Conference misery::feline

563.0. ""On The Agenda" part one." by ISLNDS::FALLON () Wed Jul 07 1993 17:59

    "How the Animal Rights Movement is Hurting The Animals"
    by Lee Wallot
    Reprinted with permission from The Annual, 1992 Issue, published by THe
    Canine Chronicle.
    
    
    This is long so lookout!
    
       We have all seen them.  The soulful eyes of dogs and cats, imploring
    us from behind the wire fences.  The fluffy rabbit huddled in the
    corner, its eyes closed against the pain of a seeping wound on its
    side.(1)  The raccoon curled in death with its paw in a trap big enough
    to hold a bear.  We have seen them...in the mail delivered to our door,
    in the magazines we flip through, on television we watch in our homes. 
    We see them and our hearts twist in sympathy.  We read the messages:
    "Help us save them.  Stop the torture.  Write letters. Phone your
    officials.  Send money."  The messages beseech and we emotional humans
    repsond, prodded by equal parts of compassion and guilt.  We send the
    money by the millions of dollars; we make the phone calls by the
    thousands, and in doing so, we, like millions of caring humans before
    us, have succumbed to the seductive propaganda of the animal rights
    movement.
    
       Emotion is the sword the activists wield and it cuts keenly to the
    bone.  Emotion impels action without thought and it drives the
    adrenaline that shuts off the process of reason.  Emotion is the key
    that turns on the entire mechanical monster called the animal rights
    movement.  And it works.  The leaders of this movement have discovered
    a very important marketing ploy: The more a person feels the
    propaganda, the less time he spends thinking about it.  To the truly
    dedicated, to the thoroughly indoctrinated, there is no room for
    reason.  There is only room to feel and to do, mindlessly but
    heartfully, as told.
    
       "What is this?" you ask.  "Sounds like a cult to me."  In a way, it
    is.  "No more brainwashing," another offers.  In a way, it is that
    also.  "Maybe a political movement with social overtones?"  someone
    else suggests.  Oh, definitely that, and more.  "But what IS it?"  The
    question hangs in the air, begging an answer.
    
       The animal rights movement is a philosophy based on the belief that
    all animals are the equal of man, that man does not have dominion over
    the animals, that all animals are morally equivalent to him... even
    rats and toads... and therefore are due the same rights as those held
    by man.
    
       But what does this mean?  At first reading, such a moreal belief
    often doesnt' appear totally wrong; in fact it is interpreted by many
    as "the way it should be," with maybe an innocuous extension of animal
    welfare thrown in for good measure.  Nothing could be further from the
    truth.  In fact, at a recent animal protection symposium put on by the
    National Alliance For Animals, two prominent speakers (both leaders in
    the animal rights field) characterized animal welfare as "the enemy". 
    To these two men, the goals of animal "welfare" not only differ from
    animal "rights", they contradict them. (2)
    
       To explain a complicated philosophy in as few words as possible,
    animal welfare is concerned with the humane care and use of animals by
    man.  The animal rights agenda has only one goal: To end forever the
    ownership and use of all animals, in any way by human beings.  They
    want nothing short of a moral revolution that would change our food and
    clothing, our science and health care, our entire relationship to the
    (animal) world. (3)
    
      Who are these people?  Where did they come from?  We hear names: PETA
    (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Fund for ANimals, HSUS
    (Humane Society of the United States), PAWS (Progressive Animal Welfare
    Society), Doris Day Animal League.  These are only a few of the leading
    organizations in the animal rights movement today.  Animal RIGHTS?  It
    is confusing because they have all been thought of as animal WELFARE
    groups by the majority of the contributing public.  Thousands of people
    have sent millions of dollars to them in the belief they were
    supporting the cmpassionate use and well- being of animals.  What
    happened?  Is this a new thing?
    
       Not really.  Although the takeover of moderate humane groups by the
    animal rights activists is a relativeley recent occurance in the United
    States, the philosophy of animal rights has been around for a long
    time.  In the late 1800's, Edward B. Nicholoson concluded in his
    contribution to the animal rights literature that "animals have the
    same abstract rights of life and personal liberty with man."  In the
    same time frame, Henry S. Salt founded the Humanitarian League and
    published Animal Rights Considered in Relation to Social Progress.  His
    philosophy went to far as to imply that humans and animals should and
    would ultimately participate together in a common government.
    
