Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Secret World Inside the Animal Rights Agenda

Secret World Inside the Animal Rights Agenda

Ratings: (0)|Views: 546|Likes:
Secret World Inside the Animal Rights Agenda: Animal rights organizations are literally making their living by suing a variety of government agencies...
Secret World Inside the Animal Rights Agenda: Animal rights organizations are literally making their living by suing a variety of government agencies...

More info:

Published by: AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Feb 23, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/17/2011

pdf

text

original

 
The
Secret World
InsIde the
Animal RightsAgenda
A wo-par columnaur in
Fair Chase 
, Ofcial Publicaiono  Boon anCrock Club
By Lowell E. Baier
Prin, 2008-2010Boon an Crock Club
 
Queen, country andox hunting are dear toEngland’s landedgentry, all part o therarefed world oinherited privilege andtradition. However,when the British LaborParty banned oxhunting in England in 2004, the victorywent not to the liberal politicians, butrather to the secretive, clandestine,Machiavellian worldwide animal rightsand liberation movement begun in theearly 1960s by a group o UnitedKingdom Oxord University academicsknown as the “Oxord Group.” Animalrightists and liberationists are o a verydierent orientation than the anti-hunting movement, which is a minorcomponent o their agenda.
Rightists are a distilled, radical exten-
sion ar beyond anti-hunters, driven by
intellectuals, academics and the scholastic
legal community in a global political move-ment. Animal rights advocates seek to endthe rigid moral and legal distinctions drawnbetween humans and animals, end the statuso animals as property or prey, and end theiruse in research, ood, clothing, hunting and
shing, and the entertainment industries.
Their aim is to remove an animal’s current
status as “property,” and to recognize and
grant animals “personhood”; that is, to awardthem legal rights and standing on the same
terms humans enjoy undamental rights toprotect their basic interests. The “bible” o 
the modern animal rights movement,
AnimalLiberation
, was authored in 1975 by ProessorPeter Singer rom Princeton University.The philosophical and moral ounda-tions or the animal rights position are that
animals have the ability to suer and eel
pain, and that capacity is the vital character-istic that gives every creature with a will tolive the right to equal consideration whichmust be recognized in any moral communityand philosophy o natural law. Contrariansargue that animals lack rationality to distin-
guish between right and wrong; they lack
language and are not able to enter into a social
contract, make moral choices, assume moral
obligations, nor have a moral identity; and
hence, cannot be regarded as a possessor o 
rights. Only humans have duties, thereore
only humans have rights, and rights must be
accompanied by duties. Theologically the
idea o a divine hierarchy based on the con-
cept o “dominion” rom Genesis (1:20-28)has been interpreted or centuries to imply
ownership, i.e., property rights over birds, wild
animals, livestock, and sh.
Animal Welare morphs intoAnimal Rights
Since ancient times, animals have beenprotected rom cruelty and animal welarehas been a consistent theme in animalprotection legislation. In England, thisbecame an important movement in theearly 19th century where it grew alongsidethe humanitarian current that advancedhuman rights, including the anti-slaveryand women’s surage movements. In 1824,the Royal Society or the Prevention o Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) was estab-lished in London, ollowed in 1866 by theAmerican Society or the Prevention o Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), and in 1875by the National Anti-Vivisection Society,opposed to animals being used in research,was ounded. Two years later (1877), theAmerican Humane Association (AHA)was ormed as an advocate or both childprotection and animal welare/animal shel-ter programs. Following World War II, thegrowth o afuent suburbia and the increaseo an elderly population living independent-ly combined to increase the need or petsand companion animals. Today 43 percento households have pets in this country.Humane groups fourished and prosperedon this expanding base o pet owners, andwith their growth cameconficts amongst theirleaders over the extentto which principles o animal protectionismshould be articulated andadvocated. During thissame period, societal pro-gressivism ushered in thecivil rights and women’sliberation movements,disability, handicappedand elder rights, theglobal human rightsmovement, the growtho environmentalismand the recognition o endangered species, theright to lie movement,and most recently, gayand lesbian rights. Theextension o “rights” principles by analogyto animals became an easy reach or activistradicals both here and abroad when envi-ronmentalists began winning endangeredspecies protection in the courts starting inthe 1970s.Agitation or more advocacy ollowing
World War II split the AHA, and in 1954The Humane Society o the United States
(HSUS) split o, and then in 1960 sueredits own split when The Society or Animal
Protective Legislation (SAPL) was created,
which has lobbied or every important mea-
sure on animal legislation since. SAPL is
presently an arm o the Animal Welare In-
stitute which was ounded in 1951. These have
included the Humane Slaughter Act (1958),the Laboratory Animal Welare Act (1966),
the Endangered Species Act (1969), the Horse
Protection Act (1970), the Wild Horse and
Burro Act (1971), the Marine Mammal Protec-
tion Act (1972), and all extensions and
amendments thereto.One o the more philosophical animalrightists groups in Caliornia clearly denes
the animal rightists’ demarcation rom the
original animal welare movement drawn bythem today:
The animal welare movement begunin the mid-19th century... was quite limited toimprove the treatment o animals that werebeing utilized by humans without changing thebasic nature o the human-animal relationship.That relationship was and still is largely basedon ownership and exploitation.Unlike the animal welare movement,
Lowell E. Baier
PRESIDENTBoone and Crockett Club
FROM THE PRESIDENT
The Secret World Inside the Animal Rights Agenda  Part One
HSUS is ruthless inusing the rhetoric
 
o its name and national image toconuse and deceive the Americanpublic to contribute to HSUS, notrealizing their money is not goingto local animal shelters.
In 2008, HSUS madedonations to pet shelterorganizations in only 15statesless than one-hal o one percent o its budget.
2
 
