Same As It Ever Was

Sunday, November 18, 2007
Same As It Ever Was
Between Seattle and Portland, a large billboard off of Interstate 5 reads "In 2008, can I just vote No?" The sentiment is real. It touches a chord in all of us who have watched politicians over the last decade who say one thing, while they believe and act another way, and leave us trusting no one.

What I believe the author of that billboard wants is the same thing we all want. Americans want someone who will speak the truth, who will tell us how they really feel, what they truly believe, and what, if elected, their Administration will stand for, practice, promote and most of all, fight for. In other words, we are dying for authenticity.

Unfortunately, not a single candidate, regardless of the political party, has chosen to speak with integrity for Americans. They speak the language of the common man, but it is bereft of authenticity. Instead, we are given platitudes, cliches, empty phrases, emptier suits, and what the great 19th Century French novelist Alexandre Dumas called "mouths that say one thing, while the heart thinks another." That is what we have been given for nine years, and that is what the candidates are giving us still.

These last nine years have not been lost on Wayne Pacelle, the head of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation's largest "animal welfare" organization. Speaking with a politician's desire to avoid the truth, avoid controversy, avoid alienating the animal control bureaucracy to which he is intimately connected, avoid losing revenue from people who are tired of the killing of dogs and cats, avoid HSUS's own sordid history of opposing progressive programs which have been proven to save animals, avoid the fact that HSUS continues today to legitimize the killing of animals in shelters, Wayne Pacelle posted a blog on November 8 declaring his support for No Kill, claiming HSUS always supported No Kill, and taking credit for the lifesaving gains over the last several decades, which in reality were the result of programs HSUS opposed and fought to prevent.

The blog is written with a politician's pen and a politician's goal. In other words, it is filled with platitudes, cliches, empty phrases, desire for money, desire for power, and a mouth that says one thing, while the heart "and HSUS" thinks and does another. It is disingenuous. And it lacks the integrity and authenticity to atone for past mistakes, to change policies in the present, and to move the nation forward with a bold new vision for the future. It is out of touch with how most of us feel about dogs and cats. It continues to hide behind half-truths and outright lies. And it avoids the reality of what HSUS continues to do in practice to thwart lifesaving No Kill initiatives around the country.

Why Does it Matter What HSUS Says and Does?

HSUS has the potential to lead us toward our inevitable No Kill future. We will get there, even if we have to do what we have always done: fight HSUS every step of the way. But by cooperating with us, rather than working against us, we can get there much more quickly. As a result, HSUS could lessen the body count by millions of animals if they supported, rather than thwarted the effort as they have historically done and continue to do. The potential for nearly overnight success under an HSUS which fully and completely embraces the No Kill philosophy is very real. But under Mr. Pacelle's leadership, it is being thwarted; the body count increases. I do not make this claim lightly.

HSUS is the nation's largest and wealthiest humane advocacy organization in the nation. It has assets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and it has a budget in excess of one hundred million dollars annually. It claims the support of twelve million members and it has a powerful media presence. Their magazine, Animal Sheltering, is sent to shelters nationwide. Their animal sheltering conference, HSUS Expo, is the nation's largest, drawing sheltering staff from across the country.

More than that, shelters nationwide defer to them, and look to HSUS for guidance and direction. It is not uncommon for shelters to proclaim that they are run in line with HSUS policies. And when activists in communities working for reform pressure local government to embrace No Kill, HSUS responds by defending the shelter director and their failures and refusal to change, calling No Kill "impossible", "unreasonable," and attempting to sow seeds of doubt among public officials, such as recently occurred in King County, Washington.
Where No Kill is succeeding, such as in Reno, Nevada, HSUS supports the efforts of Dr. Kate Hurley, an anti-No Kill veterinarian, who goes to those communities to intentionally derail their success by arguing that No Kill is a bad idea and equating it with animal hoarding.

It has been over a decade since San Francisco pioneered the lifesaving model of the No Kill Equation to become the first to end the killing of healthy homeless dogs and cats, an achievement HSUS denigrated. It has been five years since No Kill success has been achieved in communities such as Tompkins County, New York from 2002-2007, in Charlottesville, Virginia, since 2006, and increasingly elsewhere, which HSUS ignored. And HSUS has never reported this success to their constituents, shelter directors, or local governments, and has not embraced the only model which has made it possible.

