Will the real Ingrid Newkirk please stand up...

R

RedyreRottweilers

Guest
#21
Animal Rights Activists Get Official Roles
In City and County Dog Law Enforcement
Undercover Surveillance, Vigilantes, Uniforms and Badges

by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

PALM BEACH, FL – Animal rights activists in many parts of the
country are proving the adage that paranoia doesn't necessarily mean
dog owners are crazy.

Cities and counties that have enacted repressive ordinances
targeting dog owners are increasingly using volunteers as a major
tool to enforce the law. Not surprisingly, only animal rights
activists are likely to be accepted as volunteers. Many of these
activists are opposed to the private ownership of animals in any
form, and most of them are willing to accept what they term
animal "guardianship" only under strict government regulation.

The vigilantes are coming!

That is true in Los Angeles, Dallas, San Antonio and Houston. It
also is true in several states where volunteer animal rights
activists are routinely sent undercover to investigate allegations
of animal cruelty and even to check out people who advertise a
litter of puppies in local newspapers.

But Palm Beach County, Florida, has made vigilantism into an art
form, and Los Angeles may be preparing to carry it to the nth degree.

Volunteer activists in Palm Beach County have been sworn in, given
badges and uniforms, and granted the authority to enter private
homes to check for violations of a new mandatory spay/neuter
ordinance, animal cruelty and other possible dog law violations.

These members of the "Palm Beach County Citizen Animal Patrol" are
empowered to issue formal written warnings for noncompliance and
turn in the information to regular animal control officers for
official investigation and prosecution.

According to a county announcement of the program, search warrants
are not needed for these volunteers to inspect private homes or
privately owned pets. The county's official position is that "The
hobby breeders who have a permit from the county have already given
implied consent to these people to enter their homes by signing the
permit."

That is the little known fine print of dog and kennel licenses in
almost every state: If you buy a license, you sign away your right
to privacy. If you don't buy a license, of course, you are breaking
the law and can get busted.

Catch 22!

In many other areas of civil law, such as with zoning and building
permits, obtaining a license has been viewed in court as prima facie
permission for government officials to inspect private property.
This precedent is now being extended to dog laws, and citizen
patrols to "rat out" noncompliant neighbors are being seen as
important enforcement tools.

Spying on their neighbors and intimidating dog owners is only one
part of the job description of the Palm Beach County Citizen Animal
Patrol. Other duties include answering newspaper ads placed by
people who advertise puppies for sale, contacting dog clubs for
breeder referrals, and even setting up surveillance at dog shows.

If they see anything they consider suspicious or a possible
violation of the law, they are told to report the information to
animal control to start a full investigation.

In the world of crime, they would be called snitches. In the world
of animal law, they see themselves as on a mission to save helpless
animals from exploitation.

According to an article in the Palm Beach Post newspaper, citizen
patrols will help increase enforcement without adding to municipal
costs.

Local officials stress the "public education" aspect of the citizen
patrols, but are noticeably quiet about the surveillance and
enforcement aspects of the volunteer positions.

This pattern is apparent in Dallas, San Antonio and Houston, which
passed draconian pet sterilization ordinances within the past year.
Volunteers are being actively recruited in those Texas cities to
help "educate" people about the new laws. As in most places, these
citizens groups are comprised almost entirely of animal rights
activists, and each application must be approved by a quasi-official
advisory board that consists of animal rights activists. People who
advocate the right to own dogs need not apply.

Dog owners are convinced that these volunteers also will be used to
find and turn in people who do not follow the laws.

Los Angeles appears to be adding its own twist.

The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services, directed by animal
rights extremist Ed Boks, has set up a program of Directors of
Animal Welfare, nicknamed DAWs. The city has been divided into 86
different "neighborhoods, " and thus far a reported 44 of the
positions have been filled. According to an announcement from Boks,
some of these appointees do not live within the City of Los Angeles.

The DAWs website profiles the backgrounds of many of the appointees,
and they read like a who's who of the animal rights movement in Los
Angeles. Many of the profiles tout the appointees' close ties to the
radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the ultra-
radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Many of
the profiles also tout radical vegetarian activism, opposition to
the use of animals in circuses and other darling causes of the
animal rights elite. Overall, it is clear that the vast majority of
these people oppose the private ownership of animals, and are
totally opposed to the right to breed dogs.