       But throughout the 19th and most of the 20th century, these men were
    part of a small fringe of philosophers... sitting arougn their solitary
    campfires, thinking deep thoughts that were seldom understood by most
    people.
    
       The people...the common man and legislators alike...were bringing
    into being the concept of animal welfare.  Then, as now, animal welfare
    and animal rights were two entirely different things.  The animal
    welfare movement concerned itself with improving the life of animls
    through humane treatment and responsible stewardship.  They felt the
    animls were here for humans to use in the natural order of things; For
    food, for clothing, for pets, for work, for recreation, for research,
    but always our dominion over the animals was  to be tempered with
    kindness and consideration for their comfort and well- being.  They
    felt man had an obligation by virtue of his higher power for the good
    of all, humans and animals alike.
    
       This welfare movement extended for a long time and the animal
    welfare organizations attained both money and power from their
    supportive members.  They succeeded in getting many anti-cruelty laws
    passed and were instrumental in making life better for millions of
    animals.  They moved the care and use of animls from the dark ages of
    neglect  into the light of modern civilization...and this is the place
    where most of us find ourselves today.
    
       We care about animals.  We care deeply.  We do not want to see them
    treatec cruelly.  We do ot want to see them destroyed in driftnets or
    released from a cage and shot from ten feet away by someone seeking an
    easy and risk free trophy.  We care about our dogs and cats; they are
    as much a part of our lives as other family members.  We worked right
    alongside the animal welfare societies to alleviate cruelty and teach
    responsible  care and use of our animals.
    
       But in England, without our even being aware of it, something else
    was happening.  There was a dark thundercloud on the horizon as the
    animla rights people stirred in discontent. ~It isn't welfare we want
    for the animals, the growled.  The animals are EQUAL to humans, not
    subordinates...and equality demanded equal rights.  Because they are
    equal, they intoned, we have no right to kill them to eat them or to
    enslave them as research animals or to imprison them in our homes as
    pets.~
    
       ~If you wouldn't do it to a human being, they warned, you should not
    do it to an animal.~
    
       The rumblings became meaner and more threatening.  The animal rights
    people were moving from the solitude of their individual campfires into
    small groups and the discontent that flowed between them fed on itself
    until it erupte into violence.  In 1962, the Hunt Saboteurs Association
    was formed, followed in 1972 by the Band of Mercy, and followed in 1976
    by the Animal Liberation Front...or as we know it today: ALF.  The 80's
    saw a frightening change in the expression of the philosophy of the
    animal rights movement.  It changed from the persuasive words used by
    thinkers to the warfare used by terrorists. (4)
    
       Their agenda was not the humane treatment of animals.  It was
    exactly what the name says: Animal Liberation.  The freeing of animls
    from all dominion by man.  Vegetarianism was...and is... the rite of
    passage.  Once a person could change his lifestyle not for health
    reasons but because he believed it was morally wrong to eat the flesh
    of animals, it is a simpel step to acceptance of the total agenda that
    says all use of animals, for any reason, has to end. Forever.
    
       The animal rights movement as we know it today is not a movement
    based on the love of animals.  It is a moral and political issue that
    reverberates with hate by its leaders from those people who do not
    support the animal rights beliefs.  It is a movement of fear and
    intimidation, and its leaders have only one goal: To force the rest of
    humanity to accept and live by the beliefs that only the animalists
    deem acceptable for the rest of the world.  Your ideas and opinions do
    not matter to them.  With a zealot's fanaticism, they came to the
    United States and found fertile soil for their seeds of hate.
    