In addition, shelter bureaucrats who aren't told they must change the way they do business (the business of killing) by HSUS, do not feel pressured to do so. They feel vindicated. Shelter bureaucrats who fail to invest in the programs and services of the No Kill Equation are held out as pillars by HSUS despite their regressive practices. Shelter bureaucrats who boldly proclaim that the five million animals being executed every year are not being "killed" at an HSUS conference, but instead are being given the "gift of euthanasia" as a supporter of the HSUS position on sheltering stated, without being forced to recant, are emboldened to continue. Self-proclaimed experts are hailed by HSUS and lead workshops endorsed by HSUS when they claim that Pit Bulls should not be adopted to families with children and falsely claim that the vast majority are aggressive and should be killed. Communities which are told that No Kill is akin to "warehousing" and are falsely told that saving the lives of the vast majority of shelter animals is "unreasonable" by HSUS fail to demand results in their shelters. Governments which are told by HSUS that "No Kill is a sham," "feral cat caretakers are closet hoarders," or that the only way to achieve No Kill is to "adopt Pit Bulls to dogfighters," stop before they start paving the road to building truly humane societies. And health departments which are told that killing 22,000 of the 25,000 dogs and cats a year are within the "norms" of U.S. shelters can boldly proclaim that they are doing a "good job."

This is what has occurred or continues to occur without so much as a whimper of protest from Wayne Pacelle, often with the blessing of HSUS or, just as often, done by HSUS itself. These are not examples of a bygone era. The vast majority have occurred under Mr. Pacelle's leadership of HSUS. They occur still. There is no new HSUS position. And, as a result, the business of killing will continue in most of our nation's shelters.

Because rather than direct HSUS' enormous influence toward comprehensive national reform and true No Kill advocacy, Mr. Pacelle and his staff continue to provide the political cover for the status quo and to those directors determined to maintain it. Just a few months ago, HSUS sought to prevent the King County, WA, Council from embracing a mandate to achieve an 85% save rate of dogs and cats in its shelters, citing opposition to No Kill, calling the request "unreasonable," and siding with a regressive administration which oversaw a shelter where "the animals suffer from high rates of disease, improper housing, inadequate exercise and social contact, a lack of basic comforts, and high levels of stress." (King County Animal Care & Control Citizens Advisory Committee, September 24, 2007.)

Wayne Pacelle says in his blog that HSUS is and has always been committed to No Kill and the lifesaving programs it entails, but this is patently false. It was HSUS's Jim Tedford who called TNR "inhumane" and "abhorrent." It was HSUS' Phyllis Wright who said that killing animals was kindness and that she never worried about the 70,000 dogs and cats she herself put to death. It was HSUS' Roger Kindler who argued that caring for feral cats was illegal under North Carolina's statutes against abandonment, which carried a jail term. It was HSUS which:

Opposed plans to establish a TNR program on the Georgetown University campus;
Endorsed the round up and killing of feral cats at Riverside Park in Virginia;
Unfairly inflated the death rate for dogs and cats killed in San Francisco shelters to downplay the success of No Kill efforts;
Opposed maintaining the integrity of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law in California which required shelters to work with rescue groups and added protections for feral cats and other sheltered animals;
Opposed shelters working with rescue groups to place animals who would otherwise be killed;
Rallied around the New York City animal control shelter even after the comptroller's audit found "a number of allegations of animal neglect and abuse." The report found that not only were animals wrongly killed, but "many animals didn't have regular access to water and were often left in dirty cages";
Supported an animal control shelter at a time when a No Kill agency was poised to take over sheltering operations in Rockland County, New York, even after an auditor substantiated allegations of high rates of shelter killing and other deficiencies that were not corrected after a year;
Opposed a rescue group's efforts to get pre-killing notification from animal control in Page County, Virginia, so that they could save the dogs, calling the request unreasonable;
Said No Kill was impossible in Philadelphia unless Pit Bulls were given to dogfighters and labeled feral cat caretakers as "closet hoarders";
Claimed at a hearing in Eugene, OR that No Kill was a sham and that killing was necessary.
Unequivocally, HSUS has been obstinate in the past when it came to ending the needless killing of savable animals in shelters. The changes in some of these policies did not come easily. They were made only when their positions threatened either their fundraising or leadership position, or when they became politically and publicly untenable. Granted, they are no longer arguing that sending animals to rescue groups rather than killing them is a bad idea because transfer to rescue group would "stress" the animals the way they have done in the past. But they have not truly embraced the No Kill philosophy. For example,