n
 
Fair Chase Magazine Fall 2010| 
Reprint
 
the animal rights movement recognized that
there is no way that humans can own and
exploit animals without cruelty as the very acts
o ownership and exploitation invariably lead
to horrifc abuses and deny animals the natural
lives that their species were intended to lead.Thus, the animal rights movement seeks noth-ing less than the complete transormation o our relationship with other species rom onebased on ownership and exploitation, to onebased on a guardianship model in which all
human relationships with animals must be
based on what is in the best interest o the ani-mals, not humans. The guardianship modelor animals is itsel based on the guardianshipmodel used or children and it recognized thatanimals, like children, cannot protect them-
selves rom many harms and need special
protections. Thus, the animal rights movement
seeks to create legal protections or animals,not as an end to themselves, which is the goalo animal welare, but as stepping stones onthe way to the total liberation o animals rom
the ancient model based on ownership
and exploitation.Fortunately, the animal rights move-
ment’s inluence in the animal welare
community seems to be growing every year with
more and more animal welare organizations,like HSUS, adopting animal liberation goals
including the most important to our transforma-
tion to a more humane human species: 
vegetarianism. Thanks to animal rights groupslike PETA (People or the Ethical Treatmento Animals), Farm Sanctuary and the Leagueor Earth and Animal Protection, we can lookorward to the day when the animal welaremovement will be relegated to the dust bin o history, where it belongs, to be replaced by true
animal liberation (League for Earth and Animal
Protection website, www.leapnonproft.org).
HSUS didn’t start out as an animal
rightist organization in 1954, but by 1990, inthe view o one watch dog group, Center orConsumer Freedom (CCF), its ocus changedrom animal welare to animal rights spurredby the infuence o the British Oxord Group’s
philosophical infuence and militant competi-
tion to capture donations being attracted byPETA, which was started in 1980.Rhetoric and linguistics became the
bridge the animal rights and liberation move-ment led by HSUS used to hook the emotions
o the world’s public into believing animals
had “rights.” The humane movement had
been grounded primarily in sincere,
benevolent sentimentalitytowards animals, and thewords they used to express
their sentiments were “wel-
are,” “inhumane,” “cruel,”
and “protection.” These
are the same words used by
the animal rightists inter-changedly over the last 50
years, but they deviously
added the concept o 
“rights” into their rhetoric.Subconsciously the public
has now come to believe
that animals really do have
rights because o our con-
using parlance using
words with multiple mean-ings that evoke emotionalreaction. Emotion seems to always win over
acts, and once emotion is provoked, nancial
contributions readily ollow. That’s why
animal rightists use these words interchange-
ably with numerous photos and videos o 
mistreated dogs, puppies, kittens, cows,
horses, etc., to theoretically raise money toprotect animals rom cruelty. That’s the con,because the money doesn’t make it to yourlocal animal welare shelters. It goes to sup-port the hidden agenda o animal rightistsgroups, i.e., get animals to be recognized with“personhood,” and award them legal rights,and end their use in research, ood, clothing,
hunting, entertainment, and as pets and
companion animals.
HSUS Uncovered
The two most recognizable animal rightsorganizations are HSUS and PETA,both major multi-national conglomer-ate enterprises. HSUS’s name, HumaneSociety o the United States, can easilyconuse contributors into thinking HSUSis a sanctioned government organiza-tion or agency, which it is not, and thatits donations go to local animal shelters.Conveniently enough, HSUS is headquar-tered in our Nation’s Capital; hence, it hasa Washington, D.C. address. To perpetuatethe government connection myth, one o the leading investigators and authoritieson animal rightist tactics reports that “…in the mid-1990s, HSUS partnered withthe U.S. Postal Service to send out 125million oversized postcards saying: ‘Don’tlet your dog bite the hand that serves you!’Recipients were asked to send a donation ina sel-addressed stamped business envelopeto HSUS. This was clearly a colossal und-raising reebie or HSUS. However, the realgitin addition to the cost-ree mailing to125 million prospects courtesy o the U.S.Postal Servicewas the huge credibilityboost, gained by the apparent alliance witha government-run agency. This tactic suc-ceeded in urther conusing the public:United States Postal Service teams up withthe United States Humane Societyitwouldn’t be too much o a reach to thinkHSUS wasn’t in some way governmentconnected.”A February 2010 national survey con-ducted by Opinion Research Corporation inPrinceton, New Jersey, determined that 71
percent o Americans think HSUS is the
national umbrella group representing thou-
sands o local humane societies all acrossAmerica, and 63 percent believed HSUScontributed most o its money to aliatedlocal organizations that care or cats and
dogs. HSUS is ruthless in using the rhetorico its name and national image to conuseand deceive the American public to contrib-
ute to HSUS, not realizing their money is
not going to local animal shelters. In 2008,HSUS made donations to pet shelter orga-
nizations in only 15 statesless than one-hal 
o one percent o its budget. Between 2006and 2008, HSUS spent $277 million, yet only
$6.9 million or 3 percent went to local animal
shelters in 39 states. The rest, $270.1 million,was spent on litigation, lobbying, legislation,advertising, undraising, direct mail, telemar-keting, grant proposals, special events, publicrelations, and related programs and salaries
Emotion seems t
oalways win over acts,
 
and once emotion is provoked,fnancial contributions readily ollow.
That’s why animal rightists use these wordsinterchangeably with numerous photos andvideos o mistreated dogs, puppies, kittens,cows, horses, etc., to theoretically raise moneyto protect animals rom cruelty. 
That’s the con, because themoney doesn’t make it to yourlocal animal welare shelters. Itgoes to support the hiddenagenda o animal rightistsgroups…
Fair Chase Magazine Fall 2010| 
Reprin
t
 
n
 
3

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
sdavis8873 liked this
posejdon40 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->