       In the early 1980's, except for the formation of PETA that was
    animal rights oriented from its inception, ost of our animal welfare
    societies remained committed to animal welfare.  But something new was
    in the wind.  The polish and professionalism of big business in the
    United States was being studied carefully by the animalists.  They
    needed money to carry on their work.  Where was the money?  In the
    animal welfare societies, that's where.  And thus began  a series of
    the slickest corporate takeovers in the history of the United States. 
    ONe by one, the governing boards of the humane societies were subverted
    and taken over.  One by one, the philosophy of the societies was
    gradually changed, swinging away from animal welfare and swinging
    toward animal rights.  ONe by one, the bank accounts of those humane
    societies were turned away from helping the animals to promoting the
    money-raising campaigns of the animal rights leaders.
    
       One such takeover is graphically detailed in an excerpt from "Who
    Will Live, Who Will Die?" by Katie McCabe, The washingtonian, August
    1986.  It says:
    
    "Along with his lobbying efforts on nationa issues, McArdle (of the
    HSUS) coordinates and guides local humane societies into taking a more
    aggressive animal right stance.  On his desk during an intreview is a
    letter from the Peninsula Humane Society in San Mateo, CA, one of the
    country's wealthiest organizations."  (We will talk more about this San
    Mateo organization in a minute)
    
    "According to the December 18, 1985 San Mateo Times, a 'surprise coup'
    at the Society by local activists forced the resignation of the board's
    conservative members, one of whom said, "I am resigning because I do
    not agree with the philosophy of the exreme activists."
    
    "The radicalization of local humane societies is a nation-wide
    phenomenon.  Says PETA's Ingrid Newkirk, "Humane societies all over the
    country are adopting the animal rights philosophy (and are) becoming
    vegetarian."
    
       We mentioned an agenda with an ultimate goal.  The animalists have
    also set forth very specific sub-goals in which any success, no matter
    how small becomes another step toward the ultimate goal of total
    abolition.  Read the agenda printed below.  It was written by an animal
    rights activist and published in an animal rights magazine.  It is the
    world they are in the process of legislating into existence.  The have
    been telling us for years exactly what there goals are, but we weren't
    listening.
    	1. Abolish by law all animal research.
    	2. Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing,
    classroom demonstration, and in weapons development.
    	3. Vegetarian meals should be made available at all public
    institutions, including schools.
    	4. Eliminate all animal agriculture.
    	5. No herbicides, pesticides or other agricultural chemicals should
    be used.  OUtlaw predator control.
    	6. Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the
    Department of Agriculture.
    	7.Eliminate fur ranching and end the use of furs.
    	8. Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.
    	9.End the international trade in wildlife goods.
    	10. Stop any further breeding of companion animals, including
    purebred dogs and cats.  Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by
    state and municipal governments.  Abolish commerce in animals for the
    pet trade.
    	11. End the use of animlas in entertainment and sports.
    	12. Prohibit the genetic manipulation of species.
    	(from: " Politics of Animal Liberation" by Kim Bartlett, Animals
    Agenda, November 1987)
    
       These are not my words.  They are the workds of the animal rights
    activists themselves.  THIS IS THE AGENDA the activists are seeking to
    legislate into our lives and yet, because they are so skillful in
    separating (in people's minds) the various parts of the agenda, most of
    us never even see the total picture.  The hunters think they are the
    target.  The dog and cat owners are new to all this aand are dismayed
    to find that they are the target.  Even more difficult to understand is
    that there are one or more items of the agenda that many of us could
    agree with at least in part, and this is the key to the seductive
    premise of the movement.  Work for one part of the agenda, even if you
    don't agree with it all, and you nonetheless enhance the chances of
    success for the entire movement.
    
    "Whew! Heavy Stuff," you say.  " But what does it have to do with me?" 
    EVERYTHING! Do you enjoy a steak now and then, or a roast chicken or a
    broiled trout, or an egg, or a glass of milk, or honey on your toast,
    or a bowl of Jell-O for dessert?  The animalists would end the use of
    these things. (You are not a true animal rights person unless you are
    also a strict vegetarian, or even better a vegan...according to their
    creed.)  Do you like wearing you plaid wool coat, or leather belts and
    shoes, or silk scarves?  The animalists would end the use of these
    things.  (They sheep are embarrassed when we shear their wool and it is
    immoral to kill silkworms to get the silk from their cocoons.)  Do you
    inoculate your children with a vaccine developed through biomedical
    research?  Do you hope research will find cures for cancer and AIDS? 
    Do you live a better life because insulin, developed through animal
    research, now controls your diabetes?  Are you alive because of hear
    surgery that was perfected through animal research?  The animalists
    would end all such further research.  Do you own a dog or cat?  The
    animalists would end such ownership because they feel we are keeping
    dogs and cats in slavery for our own selfish purposes.  Do you like to
    ride a horse?  Do you take your children to the circus and the zoo?  Do
    you enjoy an exciting rodeo or horse show or horse race?  Do you hunt? 
    Do you fish?  The animalists would end all these things.
    