HSUS recently opposed an ordinance in King County, WA which would have required county shelters to work diligently to save 85% of all incoming animals calling the request "unreasonable;"
HSUS participated in a No Kill hit piece on the front page of USA Today claiming that No Kill was essentially warehousing animals;
HSUS pressured the National Animal Law Center at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland to withdraw sponsorship of a No Kill seminar there;
HSUS supports the efforts of Kate Hurley (more on her in a later blog), a veterinarian, who is going to communities such as King County, WA, and Reno, NV, to oppose No Kill efforts occurring there;
HSUS fundraised claiming it needed money to help the dog victims rescued from dog fighter Michael Vick, but added very fine print saying the money might not be used for the Vick dogs. HSUS then publicly stated that the Vick dogs should be killed. (All but one of the dogs passed a test for aggression and were being saved as of this blog);
HSUS supported Austin, TX animal control's desire to move the shelter from the vibrant community of downtown Austin which is the daily destination for thousands of Austinites to a more remote, industrial location where it would have led to decreased adoptions, but would have meant bigger offices for shelter bureaucrats;
HSUS raised tens of millions of dollars ostensibly to help animals impacted by the Hurricane Katrina disaster, but spent only a fraction of it. Tens of millions are still in HSUS bank accounts (money that could and should have been used for the donors) intent: to save lives in the Gulf States. (HSUS announced "Mission Accomplished" and left, even while animals were still suffering in the aftermath of the destruction).
One of the most unfortunate aspects of continued opposition or failure to fully embrace the No Kill philosophy by national organizations like the Humane Society of the United States is the lost opportunity to profoundly influence animal shelters in a life-affirming way. We can imagine, for a moment, what the future would look like if HSUS embraced the notion that animals in shelters have a right to live, No Kill philosophies should be implemented everywhere, and used its vast wealth to provide shelters with the training and tools they need to succeed in those endeavors. No other agency has the ability, resources, and influence to bring about a No Kill nation faster.

Every day that HSUS denigrates or fails to fully and unequivocally embrace No Kill, delays that potential future. Instead, animal lovers have to fight pet limit laws, mandatory registration laws, and other destructive policies promoted by these organizations. Instead of turning to these organizations for support and guidance, No Kill groups have to spend time trying to overcome the obstacles they lay in the path to lifesaving. As a result, and because of the cost in animal lives that this potentially entails, HSUS continues to fail miserably in terms of moving this country away from traditional, reactionary, "adopt some and kill the rest" sheltering practices, despite Mr. Pacelle's facile claims to the contrary.

Failure to Lead

In feeling the groundswell of grassroots pressure for change that is occurring, Mr. Pacelle could have chosen to lead us going forward. He could have chosen to champion the animals, rather than the entrenched animal control bureaucracy he currently represents. He could have taken a real, honest, principled stand that put No Kill on the agenda of every community, every shelter nationwide. He could have insisted on it, and then told his employees at HSUS to follow through to make it happen. I would have been the first to stand up and cheer. I would have gladly stood behind Wayne Pacelle.

Instead, he gives us platitudes and thinly veiled attacks on those who can envision a new and better and life-affirming future. And he gives the five million animals scheduled to be slaughtered in shelters next year insult above the injury they already face. It is a slap in the face to animal activists all over the country who know full well that the animal control shelter and just as often, the large private shelter is not doing a good job, is regressive in its policies, and continues to kill in the face of alternatives. It is business as usual. And nothing in Mr. Pacelle's blog fundamentally and unequivocally changes that.

The conclusion becomes inescapable. As a movement and as a nation, our values relating to companion animals are far more progressive and humane than the nation's largest animal protection organization. It is up to us to lead the country into a more humane future by rejecting the 19th Century model of animal sheltering (adopt some and kill the rest) HSUS so tenaciously and tragically clings to. It is irresponsible for HSUS and staff to be offering themselves as "experts" or "leaders" to the media, to the public, to city governments and to the movement, especially in light of the evidence that No Kill is a concept to which staff at HSUS has been historically opposed and that HSUS staff have, at best, only a superficial understanding (and an erroneous one at that) of the dynamic and exciting changes occurring in the field of animal sheltering as a result of the No Kill movement. In the end, it is far better to disband the Department of Companion Animal at HSUS, than maintain it in its current reactionary form. Because without true reform, the time has come when Americans in general, the humane community and city governments more specifically, must cease relying on the advice of Mr. Pacelle and his staff.

