Friday, December 19, 2014
Top Stories
Home » Who Is Under Attack » Animal Rights Vs. Animal Owners

Animal Rights Vs. Animal Owners

Overview

Animal rights extremists like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) seek to put an end to animal ownership. In their eyes, animals should share rights with humans and some of the most extreme among them equate animal ownership to slavery. Their goals of abolishing animal ownership and animal breeding is an extreme view not known by many. 

How would America look if it were to adopt these extreme views?:

“We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals.” - Wayne Pacelle, President of HSUS, Animal People, May, 1993.

Anti-Pet Ideology

A majority of Americans, when asked what they know about the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), believe it to be a national umbrella organization supporting local animal shelters and assume their proceeds assist those same shelters. You might be surprised to find out that the smallest portion of HSUS’s budget — less than 1% — goes to supporting local or state animal shelters.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) does not own or operate any animal shelters.  In fact, they don’t even seem to appreciate the role that local shelters play in placing rescued animals in good homes with loving owners.

Animal rights groups, like HSUS, envision a world that has eliminated pet ownership. A small glimpse into the minds of some animal rights leaders brings to light their true feelings about animal ownership:

“If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.” - Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt, by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266

“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

It all comes down to the fact that animal rights extremists believe an animal should have the same rights as a human being.  In their eyes, animals are not to be used as pets.  So the question must be asked: If they don’t believe in animal ownership, why would they claim to support animal shelters who seek to place rescued animals in homes?

“The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration.” - Michael W. Fox, Former HSUS Vice President and Scholar, The Inhumane Society

 

Anti-Pet Breeders Ideology

Because you can’t just openly support laws and regulations outlawing pet ownership,  HSUS instead goes to the source of this so-called injustice.  They work to regulate pet breeders out of business.

“The ‘good’ pet stores we shall encourage to become even better, which ultimately might mean selling no dogs or cats … Don’t breed, don’t buy, don’t even accept giveaways.” - John Hoyt, Former President of HSUS 1970-1996, AnimalScam (Marquardt, Evine, Larochelle, pg. 84)

In doing so, they are not only attacking the breeder’s ability to provide for themselves and their families, but they are targeting your right to raise and care for your family’s pets. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) continues to spread false messages in print and digital advertising that distorts consumer perception of how pet breeders operate in hopes of forcing the issue.  Their impact is growing rapidly.

For Example:

Anti-Exotic Pet Ownership

Their agenda does not just stop with dogs and cats. Animal rights activists would prefer that no animal, including exotics like snakes, chimps, tigers, etc., be owned by a human. When appropriate laws are already in place, why does the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups continue in pursuit of their radical agenda? The only answer that makes sense is that they don’t believe existing laws go far enough. No matter how they disguise it, the underlying message is that animals should be granted personhood and be removed from the hands of owners or breeders.

These beliefs could have significant implications for facilities like zoos and exotic animal parks where our children learn about the animal world around them and zoologists improve animal care techniques, veterinary medicine and wildlife preservation efforts.

USDA – APHIS 

On May 16th, 2012, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced a proposed revision to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that would change current rules for “retail pet breeders.

This proposal could bring detrimental changes for ALL pet breeders, giving the USDA complete oversight of any pet breeding facility – specifically dog breeders. Essentially, the rule would regulate large and small facility dog breeders alike. So whether you sell one dog or one hundred, the USDA would have the right to regulate your business with STRICT penalties. The rule contains language that:

  • requires a personal visit to the facility of anyone purchasing a dog
  • further regulates a facility breeding more than 4 females

American Kennel Club (AKC) is an organization that helps promote the proper buying and selling of dogs nationwide. AKC is strongly opposed to the rule, raising questions about how the law would be enforced and trying to show how unintended consequences could force law-abiding breeders to cease operations.

Animal Agriculture Alliance issued a statement in response to the proposed rule, raising questions about the potential impact on animal agriculture:

“, it has the potential to expand burdensome regulations on some farm operations, negatively impact youth agriculture programs, and expand federal inspector access beyond the scope of USDA’s authority on livestock farms.”

They are concerned with how language in the rule could be interpreted and applied on a much larger scale. If the APHIS rule goes into effect, consequences could bleed over into the agriculture industry, which is supposed to be protected and PROMOTED by the USDA, right? Lets check that out…

Understanding the connection between APHIS and animal rights groups like HSUS is the key. The current APHIS Chief of Animal Health and Welfare Enforcement Branch is Sarah L. Conant, formerly a litigation lawyer for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Apparently, the USDA now hires animal rights extremists to enforce and create rules just like the one proposed by APHIS. USDA once looked down on tactics used by animal rights groups, but it now seems as if they have adopted the same tactics to enforce rules by hiring people with an animal rights background.

Missouri’s Proposition B

As animal rights organizations become more influential in America, their legislative efforts are affecting pet breeders and pet owners. In 2010, Missouri became a battleground for the Humane Society of the United States’ next attempt to alter laws to accomplish their agenda. With dog breeding regulations already on the books in Missouri, HSUS saw an opportunity to extend its reach.

The so-called “puppy mill” ballot initiative was backed by HSUS and put before Missouri voters in November 2010. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) spent millions campaigning to deceive voters into believing that they understood what was best for dogs and puppies. In fact, Proposition B was opposed by highly-respected animal care organizations like the American Kennel Club, the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, and the Greater St. Louis Veterinary Medical Association.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) wrote the bill and, through vague definitions and questionable language, left the door open for future action against Missouri farmers and pet owners.  HSUS tried to convince Missourians that they knew best when it came to regulating the state’s dog breeding industry.  But how could they when they had no direct connection with any local shelter in Missouri?

Animal owners need to be aware of the hidden agenda behind activities conducted by groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). It’s time that the curtain was pulled back to expose their radical beliefs and call into question their dishonest fundraising practices that pull in millions of dollars from concerned Americans who believe their donation is being used to help animals find good homes.

Scroll To Top