Please read some of the profiles for yourself:
http://www.dawprogram.org/

The DAWS Board also has several committees, including an "Animals
Are Not Property Committee," whose members are listed as Andrea
Boyington, Adele Langdon, Tina Reynolds and Patti Sugarman. Each of
these people has published ties to radical animal rights groups.

None of the profiles indicate that the appointees breed dogs, show
dogs, compete with dogs, or belong to any organization that works to
protect the rights of dog owners. Not one.

A very ominous sign is that DAWs has gone underground since Los
Angeles passed an exceedingly restrictive spay and neuter mandate
this year. The DAWs meetings used to be advertised on their website,
agendas used to be published, and minutes were displayed online.

Since August, all public accountability and openness have been
removed from the DAWs website.

In addition, the DAWs volunteer manual has been withdrawn for
complete revision, and is no longer available to the public.

An announcement from Boks called the DAWs appointees "the eyes and
ears for the animals in their areas."

In other words, being snitches is one of their duties.

The DAWs mission statement says: "DAWs provide a voice and a form of
political representation for nonhuman animals." That line is
straight out of the PETA textbook.

Perhaps the most common use of animal rights activists as volunteers
has been for undercover work and surveillance in animal cruelty
investigations. Because these volunteers have no official
designation, the use of them is not subject to constitutional
protections against searches without warrants. They go under cover
as private citizens, and then file complaints with animal cruelty
police officers. They work with the officers, and their identities
are not revealed. The officers use these "complaints" as legal
grounds to obtain a search warrant.

The most famous use of undercover volunteers occurred at a
California slaughterhouse that was highly publicized this year and
led to a complete overhaul of federal and state inspections.
A large percentage of animal cruelty cases in several states rely on
animal rights activists to go undercover into private kennels and
dog events, and their observations and opinions are relayed as "semi-
anonymous complaints" to humane police officers in order to obtain
search warrants. "Semi-anonymous" means that these people's
identities are known to the officers and judge, but are not revealed
to the public or the person who is accused.

A common tactic is for these activists to pose as puppy buyers when
responding to advertisements in newspapers or online, or to appear
at dog events as a spectator. This tactic is so common that
virtually anyone who advertises puppies for sale in many areas of
the country can expect to be visited by undercover activists
pretending to be looking for a puppy. Usually they are easy to spot.
They are mostly college-aged people who know little about the breed
of the puppies that are for sale.

Sometimes it gets much more organized. For example, the toll of
animals from Hurricane Katrina has led to the formation of
many "disaster rescue groups." They raise money locally to rescue
animals from disasters, and sometimes get contributions of tax
dollars.

Fortunately, disasters are rare in most places. But these programs
allow a well-funded team of animal rights activist/volunteers to
perform organized surveillance work. For example, a Venango County,
PA, disaster rescue group received newspaper coverage this year for
playing the key undercover role that led to the animal cruelty
prosecution of a "puppy mill" in West Virginia.

Another Pennsylvania situation that we reported this year was how
animal rights activists have begun to take over local zoning boards,
in order to require people who seek a permit to build a kennel to
meet impossible demands. In one case that would be amusing if it
hadn't harmed a person who wanted to build a kennel, these activists
required an applicant for a kennel permit to promise that none of
his dogs would be mated naturally.
 

Domestika

New Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
1,163
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
B.C., Canada
#23
You are not on our side, then, Domestika.

When no one can own animals in 10 or 15 years, maybe you will understand why this is so serious.

Recently AR people tried to murder a dog advocate in Texas.

Britain is implementing nationwide breeding restrictions.

Docking has been outlawed nearly globally.

Many breeds are outlawed or restricted.

If people like you who have access to the real information hold the opinions that animals are not property and deserve rights, and that if outlawing all animal ownership would then prevent any and all abuse, we are all f*cked.
You can post as many articles as you'd like and bring up as many issues (that are not related to what we're talking about) as you can find, but it's not going to change my opinion. I have all the information and I choose to believe something different from you.