We have learned what we can expect under Mr. Pacelle's tenure: platitudes, cliches, rhetoric, pretty words. But we cannot expect solutions. We cannot expect a vision for the future, the roadmap for saving lives. So we must provide it for him.

Where Do We Go From Here?


We are a nation of dog and cat lovers, and we demand that the killing to be brought to an end. We are 150 million Americans strong. Right now, there are only a few thousand shelter directors killing 4.5 million savable dogs and cats each year, who are standing in the way of a No Kill nation and have historically been doing so with the blessing and assistance of the nation's most powerful and influential so-called "humane" organization - HSUS.

Mr. Pacelle's blog makes clear that he has no idea how to lead the humane movement. It is clear he cannot see the future for himself. At the same time, we need to send a very strong message to Mr. Pacelle that we can see through his thinly veiled comments, his insincerity on the issue, his failure to truly challenge the status quo, to fight for the rights of shelter animals to their very lives, and to truly reform what has been a long sordid history of draconian HSUS policies as it relates to dogs and cats in shelters.

And so Mr. Pacelle, I say to you:

We reject your obfuscation, we reject your dishonesty, and we reject the killing your agency continues to legitimize. As Americans who want to end the killing today "not at some mythical indeterminate future time, which appears to have no end" we demand that HSUS change in earnest, and that you demonstrate that change by signing "and promoting" the U.S. No Kill Declaration.

The Declaration calls upon shelters to implement all the programs and services of the No Kill Equation, and for shelters to open their doors to the light of public scrutiny. It calls for shelters to bring about an end to the killing without delay. The Declaration proves the irreconcilability between the No Kill philosophy on the one hand and, on the other, the archaic voices of tradition. Unlike HSUS' Asilomar Accords, which allow shelters to ignore the programs and services of the No Kill Equation (leaving these pivotal programs to "local decision-making"), the Declaration calls for comprehensive and rigorous implementation of all of them. Sadly, not one of the signatories of the Asilomar Accords has endorsed the Declaration; and, to this day, you continue to refuse to sign it.

I am sending you a gift, Mr. Pacelle. In the mail, you will receive from me a pen. I ask you to use it to sign the U.S. No Kill Declaration. For "as 10,000 signatories have already attested to" it is the No Kill philosophy and its implementation alone which holds the key to a more noble future "a future where animals will find in shelters a new beginning, instead of what HSUS holds out for them today, which is the end of the line."

Sign the U.S. No Kill Declaration and call off your employees, such as those in Seattle and Eugene, who are working to hinder and undermine No Kill efforts throughout the United States. For the first time ever, you now claim to support No Kill. I ask you to prove it. The remaining chapters of the No Kill movement's history have yet to be written, Mr. Pacelle. How will you be remembered?

To read the 20-page point-by-point analysis of Mr. Pacelle's blog, click here (skip the introduction and go to page 8)

Hear it for Yourself


HSUS' own expert denies that shelters are even killing animals. At HSUS' national animal sheltering conference in 2006, HSUS held a workshop on killing in which the "expert" stated:

We are not killing them, we are taking their lives, we are ending their lives, we are giving them a good death, we are humanely destroy-, whatever, but we are not killing. And that is why I can't stand the term No Kill shelters.

Listen for yourself by clicking here.

What is more disturbing than the fact that animal control staff from across the nation responded with a thunderous applause (undermining their claim that they are committed to saving lives), what is more troubling than the fact that HSUS is advancing the Orwellian notion that killing is not killing, that killing is, in fact, an act of kindness, is that when you deny that what you are doing is exactly what you are doing, when you disparage a movement founded to save the lives of animals, when you refuse to take responsibility for the killing, the impetus to change your own behavior that might negate the perceived "need" to kill disappears. The end result is the status quo: more animals going out the back door in a body bag than out the front door in the loving arms of families.

See it for Yourself

Waynce Pacelle says that all animal control agencies, all groups, and everyone involved in sheltering is committed to saving lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. Take a visual tour of U.S. shelters by clicking here.