       In fact, they are already doing it through oppressive legislation,
    through terrorist attacks that include firebombings and the wrecking of
    laboratories, and through laws that sound "good for the animals" but
    are actually eroding away the rights of human beings.  OUr freedom of
    choice is beign legislated away; the animal rights beliefs are, step by
    step, being legislated into our lives."Can't happen," you say?  "Too
    far out," you say?  Let me tell you, it IS happening. Now.  And has
    been happening, little by little, for years.  If you don't believe so,
    ask the biomedical researchers who have been hit with so many new,
    restrictive laws (intorduced by the activists) that continuing their
    research will cost us all billions more than it should.  Or ask the
    McDonald's restaurant owners who were the object of terrorist therats
    and harassment because they dared sell hamburgers and chicken.  In one
    instance the terrorists even went so far as to leave live bombs in
    trash cans while the restaurants were full of customers. (1)  Or ask
    the outdoorsman who have been fighting for years to keep their right to
    hunt and fish from being taken away from them.  And now it is happening
    to the owners of dogs and cats who are seeing oppressive legislation
    being proposed all over the country that would limit and eventually
    eliminate the reproduction and ownership of such animals.
    
       The attack against the ownership of pets is being hidden under the
    guise of a pet overpopulation problem, under the emotional sword of all
    those puppies and kittens being killed at shelters all over the
    country.  But what you see and hear is not the truth.  You see what
    activists want you to see...and the key called "emotion" is turned on
    in your brain.
    
       "Millions of dogs and cats are killed every year in our shelters,"
    the animalists cry.  "It is and exploding problem that is getting worse
    and can only be brought under control by high license fees, breeding
    bans and mandatory spay/neuter laws!" they insist.  And then they show
    you pictures of barrels of dead dogs and cats in your newpaper (as was
    done in San Mateo, CA and in Seattle, WA) and they kill dogs on
    television (as was done in San Mateo and in Seattle) with the excuse,
    "They were going to die anyway.  We just thought it was time the public
    saw it."  When questioned by Ken Schram on the Seattle T.V. "Town
    Meeting", Mitchell Fox of PAWS (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)
    insisted that killing the dogs on television was an effective form of
    education. (2)
    
       This is what they show you.  This is what turns the key of emotion
    and gets the animal rights machine moving.  What they do NOT tell you
    is that caring, concerned people in the world...animal welfare people,
    through low-cost spay/neuter clinics and through education, breeders
    through selling their pets on spay/neuter contracts, responsible owners
    through responsible stewardship of their pets... have already made a
    difference.  The do NOT tell you that in 1980, 20 million dogs and cats
    were killed in our shelters but in 1990 the figure plummetedto 2.3
    million with the numbers continuing to go downward even now.(3)  From
    20 million to 2 million in 10 years!!
    