I accept that your beliefs are different from mine without trying to ostracise you ("you're not on OUR side") or imply (ok, STATE) that if everyone shared your misguided beliefs we'd be "f*cked".

We don't share the same beliefs in general. I think breeding restrictions are a good thing. I think that docking and cropping animals' body parts is inhumane mutilation. And breed bans are stupid, but based on misguided ideas about breed aggression, not part of a political scheme to end all animal ownership. I don't believe any living thing (animal or human) should be born into ownership. We fundamentally don't agree on a very basic philosophy.

The difference is that I don't think the world would be f*cked if there were more people like you. I'm not threatened by the values that you hold and I don't feel the need to change your mind. I'm sure you are an intelligent, thinking human being. If you've read the same information that I have and feel a different way, so be it. Neither of us are responsible for the fate of the universe, thankfully.
 

HoundedByHounds

Oh, it's *you*
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
8,415
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
N Texas, USA
#24
And, on the whole, I believe that groups like PETA and other animal rights/welfare groups (whether or not you agree with the entire scope of their philosophy) are still doing far more good than harm.
I read it, but I cannot believe I actually read it.
 

Amstaffer

Active Member
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
3,276
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Milwaukee WI
#25
children understand better than you think and definitely understand as they grow, the mentalli ill or damaged are sentient beings, if they were not damaged they could understand their rights. on a side note the seriously mentally ill do not have the same rights as the rest of us but do comprehend many that do have and can address them. the mentally ill & mentally damaged only have rights now because society agreed to protect them the same as everyone else. this was not always true. look up eugenics and you'll see what i mean.

animals are not sentient beings, damaged or not they cannot comprehend their "rights" as such they cannot possess them.
You could argue that we have made dogs "sentient beings" because of how we have changed them. Can anyone argue differently in the case of the Pug or Eng. Bulldog? They are no longer able to live independently because of our arrangement thus we owe them and they owe us.

As far as rights....I know lots of people who have normal IQs but don't know their rights....do you suggest they don't have rights? Miranda vs Arizona would argue differently.

I am not saying that Dogs have the same rights as people but they have rights IMHO. Another flawed argument is when people always go off on that tangent, just because you have rights doesn't mean you have the same rights (eg your mentally ill or the up coming felon argument)

As far as your Eugenics argument?? I never said dogs have the right to have offspring. I completely believe that humans should decide which dogs breed and which do not.

All I said is that dogs have the right to not be abused mentally or physically, proper food and water, and Health care.
 

Bunny82

Active Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
1,470
Likes
0
Points
36
#26
I have to agree with Red on this one.

AR groups have made it no secret that they would rather see animals die than living the "horrid life of domestication." They have made it no secret that they will resort to terroism, violence, and murder to get to this end result of abolishing pet ownership. Sometimes their agenda is hidden behind all the shock campaigns they put out there but it is there and I will do everything in my power to fight against it because I can not imagine a world where we can't have pets.
 

HoundedByHounds

Oh, it's *you*
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
8,415
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
N Texas, USA
#27
and I say, humans have a duty not to abuse dogs mentally or physically provide proper food and water and health care. Not a right of the animals...a duty of the people.
 

Lilavati

Arbitrary and Capricious
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
7,644
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
47
Location
Alexandria, VA
#29
I read it, but I cannot believe I actually read it.
Actually, this might be, nominally, true. In the sense that great progress has been made in animal welfare, and a good deal of that work was done by the shock tactics of organizations like PETA. Although people have always worked for the welfare of animals, often with great effort and devotion, the more dramatic efforts of the AR crowd got the issue into people's heads. I'll grant that.

Unfortunately, these groups have moved beyound consciousness raising, and beyond the most heinious acts against animals, to target virtually everything that has to do with animals, and to make it the core of their philosophy that humans and animals should have nothing to do with each other. Essentially, having picked the low-hanging fruit (much of which sorely needed to be picked) they are now going after harder targets. And unlike much of their earlier stuff, which targeted massive cruelty, they now target anything that could lead to cruelty . . . and that includes, in the end, pet ownership.