Posted by Nathan J. Winograd at 11:48 AM

Redemption


Get the book that is being called "powerful," "inspirational," "the bible of the No Kill movement," and a "must read for anyone who cares about animals."

Humans have RIGHTS

My philosophy on Animal Rights is that HUMANS HAVE
RIGHTS. Animals have the moral expectation of being
treated with decency, but that is not a right. A “RIGHT”
is a legal term and comes with responsibilities and
expectations that cannot be applied to animals. I have a
MORAL and LEGAL OBLIGATION to treat animals
decently, BUT an animal has no legal rights. You can't
legislate responsibility. You can educate, you can hold
people accountable for their actions, but no law is ever
going to force anyone, anywhere to be responsible.

Elizabeth Brinkley

Link to full article: http://www.dantekennels.com/animalrights.html

AB1634 - NOT dead...YET!!...just sleeping until next year.

From Cherie Graves:

I want to say THANK YOU to everyone person and every organization who has been engaged in the battle against AB 1634. Every one of you is important, and every one of you should be proud of what you have accomplished. TEN THOUSAND of you wrote letters to the Local Government committee - that is awesome !!!!! Hundreds of you took the time out of your lives to attend today's hearing. My animals and I are eternally grateful to you all for your hard work on our behalf.

AB 1643 isn't dead yet

AB 1634 is not dead yet, but it is seriously wounded. We still have work to do if we want to kill and bury it. Lloyd Levine says he will be back with the bill, and he will. Today's action by Levine, to pull the bill, was just a procedural maneuver. Levine had to make a choice today. He could have let the Senate Local Government committee vote on the bill, but he could see that he did not have 3 out of the 5 votes on that committee needed to pass the bill, so he took his other option, which was to pull the bill, so that it will remain alive and be back in January 2008. Had the Local Government committee voted the bill down today, that would have killed it. So for now, AB 1634 remains with the Senate Local Government commitee, tucked away but not dead.


Listen to Lloyd Levine being interviewed this morning by a Sacramento tv station - he says the bill will be back: http://www.kcra.com/video/index.html

BTW, for those of you old enough to remember them, Lassie & Timmy lobbied for our side :) The legislators in the Capitol were stumbling over themselves on Tuesday to get their pictures taken with Lassie.

AB 1634 will be back - so take a vacation and gear up for the next battle.

On a more serious note - we need to remain alert to the resurrection of this bill, and remain prepared to fight it, and all of its spawn. We can take a vacation for now and come back refreshed. Also, now would be a good time to thank all of those many individuals and organizations who fought so hard to defeat this bill, and to encourage them to keep up the fight. There will be posts later on how you can all do that. The proponents will not stop their lobbying, and neither should we.

Remember what Lloyd Levine and his "animal rights" compatriots stand for.
Remember who and what Lloyd Levine really is - he is a dyed in the wool "animal rights" extremist who doesn't own any animals himself, and who doesn't believe we should own, use in science, keep or eat animals. He disclosed this belief in a 2006 letter he sent to Fabian Nunez, Assembly Speaker, asking to be appointed chair of an assembly "select committee on animal welfare". His letter is posted on the California democratic assembly website. He stated in
that letter emphasis mine):

"We know we cannot be kind to animals until we stop exploiting them" exploiting animals in the name of science, exploiting animals in the name of sport, exploiting animals in the name of fashion, and yes, exploiting animals in the name of food."

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a40/press/a40p2006025.htm

AB 1634 has been a wake up call - It is not the end of the battle

Remember, the "animal rights" mantra is NO USE OF ANIMALS BY MAN, NOT FOR FOOD, FIBER, RESEARCH, ENTERTAINMENT, OR AS PETS.

Remember that slogan? Some of us have been beating that drum for years, but many of you said hogwash - that's not what "animal rights" is about. Did AB 1634 slap you into consciousness?.


Prior to AB 1634, the 'animal rights" extremists had become so emboldened by the inattention and inactivity of the animal owning public that they thought they could force this bill down our throats and cut dog and cat breeders off at the knees. Prior to AB 1634 relatively few people believed that the "animal rights" extremists really want to end all ownership and use of animals or the keeping of pets.

AB 1634 was brought about because the "animal rights" extremists have long recognized the complacency of the animal owning public who don't believe, or don't want to believe, that the "animal rights" extremists want to bring us to their brave new world. The "animal rights" extremists use that complacency and disbelief against animal owners as just another weapon in their arsenal.