       Obviously, the animalists realized they had to get their campaign
    going now or else in a few more years, there would be nothing to point
    at in order to turn on the emotional key.  The onslaught against our
    pets is well-planned, well-organized, and well-financed, and it has
    left the nation relling in disbelief.  " Take away our dogs and
    cats?"you stutter nervously.  "They can't do that.  All those ads we
    see and letters-to-the-editors we read...they say the breeding bans are
    meant to end the overpopulation problem caused by puppy mills and
    irresponsible breeders.  At least I think that is what they mean.  I
    take good care of my pets.  Those laws don't have anything to do with
    me."
       I have only one respones: Think again.
       Let's let Ingrid Newkirk of PETA explain it.  At least she doesn't
    beat around the bush about the goal to end ownership of pets.  She has
    said: Pet ownership is an "absolutely abysmal situation brought about
    by human manipulation." (4)  She also says, "I don't use the word
    'pet'.  I thinkit's a speciesist language.  I prefer 'companion
    animals'.  For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding...There
    would be no pet shops.  If people had companion animals in their homes,
    those animals would have to be refugees from the shelters and the
    streets.  You would have a protective relationship with them just as
    you would an orphaned child.  But as the surplus of dogs and
    cats...declined, eventually COMPANION ANIMALS WOULD BE PHASED OUT and
    we would return to a more symbiotic relationship...ENJOYMENT FROM A
    DISTANCE."  ( emphasis mine.) Harpers Magazine, August 1988.
    
    ~Think~ about those words. 'We would no longer allow breeding..." The
    breeding bans impose this restriciton.  Those animals in our homes
    "would have to be refugees from the animal shelters..." The breeding
    bans, if carried across the country the way the activists are trying to
    do, would eliminate the breeders of purebred dogs and cats.  Therefore,
    the only dogs and cats left available to the public would have to be
    from the shelters.
    
       There is one part of these breeding bans that Newkirk does not spell
    out in this particular speech, but it is a very real part of the
    animalists' agenda.  The breeding bans also call for the mandatory
    sterilization of all dogs and cats.  The activist will try to convince
    you that breeding will still be allowed...all you have to do is buy a
    breeding license.  This, however, doesn't apply only to those people
    commonly thought of as breeders.  Most ordinances define ~ any
    unnuetered animal~ as a "breeding animal" whether that animal ever
    reproduces or not, and you therefore MUST buy a breeding license in
    addition to a regular license.  Oh and by the way, you can buy that
    "breeding licencse" (at an exhorbitant price) so your pet will be
    legal; but only until the breeding ban is put into effect, at which
    time no more breeding permits will be issued.  Guess what, folks! Your
    legally unaltered pet is now illegal because you can't get that
    "breeding license".  Surprise, they aren't giving them out any more. 
    And now every dog and cat in the jurisdiction of that ordinance must be
    spayed or neutered BY LAW (5).  Maybe you can tell me...what is left to
    reproduce after this is all over, folks?  "Not So!" the activists
    protest.  "THat's nonsense.  We love animals.  Look at the millions we
    have adopted out over the years. We don't want to eliminate pets.  We
    just want to stop killing them."
    
       Don't you believe them!  Look again at Newkirks quote.  We humans
    would be the "care takers", the "guardians" of those shelter
    animals...animal rights people always show you their "companions" that
    they have rescued...but only until such time as THERE ARE NO MORE.  The
    Humane Society of the United States has a prophetic motto these days:
    "Until there are none, adopt one."
    
       There is an old cliche: Figures lie and liars use figures.  Gross
    exageration has always been a tool of the animalists.  It has been
    wielded against biomedical researchers with regularity.  Fro instance,
    the director of the Washington D.C. office of the National
    Anti-Vivisection Society has stated that medical research uses 70
    million animals a year.  He acknowledges that his figure is too high,
    but claims he uses it in order to force opponents to refute it.  The
    real number of laboratory animals used is 17 to 22 million per year,
    and although the activists have manipulated the publics' perception
    into believing most all the animals are chimps, monkeys, dogs, and
    cats, in reality 90 percent are rodents (6).
    
       Not surprisingly, we find the same deception being used by the
    activists in their fight to end what they call "slavery" of our pets. 
    San Mateo, CA was the first county in the country to enact a breeding
    ban and mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. 
    
    
    ( I have to end here, but will finish the article tomorrow.  It is
    interesting to say the least)
    Karen 

       I guess "interesting" is an apt description... From what I've seen
    so far, this "article" is as full of distortion and hysteria as some of
    the stances of the more radical 'rights' advocates. Too bad someone
    doesn't make a stand on a moderate, middle ground instead of thie
    radical hysteria on both sides.. Lumping the organizations that were
    listed in the beginning of the article all together as radicals is
    ludicrous. HSUS and PETA are no more alike than the PLO and the
    Democratic Party!!
    