Domeskia, you see their goals as impossible, and their means as useful. I see their their goals as unlikely, but possible, especially as each generation adopts the new "norm." i see their means (punishing everyone to target the few, taking away people's rights) as abhorent. I do not trust your average government offical to know their butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to animals. I do not trust your average animal rights activist to see things except through their lens. As a result, I want neither making decisions regarding my animals. But you are entitled to your opinion, and if you start with different premises, perhaps it is rational. Just don't expect it to be a popular opinion here.
 

noludoru

Bored Now.
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
17,830
Likes
8
Points
38
Location
Denver, CO
#30
And I think when you start using terms like "they're indoctrinating our children" you're moving away from educating and into hate- and fear-mongering. That is a powerful and politically charged accusation; "indoctrinating" the youth. It's a scare tactic.

And, on the whole, I believe that groups like PETA and other animal rights/welfare groups (whether or not you agree with the entire scope of their philosophy) are still doing far more good than harm.

Oh, and I think mentioning 9-11 in an article about animal rights is just cheap as hell.
Agree with you on the last point, it made me curl lips a bit. I don't like that at all, and I don't think Americans got educated, I think we largely bought into scare tactics... but there's a whooole other subject.

First point - yes, it can be a scare tactic. But PeTA is doing that. We had their materials distributed at school more than once... it was actually what convinced me to become a vegetarian for a few months, along with loads of other people, and there were blatant lies in those pamphlets meant to get us to go vegetarian and/or send them money.... if that's not indoctrination.... *sigh*

Second point, can you tell us specifically what good the AR movement has done for animals? Especially, specifically PeTA and H$U$. Right now off the top of my head I can list a few bad things.... BSL, killing over 85% of animals in their shelter when nearby ones don't even kill half of that, pushing to ban horse slaughter in the US (now they're going to Mexico to be killed in worse ways.. oh joy), etc.
 

HoundedByHounds

Oh, it's *you*
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
8,415
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
N Texas, USA
#31
yep nolu, they've shown a real interest in going after those that have little mental resistance and are lacking concrete directives and opinions on things....children, teenagers...they're rather cult like in that respect.
 

Amstaffer

Active Member
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
3,276
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Milwaukee WI
#32
First AR groups don't = Animals have rights

PETA is a wacked out group that has taken things to extremes. If you follow their logic to humans then people couldn't or shouldn't have children because we would be restricting the rights of children during the raising of them

I repeat...I think PETA is wacked and logically flawed and misguided.

____________________________________

With that said, I think that it is also flawed to say that someone needs to enforce rights to have rights. Were is the connection?

I believe that there is something called innate rights given to us by our creator. Now your rights can be taken via force or superior wit but that is wrong.

Our relationship must continue with the dog because if it ends like PETA would like to see then the dog would end. The human would also suffer greatly.

Whatever you call it right or welfare....Dogs need all the things I mentioned earlier.
 

Domestika

New Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
1,163
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
B.C., Canada
#34
I have to agree with Red on this one.

AR groups have made it no secret that they would rather see animals die than living the "horrid life of domestication." They have made it no secret that they will resort to terroism, violence, and murder to get to this end result of abolishing pet ownership. Sometimes their agenda is hidden behind all the shock campaigns they put out there but it is there and I will do everything in my power to fight against it because I can not imagine a world where we can't have pets.
I agree that it is inhumane to make the choice for an animal to die rather than live an unsatisfactory life. I don't agree with that particular facet of their philosophy. I wasn't aware that they routinely killed animals purely because they were a domestic species... My understanding was that they were interested in seeing domestic animals "die out", as in cease to produce offspring.

And "shock campaigns" aren't the sole tactic of the truly evil. I've seen lots of anti-drug and alcohol ads that were plenty graphic for the purpose of making a very emphatic point.
 

noludoru

Bored Now.
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
17,830
Likes
8
Points
38
Location
Denver, CO
#36
yep nolu, they've shown a real interest in going after those that have little mental resistance and are lacking concrete directives and opinions on things....children, teenagers...they're rather cult like in that respect.
It's so sickening. The fur coats bit is what really sticks with me, though.