AB 1634 has been a wake up call for many. But still others who own and keep animals remain asleep. We need to gently prod them, or shake them, or douse them with cold water, or do whatever it takes, to wake the rest of them up.

When will YOU get off the fence, and join us in the real world battle to keep our animals?

There's a saying that goes (politely paraphrased) - Those who sit on the fence get nothing except splinters in the posterior.

It's time to decide which side of the fence you are on. If you really want to live in the "brave new world" envisioned by Lloyd Levine and his "animal rights" compatriots, where animals are not kept, used, experimented on, hunted, kept as pets, or eaten, then continue to stay silent, continue to discount what we have to say about the real threat "animal rights" extremists pose to your
continued keeping of your animals, and continue to stay out of that
"distasteful" arena of animal politics. Continue to just talk about the cute things your pets do, and don't even think about all those nasty political things that those nasty political people keep putting in front of you. See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil - that really works, doesn't it? The "animal rights" extremists will thank you for your kind and loving and gentle attitudes, and for your inactivity and complacency, and they will do the work for you to bring that "brave new world" about.

But if you don't want to live in that world envisioned by the "animal rights" extremists, then get off the fence and join us in the battle against those who want to force the "animal rights" religion upon all of the rest of us non-believers. Your animals will thank you for it.


Remember that song - I get knocked down, but I get up again, ain't never gonna keep me down


The fight agains AB 1634 is just one of the many battles in the war being waged by "animal rights" extremists to reach that ultimate goal of NO USE OF ANIMALS BY MAN, NOT FOR FOOD, FIBER, RESEARCH, ENTERTAINMENT, OR AS PETS. It
won't be the last. We will have successes and we will have defeats. But if we want to continue to be able to keep our animals, we have to stay engaged in the battle.

If you are new to the arena of animal politics, and want to learn more, you can join some of the yahoogroups lists that are active in the battle - get to know who is working for your and your animals best interests. Join them. They are good people, and I am honored to be involved with them. I am grateful to all of them for their work. I am happy to get my hands dirty working with them.

Some Organizations websites you can check out:
www.naiaonline.org
www.saveourdogs.net
www.petpac.org
www.akc.org
www.cfainc.org

Some of the Yahoolists active in the fight against anti-animal legislation:

Pet-law@yahoogroups.com
CAPLA@yahoogroups.com
CApetlaw@yahoogroups.com_


See you in the trenches.

Genny Wall

The new California designed by Levine and Mancuso

PET EXTINCTION BILL AB1634 NARROWLY PASSES ASSEMBLY VOTE

A big THANK YOU to everyone who has fought so hard to STOP this Bill. But the fight has not been LOST yet! YOU STILL HAVE 2 CHANCES TO GET THIS BILL VETOED!!!
So many people have fought so hard to stop this Bill I commend you all for your efforts. For those of you who still sit on the fence about it, or may even support it, here is a fact that may help to sway you to why this Bill is known as the PET EXTINCTION ACT.

Buried deep with the legislation is one single clause that sums it all up....." all exemptions and permits will cease to exist after 1st January 2009"......so if you were one of the many who falsely believed that there were "permits" or "exemptions" available for hobby/show breeders...THINK AGAIN!!!

Hobby/show breeders are NOT the villain here. These breeders care deeply and devotedly about the dogs they breed and have rigorous and sometimes very strict "conditions" by which a pet owner may purchase puppies they have bred, and the vast majority of Breeders breed only for their own requirements.
The REAL villains are the PUPPY MILLS and PET STORES who care little about who/where they sell the thousands of puppies to and this Legislation will DO NOTHING to stop this!

The "fudged" false figures about SUPPOSED pet over-population problems are just that FALSE and used to blatantly mis-lead Bureaucrats and the public into believing that a problem actually exists. The bulk of the animals at many rescues and Shelters are IMPORTED from elsewhere to "bolster" their own figures which have in fact been declining steadily for many years.

If this Bill is PASSED in Law.............then be prepared to SAY GOODBYE TO YOUR PETS FOREVER!!! California is the test-case State and what happens there will soon be followed by the rest of the other States.
AR, PETA, and HSUS will have won!!! And YOU will have LOST yet another of your personal rights AND YOUR PETS!!!!! Hope you will enjoy being a VEGETARIAN!! Because Cats and Dogs are just the tip of the Iceberg...