       JM

    Now, from where I left off.... 
    
    (This is the same San Mateo mentioned earlier, describing the Peninsula
    Humane Society takeover.)  The demand for the ordinance was primarily
    fueled by the activists cry, "10,000 were killed in San Mateo County
    last year." (7)  Predictably, an outraged and uninformed public
    recoiled in horror as the key named "Emotion" was turned on and they
    demanded that something be done.  The activists were only too happy to
    oblige, and the ordinance became law.  Imagine, however, the shock 
    the task force felt when they later went through the shelter records
    and found out what that horrific figure really represented.  One thing
    should be kept in mind: There will always be those animals at the
    shelters for which, sad as the truth may be, euthenization is the only
    moral or ethical choice.  Those animals are not "healthy but
    abandoned", but are, in fact "unadoptable" because of extreme age,
    injury, disease, incorrigible behavoiur (i.e. aggression) or
    owner-requested euthenasia.
    
       The task force tabulated the figures and found the following break
    down:
    		6,500 cats were unadoptable
    		  800 cats were homeless
    		1,470 dogs were unadoptable
    		  268 dogs were homeless
    	
    		9,038 Total
    
       As in all their propaganda, the animalists had manipulated the
    public into thinking these were mainly 10,000 healthy adoptable dogs
    killed, when in reality the number of truly adoptable dogs was only
    268. (8)
    
       A year later, when finally given the correct information instead of
    the animal rights' distorted propaganda, the San Mateo Board of
    supervisors overturned and struck down the breeding ban and mandatory
    spay/neuter laws.  By then, however, the damage was already done. 
    Everyone in the country had heard about the ordinance going on the
    books; very few ever learned that the breeding ban and mandatory
    spay/neuter part of it had been repealed.  In the meantime, the
    animalists exploded their campaign all across the United States,
    touting the "foresight" of San Mateo as their flagship.  At the time
    this is being written (August 1992) there have been over 100
    municipalities across the country hit by the animal rights activists
    demanding breeding bans, or at the very least, a new and extremely
    expensive licensing fee structure for unaltered animals that would
    eventually accomplish the same goal: The end of unaltered pet dogs and
    cats.
    
       In their nation-wide onslaught against the ownership of pets, the
    animalists are using the same tactics as was used in San Mateo, voicing
    the same questionable figures, using the same media hype, turning on
    the key of emotion with the same pornographic litany of death. (910)
    
       Then there is the confusing duplicity of the animal rights movement. 
    PETA solicits donations from caring people by promising that no animal
    will be turned away, that they are there to help animals.  Last year it
    came to light that PETA had killed 32 animals at its "sanctuary", 18
    rabbits and 14 rooster.  The rabbits had been "rescued" from a
    schoolroom and the roosters were confiscated from a private home. 
    Ingrid Newkirk of PETA explained the killing by saying, "We will ot
    overcrowd our animals.  We really didn't have anything else to do.  And
    so euthenasia was carried out with a great deal of concern." (11)
    
       There is yet another example; this time from the Humane Society of
    the United States.  HSUS, like all animal rights organizations, is
    adamantly opposed to research that uses animals.  Interestingly enough,
    HSUS is funding the studies of two chemical sterilants for use in the
    sterilization of dogs and cats.  The research will include the killing
    and dissecting of about 40 cats and 59 dogs. (12)
    
       Truly, the animal rights movement is the mother of deception in its
    most calculating and premeditated form.
    
       It takes a while to absorb the ramifications of all this, doesn't
    it?  It takes time to recover from the stunned disbelief most of us
    feel when first faced with the total concept of this sinister movement. 
    It takes time to shake off the overwhelming feeling of helplessness
    that sinks in with the understanding of the power of the many-tetacled
    animal rights machine.  It takes time.
    
       But with time, understanding begins to grow and with understanding
    comes the realization that animal rights id definitely not concerned
    with animal welfare.  Its concern is with the advancement of its
    political and moral agenda.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
    
       "But what happens to the animals?"  people are beginning to ask. 
    "The activists don't want bigger cages; they want empty cages.  They
    don't want better care for animals in our meat industry; they want no
    meat industry.  They don't want more responsible care for the dogs and
    cats in our homes; they want no animals in our homes.  What about the
    animals?
    