First AR groups don't = Animals have rights
Amstaffer, if Animal Rights groups does not mean that they think animals have rights, what does it mean, and what are you saying they stand for, if not that animals have rights? :confused:
 

Lilavati

Arbitrary and Capricious
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
7,644
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
47
Location
Alexandria, VA
#38
First AR groups don't = Animals have rights

PETA is a wacked out group that has taken things to extremes. If you follow their logic to humans then people couldn't or shouldn't have children because we would be restricting the rights of children during the raising of them

I repeat...I think PETA is wacked and logically flawed and misguided.

____________________________________

With that said, I think that it is also flawed to say that someone needs to enforce rights to have rights. Were is the connection?

I believe that there is something called innate rights given to us by our creator. Now your rights can be taken via force or superior wit but that is wrong.

Our relationship must continue with the dog because if it ends like PETA would like to see then the dog would end. The human would also suffer greatly.

Whatever you call it right or welfare....Dogs need all the things I mentioned earlier.
We all agree with you on that . . . the issue is whether the animals have a right to it, or whether we have a duty to provide it. To some extent this is a semantic question . . . it has to do with legal terminology, and philosophy. But it is a crucial question, because the difference between "human rights" and "animal rights" is that one is coherent, and the other is not. PETA wants to establish an equivalence, which is legally nonsensical, and very, very dangerous. Why? Because animals can not enforce their rights. Nor will they be able to. Nor, where circumstances different, could they. They can not understand their rights. Therefore, if they have rights, someone has to enforce them on their behalf, and has PETA has made clear, that means PETA, or HSUS, or some ignorant government employee following poorly written restrictive laws.

Society can, and should, enforce the duty that humans owe to animals: the cuty to provide water, shelter, food, medicial care, shelter, etc. But that duty adheres to the human, not to the dog. It is not enforced on behalf of the dog, but on behalf of society. This is a subtle distinction, but an important one, both intellectually and practically.

Rights are abstractions. Even in a free country, like our own, we debate exactly what they mean and how far they extend. Animals do not deal in abstrations. What is a right to liberty to an animal? Is it the right to be wild and free? The right to chose to be wild and free or to stay with their owner? The right to run around the dog park off-lead? Even if we could define said right, how do we ask the animal what they want?

Humans don't have a right to food, water, shelter, etc. (Really, they don't, I promise you) However, humans that are caring for helpless humans have a duty to provide those things to their charges. Thus do humans have a duty to provide such things to animals in their care. However, the animals, unlike the helpless humans, do not have rights, because animals, unlike humans (helpless or not) do not have the ability, under any circumstances, to enforce or understand their rights, nor, being animals, do they have much use for abstract "rights."

Sarama has no use for "liberty," but she has a use for dinner and exercise.
 

Bunny82

Active Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
1,470
Likes
0
Points
36
#39
I agree that it is inhumane to make the choice for an animal to die rather than live an unsatisfactory life. I don't agree with that particular facet of their philosophy. I wasn't aware that they routinely killed animals purely because they were a domestic species... My understanding was that they were interested in seeing domestic animals "die out", as in cease to produce offspring.

And "shock campaigns" aren't the sole tactic of the truly evil. I've seen lots of anti-drug and alcohol ads that were plenty graphic for the purpose of making a very emphatic point.
Very prominent members of PETA have been quoted as saying they would rather see animals die then live out their lives in domestication. Take that attitude and take the number of animals euthanized by PETA, yes they are killing domestic animals just because they are domestic animals and "suffering" by being that.

You and I must be watching different shows. I have never saw an anti drug/alcohol ad that was derived just to make me squeamish. I have seen them that point out why these things are bad, unhealthy, and what the risks are, but graphic and disturbing? Hardly.

PETA shock campaigns however? That is a whole different story.
 

Lilavati

Arbitrary and Capricious
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
7,644
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
47
Location
Alexandria, VA
#40
It's so sickening. The fur coats bit is what really sticks with me, though.
I'm not sure what they are doing with fur now. I have always admired their "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" campaign. Not the paint throwing or the graphic pictures, but the naked parades and racy photos, paired with genuine statistics on the cruel conditions under which fur animals were raised. It did some good. It was clever, provocative, and effective.

Alas, it was paired with vandalism, intimidation and gory shock tactics.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top