Just don't let me say................I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ab1634 - The Pet Extinction Bill

California is at this very moment is right in the middle of its biggest fight ever! The fight to save YOUR pets from EXTINCTION!! AB1634 or the so-called "Healthy Pet Act" is NOTHING LIKE IT, far from it in fact. Not only is early castration and spay (hysterectomy) (Lets call it like it IS) BAD for your pets overall health it does nothing to address the real problem to the supposed over-population problem, because irresponsible owners will still be irresponsible owners and AB1634 will NOT stop Puppy Mills. If there indeed is an over-population problem in California why then are shelters and rescues IMPORTING thousands of dogs from Mexico and other Countries to help fill the demand?? These dogs will have been bred by Puppy mIlls and Backyard breeders with NO health checks, guarantees, etc.
And if you THINK AB1634 is just about dogs and cats, WRONG!! It is just the first step in the total extinction of ALL DOMESTIC ANIMALS and forcing all of us into becoming vegetarians.
Imagine a World without Animals? Farmers would have to use more machinery, fossil fuels, etc in order to harvest their crops. Without the use of animal hides manufacturers would be forced to produce even more plastic products and other environmentally HARMFUL products.
Not only does the Environment lose....but we lose as well.
The BEST thing you can do to stop AB1634 and other Bills that will continue to be pushed is READ THEM!! READ THE FINE PRINT....And get to understand what they REALLY mean before voting FOR them.
Remember HSUS, PETA and AR are ALL about ONE GOAL.....The ERADICATION/EXTINCTION of ALL DOMESTIC ANIMALS....ONE GENERATION AND OUT.
If AB1634 goes through in just 10 -15 yrs Dogs and Cats will have been EXTERMINATED/ERADICATED.....GONE FOREVER!

THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE!!

Pets Across the World was created with ONE GOAL in mind. To join the GLOBAL fight against Animal Rights Groups (eg P.E.T.A) that are right this minute eroding YOUR rights to own a Pet, be it a Cavvy, Parrot, Dog, Cat, or a Horse!
Right now in many Countries across the World Laws and Restrictions so complex they are almost impossible to follow and stay on the right side of are being passed that ultimately will remove ALL RIGHTS for YOU to own a Pet.
Don't be fooled by media hype that Animal Rights Activists and P.E.T.A Activists HSUS and other similar groups are doing the right thing for Animals...THEY ARE NOT! They do not CARE about Animals they want to see all DOMESTIC ANIMALS (to begin with) ERADICATED. They do not CARE how that goal is achieved, as long as it is achieved. Their perfect World does NOT include animals Domestic OR Wild!
I don't know about YOU but I do not want to be forced to become a Vegetarian. If Man was meant to NOT EAT MEAT then we would not have been created to be meat-eaters. Man is a hunter and a meat eater and has been since Adam & Eve.
We did not enslave the domestic animal such as the dog or cat, they CHOSE TO STAY WITH US from caveman days as it was a benefit to them and to us, we gave them food and shelter and they helped us hunt for food or kept vermin and other pests under control.
Animal Cruelty Issues should NOT be confused with Animal Rights Activists, they are a separate issue altogether. No-ONE condones cruelty to animals in any form and they are always such an emotive issue that AR , PETA and Groups like them use these issues to their advantage to recruit unsuspecting people to "their" cause, thinking that they are doing the right thing. But BEWARE! These A R Groups do NOT CARE about animals they want to ELIMINATE THEM! And they do NOT CARE "how".
If YOU do not believe that this is what AR and PETA really want then just do a Google Search for Animal Rights Groups or PETA and check out their websites, their GOAL is right there on their sites for everyone to see! And check out what these Groups are capable of doing TO our animals, don't just believe me...check it out for yourself and then come back to Pets_Across_World and help US to fight for YOUR PETS/ANIMALS.

Join Pets Across the World and help join the battle to keep our pets! Get together! Organise! Discuss how YOU can help. Click the link below to join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pets_Across_World/

Quotes from PETA The Agenda

My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture. -- J.P. Goodwin while executive director of the Coalition Against the Fur Trade (As quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group).

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.

Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the first step ... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.' -- New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog! February 1991, p.20.

I don’t use the word "pet." I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance -- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's President, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding -- Wayne Pacelle - Former National Director of Fund for Animals, now Director of HSUS!