       That question accurately reflects the true tragedy of this movement. 
    To the radical leaders, the animals welfare doesn't matter.  To them,
    neither do the wants and desires of humans who do not embrace their
    goals.  If this movement succeeds, what a sorry state life will be: The
    end of the human-animal bond, replaced by "enjoyment from a distance".
    
       This is what has angered compassionate people the most.  This is
    what hurts the animals most.  As people first by the hundreds and then
    by the thousands, dicover for themselves the true meaning of of the
    animal rights movement, they stop supporting it with their money, their
    letters, their help.  Most caring people, thinking people find they
    could never support the exremists' goals and so they turn away, with
    pain in their hearts because they find they no longer have a means
    through which to help the animals any more.  Where od caring people who
    still want to help animal ~welfare~ turn?  There are still a few animal
    welfare organizations that have ot succumbed to the animal rights
    movement, but they are hard to find and even harder to know for sure
    that their governing boards are not in the process of being taken over
    by the animalists.  It is a sad state of affairs with everyone losing,
    animals and humans alike.  Will the compassionate, moderate people who
    work for the animal rights movement finally come to understand the
    hidden agenda of their extremist leaders and, realizing the damage
    done, will they rise up and rebel?  Will those of us who are truly
    concerned about animal welfare find the courage to stand up and expose
    the hidden agenda to the world?  Will we be strong enough and quick
    enough to turn back the tidal wave of animal rights legislation that
    is already looming in front of and towering over us?
    
       I don't know the answers to those questions.  DO YOU?
    
    1.	Mailing by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of ANimals)
    2.	The Animals Agenda, Noveber 1991.
    3.	The Animal Rights Crusade, James E. Jasper  & Dorothy Helkin, The
    Free Press, 1992
    4.	Animal Warfare: The Story of ALF, David Henshaw.
    5.	Counter Terrorism & Security, Winter, 1989/1990
    6.	Town Meeting, April 5, 1992, Seattle, Washington
    7.	The Animal Agenda, March 1992
    8.	"Who Will LIve, Who Will Die", The Washingtonian, August 1986
    9.	Proposed King County (WA) Ordinance #91-123
    10.	"Physicians and the Animal Rights Movement", Herbert Pardes, M.D.
    et al, The New England Journal of Medicine, June 6, 1991
    11.	"Findings, from San Mateo County's proposed ordinance, The Latham
    Letter, Winter 1990/91
    12.	San Mateo County Animal Task Force Minority Report. October 4, 1991
    13.	Journal American. March 20, 1992, Bellevue, Washington
    14.	"Buster and Tiffany" circular, mailed by PAWS (Progressive Animal
    Welfare Society) and "Pacific" Magazine section, The Seattle Times,
    July 7, 1991
    15.	The Washington Post, undated.
    16.	The Animal Rights Agenda, November 1991.
    
    Reprinted with permission, courtesy of The Coalition of Responsible
    Animal Owners of Texas.  As copied from the CFA Annual Program 1993.
    

	This does not seem balanced, it starts off quite well, but rapidly
	goes down to a breeding rathole.

	Animal liberationists, in the UK at least, have always been close to
	anarchists.

	They release mink into the wild and so they devistate the local 
	wildlife. They release other animals, who are unable to fend for
	themselves.
	They attack dogs and people deer/fox hunting.

	No-one, apart from themselves and small amount of supporters, think 
	they are helping animals.

	What they are after is publicity.

	There are better ways of tackling cruelty to animals, and the majority
	of people understand this.

	Personally, I would not give them any credibility by treating them 
	seriously, this includes trying to activate a campaign against them.
	They will only get more publicity.

	Heather

    I also believe that the animal rights/activists people are looking for
    publicity.  What I think is that people should be very careful  in
    dealing with any animal group.  You may only see a smiling face at one
    end an not see the demon hidden behind it.  To be aware is to be
    forearmed.  Don't underestimate.  
    Karen