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Immortal
Re: Guardians or Property?
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2007, 08:18:24 AM »

No discussion on this?   :-\

Honestly Flower, I avoid this topic like the plague if I can.  I agree with animal welfare.  Animal Rights nuts have the potential to make my job a living hell.  I've had a long convoluted history with PETA from the time I was a teenager.  That group and their associates are useless in my opinion and only thrive on self promotion and propoganda. 

Vet

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Immortal
Re: The Difference between Animal Rights & Animal Welfare
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2007, 08:21:24 AM »
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/release/207


Humane Society of the United States Misled Americans With Fundraising Pitch

Animal Rights Group Falsely Claimed It Would "Care For" Michael Vick’s Dogs


Washington -- Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) called on the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to return all the money it has raised in the wake of the Michael Vick dogfighting scandal. CCF revealed today that beginning on July 18 -- the day after Vick’s criminal indictment -- HSUS promised on its website that financial contributions would be earmarked for helping it “care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case.” But yesterday The New York Times reported that HSUS is not, in fact, caring for the animals. And HSUS president Wayne Pacelle told the Times that his group is recommending that government officials “put down” (that is, kill) the dogs rather than adopt them out to suitable homes.

“Like most Americans, we can’t stand dogfighting,” said Center for Consumer Freedom Director of Research David Martosko. “But we also can’t stand animal-rights fundraising that smells this fishy.”

The Humane Society of the United States is not affiliated with any local “humane societies.” Although the organization runs no hands-on dog or cat shelters anywhere, some of its fundraising materials hint at a direct connection with pet rescue operations.

HSUS’s online fundraising pitch related to Michael Vick has now been quietly altered to remove the claim that the group is caring for his pit bulls. But there’s no reliable way to know how much money the group raised on the basis of its earlier promises.

“As usual, HSUS is exploiting Americans’ emotions about dogs to build its war chest for anti-meat, anti-dairy, and anti-medical-research campaigns,” Martosko added. “These predatory activists should return every cent and apologize for misleading the public.”

In a similar episode, HSUS raised a reported $32 million in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, promising to use the funds to rescue and reunite lost pets with their owners. But since March 2006, Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti’s office has been investigating what happened to the majority of those funds, which HSUS does not appear to have used for Katrina-related rescues.

    * The New York Times article is online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/sports/football/01vick.html

    * HSUS’s false fundraising claim is preserved online at http://www.consumerfreedom.com/images/hsus_clip.png

For more information about the Humane Society of the United States, visit www.ActivistCash.com/HSUS.

The HSUS has more than taken advantage of their name as a "humane society" to mislead people into giving hundreds upon thousands of dollars not realizing it would never go directly to the animals as it would with a true humane society. 

Max_Rep

  • Max Rep
  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3980
  • It’s about how hard you can GET hit...
Re: Make a difference.... resources for reporting/handling abuse
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2007, 01:25:33 AM »
As the laws stand now people are owners, if they become "guardians" then people's rights go out the door. I do not want the term Guardian to be used for all the reasons given in the other thread and want Owner to still be used.

Scenario #1

You see that a Raccoon has been hit by a car. He is severely injured and in a great a great deal of pain. He cannot defend himself and is being taunted and poked with sticks by a group of teenagers (I’ve actually had this happen). You chase the teenagers away (Or if possible – detain them) and call the proper agency to make sure the animal is either treated and brought to a wildlife rehabilitation center or humanely euphemized if injuries are too extensive.   

You acted as the:

a) Owner?

B) Guardian?

c) What?

Scenario #2

You enter a pet store and see that they have a sign “Puppies for Sale”. You go by the cages and see that they are over crowded, the puppies look very underweight, and several of them have a discharge coming from their eyes. You contact the proper agencies, and make sure the situation is handled properly.

You acted as:

a) Owner?

b) Guardian?

c) What?

Scenario #3

You manage 2 colonies of feral cats totaling 25 in number. They live on the property of an industrial park where there are some warehouses and several offices. You feed them daily and diligently practice TNR (Trap Neuter Return). The property management dislikes the cats and would be thrilled if the cats would be gone.

You are acting as:

a) Owner?

b) Guardian?

c) What?     


and keep moving!

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: Make a difference.... resources for reporting/handling abuse
« Reply #12 on: August 09, 2007, 05:56:53 AM »
I do not want to be the "guardian" of my pets.   In the situations you mentioned I would be acting as a concerned citizen.  I don't understand what the point is you are trying to make, and I didn't want this discussion to mess up this thread which is why I started the other one.  I am going to take the posts off of this thread and put them in the Animal Rights/Animal Welfare thread.

 We can't use the term guardian for our personal pets.  That takes too many rights away from the OWNER.  If "guardian" would cover my pets too, then I don't want that term used at all.


Max_Rep

  • Max Rep
  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3980
  • It’s about how hard you can GET hit...
Re: Make a difference.... resources for reporting/handling abuse
« Reply #13 on: August 11, 2007, 09:15:44 PM »
I do not want to be the "guardian" of my pets.   In the situations you mentioned I would be acting as a concerned citizen.  I don't understand what the point is you are trying to make, and I didn't want this discussion to mess up this thread which is why I started the other one.  I am going to take the posts off of this thread and put them in the Animal Rights/Animal Welfare thread.

We can't use the term guardian for our personal pets.  That takes too many rights away from the OWNER.  If "guardian" would cover my pets too, then I don't want that term used at all.




I never said the term guardian should be used for our personal pets. The term was used for situations as above. If concerned citizen is the term you are comfortable with then revise my original post with that term. My point was to get people involved in Animal Rights/Animal Welfare in the community and with local government and I don't want the point lost. 
and keep moving!