RADICALIZING ANIMALS, RIGHTS OVER WELFARE
Radicalizing Animals - Rights over Welfare
Animal rights extremist groups continue to push the movement further and further beyond welfare, to the goal of no human-animal connection.
“Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.”
That quote comes from President Theodore Roosevelt, noted sportsman and conservation proponent. It refers to the characterization of extremists within a social movement as having fanatical views. Few reform movements approach this level of zeal as much as the animal rights movement. A major problem with this movement is that it more closely aligns with vegan activism than that of animal protection. Not only do many of the largest animal rights organizations give little of their money to local animal shelters (HSUS gives less than 1%), but some even are actively killing domesticated animals. It seems these groups would rather spend their millions of donor dollars on lobbying and paying settlements than helping them find new homes. It’s outrageous, and it’s not getting any better. It seems that part of the movement, codified in itself, is to push others away from the concept of animal welfare and towards the fairytale of animal ‘rights’. They’re seeking radical change, nothing else will suffice. According to the modern animal rights movement, unless you are a vegan, promote veganism, and cultivate a hatred for animal agriculture, you cannot possibly care for animals. This foolish viewpoint permeates throughout the more extreme-minded segments of the movement. Perhaps they’re following the example of HSUS leader Wayne Pacelle, who once famously stated, “We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals.” Or, In Defense of Animals President Elliot Katz, “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.” What happened to the concept of humane treatment, species protection, or promoting life over death? Recently, the country of Swaziland has attempted to send 18 of its endangered African Elephants to America because of a severe drought threatening their lives. The country is facing backlash from several animal rights groups, including PETA, ALDF, and the Performing Animal Welfare Society. They are considering legal action to block the transport permits that were approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Animal rights activists would rather have the animals die in their own country than come to America for a better life, better care, and protection. How can this possibly be considered improvement for the animals? It isn’t better for the animals, but it aligns with the agenda of radical animal rights organizations to end the natural connection between humans and animals. As we discussed in a 2015 article on the animal rights agenda against zoos,
“These individuals wish to demolish good and safe homes for animals under an abstract concept of animal rights, disregarding animal welfare. This does no good for either humans or animals.”
If they truly believe that the best option for animals is to be completely disconnected from the human species, what does that tell us about their view of humans? The animal rights movement is one of the most hypocritical activist movements out there. It is easy to see how narrow minded the movement is in the words of one activist, Lauren-Elizabeth McGrath who writes for ecorazzi.com, as she tears apart The Dodo for not being radical enough. She said,
“…the most important message that we all know helps change the world for animals everywhere: the necessity of becoming vegan.”
She and her activist allies refuse to recognize that the act of eating animals in and of itself is not empirically evil, nor inhumane. We have eaten meat for thousands of years. There are innumerable health benefits to meat, and most animal owners give impeccable care to their animals. Many people support this, and recognize level of care is more important than the termination of the human-animal relationship. However, people who just love animals and who want them to be humanely cared for are not the type of people that animal rights activists are trying to recruit for their ranks. It would appear that lunacy attracts other lunacy. One group, protesting the construction of an animal lab for Washington University, harassed the CEO of the construction company Skanska, Richard Cavallaro. In a promotional video they bragged about two activists trespassing and attempting to scale his home. The video also depicted the group repeatedly ringing his doorbell, screaming accusations, and marching through the streets of his neighborhood. The entire time they were gushing with false and outdated propaganda meant to emotionally move onlookers. This behavior is uncivilized and uncalled for, but that’s the point. Most radical activists are not trying to market to people who just love animals, or people who want humane treatment. These activists want the total shutdown of the bond between animals and humans, and they want no humans to use or consume animal products. They know that the people who are going to support their movement are looking to be obnoxious and radical, so they promote themselves by being obnoxious and radical, and in the most attention-getting ways. Just look at Matt Johnson from Direct Action Everywhere, who disrupted an appearance by the presidential candidate Carly Fiorina at the Iowa Pork Congress. According to Think Progress, Johnson asked “how it could ‘ever be acceptable’ to kill pigs ‘simply because they’re in a weak and vulnerable position.’” Not only was he disrespectful to the candidate and the pork producers, but it was another example of the radical nature of the animal rights movement. He wasn’t trying to stop inhumane treatment of animals, but abolish all animal agriculture. And, he gained publicity by waiting to disturb such an important event. To make matters worse, many people who actually care for animals end up getting grouped with these animal rights radicals. They become checkbook members of the organizations without realizing they are supporting corruption and radical veganism. The media underplays or ignores the misdeeds of many animal rights groups, specifically the Humane Society of the United States. And, they disproportionately support ‘animal rights’ stances during debates over agricultural legislation. As we said in our previous article about this relationship,
“...we must consider the substantial lack of reporting. For instance, most HSUS contributors do not realize that they give less than 1% of their total revenue to local animal shelters. [Donors] hear Humane Society and associate it with the organization down the street where they found and saved their current domestic pet, and the media doesn’t correct them. Many HSUS donors do not know of the aforementioned corruption or even that HSUS almost completely ignores shelters. That is the distinct negative consequence of the media underreporting on animal rights corruption.”
National polling finds that 71% of Americans think that HSUS is an ‘umbrella’ group that links local pet shelters and gives them money. This is far from the truth. We wonder how many donors would jump ship if the mainstream media actually reported the crazy methods, radical agenda, and miniscule fraction of donor dollars that go to animals. Animal rights organizations and activists are constantly pushing the movement further and further beyond welfare. Don’t be deceived by their slick PR campaigns. It’s one thing to care so much about animals that you refuse to eat meat and don’t want your friends or family to eat meat either. It’s an entirely other situation to get sucked into the animal rights movement and radicalize yourself in the process.