On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:51:06 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:
>
>
>Rubystars wrote:
>
>> "Offbreed" > wrote in message
>> om...
>
><snip>
>>>
>>>If you think about what they advocate, they are pushing for the end of
>>>all human/nonhuman interaction. This allows them to constantly move
>>>the goalposts.
>
>> Yes, they don't want people to keep pets, go to zoos, or anything else that
>> would allow humans to interact with animals.
>
>Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term goal,
>not anything that is going to happen any time soon.
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University
"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
AVMA Policy on Animal Welfare and Animal Rights
Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects
of animal well-being, from proper housing and nutrition to preventive
care, treatment of disease, and when necessary, humane euthanasia.
The AVMA's commitment to animal welfare is unsurpassed.
However, animal welfare and animal rights are not the same. AVMA cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights
advocates when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals
for human purposes, such as food and fiber, and for research conducted
to benefit both humans and animals.
http://www.avma.org./care4pets/morewelf.htm#rights
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.
"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
"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 (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
"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." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
pp. 40-42.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
According to the Associated Press (AP) PETA killed 1325 dogs and cats
in Norfolk last year. That was more than half the number of animals is
took in during that period. According to Virginian-Pilot Reporter, Kerry
Dougherty, the execution rate at PETA's "shelter" far exceeds that of the
local Norfolk SPCA shelter where only a third of animals taken in are
"put down."
[...]
http://www.iwmc.org/newsletter/2000/2000-08g.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>But this shows the
>poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans
>interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I can
>think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual freedom.
>So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984).
What are some examples of them doing it?
> They probably wish humans would
>> go extinct.
>
>Why? Humans are an animal species, too, and worth preserving in the
>right situations.
>
>>>With such "liberal" movements, the issue addressed is not the issue
>>>actually persued. The issue actually persued is power.
>
>Yes the issue is power, the power of humans over other creatures.
>The ultimate goal of PETA is to eliminate such power, voluntarily
>give up power. The human-dominationists can't imagine such a
>thing,
We can imagine it. Let's do, shall we? Let's start with something
small, like we don't kill rats or mice any more. Obviously their numbers
would increase to the point that it would have a great negative influence
on humans. And the fleas that go along with them, and the ****... We
could haul them all off someplace to kill each other you say? Where
exactly do you think they should go, and how to get them there? It
wouldn't work. You know that they are a problem now, and they are
no doubt being killed by the millions, so you tell us how it would go if
those millions produced many other millions......
How about if we just stop killing wolves all together. Farmers don't pop
them and burry them for killing their livestock, and let's say there would
be no more livestock. They would kill their wild prey, and when numbers
of prey animals went down they would eventually kill each other, and
also turn to humans. If humans didn't kill them still, they would kill more
humans. Eventually humans would start to kill them again, and the rodents
too.
__________________________________________________ _______
[···]
For a long time, people would get money for bringing in a dead wolf.
This is called bounty hunting (between 1850 and 1900 more that a
million wolves were killed. In 1907 the call was given for the total
extinction of the species.)
Famous Wolf Bounty Hunters
Bill Caywood. Bill Caywood was one of dozens of hunters and trappers
hired by the U.S federal government to kill wolves for the Biological
Survey. Over the winter of 1912-1913, he killed 140 wolves, earning
almost $7,000. Some of the famed outlaw wolves he killed were Rags
the Digger, the Cuerno Verde Gray, the Butcher Wolf, and the
Keystone\Pack. Most of his work was done in Colorado.
[...]
http://www.geocities.com/pilotwolf143/endangered.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
[···]
To save the wolf there may have to be a few problem wolves
destroyed to save the species as a whole, there must be agreement
from both the wolf conservationist and the ranchers and farmers, the
alternative will be the return to the days of wolf bounty hunting. In the
United States and Canada wolves are for the most part protected from
unrestricted hunting, but in others countries such as Russia, and parts
of eastern Europe wolf bounties are still paid. More and more wolves
and man come into conflict with each other, in poor rural areas of russia
for example hunting of deer and other wild game has increased causing
competition between man and wolf. With less game to hunt wolves look
for other food sources such as domestic sheep and cattle.
[...]
http://www.wolfcountry.net/informati...dangered.shtml
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
And if humans stopped killing animals altogther, it would screw up
civilization as we know it. Before roads and buildings could be built
all the animals would have to be removed from the area, and re-located
where? The same is true with crop fields--have to vacate all animals (to
where?) before plowing, planting, flooding rice fields, draining rice fields...
cutting trees for wood and paper, etc...(re-locate to where?).... Everything
would slow down, prices would go way up, it would change everything.
>so they invent all sorts of sinister conspiracies on the
>part of their opponents.
>
>>>Note how what they demand cannot be attained without the imposition of
>>>a totalitarian government?
>
>Of course it can. You're projecting again.
>
> They are not "liberal" in anything except
>>>in throwing around demands that others do as they say.
>
>
>> Yes, that's true.
>
>No, it's a bunch of nonsense.
>
>Rat
Some animals benefit from being raised by humans--even some animals
raised for food and medical research--and some don't.