http://www.animalagalliance.org/email/HSUS_091106.cfm


HSUS' Pacelle Commits to Redoubling Anti-Agriculture Efforts

Exclusive Alliance Report from Leading Animal Rights Meeting Now Online

September 11, 2006 – In a speech at the second annual "Taking Action
for Animals" conference in Washington D.C., Wayne Pacelle, President of
the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) committed to redoubling the
animal rights group's efforts against modern animal agriculture. Pacelle
indicated his belief that there is little difference between animals and
humans. To support his position he used research that showed similarities
between humans and non-human primates then asserted that the concept could
be expanded to include any animal.

Approximately 500 people attended this conference, September 2-5, 2006, in
the Washington, DC area. Major sponsors of the event were the Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS), the Animal Protection Institute, the
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Farm Sanctuary,
and the Doris Day Animal League (which recently announced its merger with
HSUS). Attendance increased by about 200 over last year's event.

Pacelle pledged his ongoing commitment to legislation and lobbying as key
paths for the animal rights movement to move its agenda forward. He urged
the audience to continue pursuing animal guardianship laws to replace
animal ownership laws. Pacelle suggested using the term "Canine
Americans" instead of dogs to emphasize the rights of these animals.

This meeting continued to reflect the major changes in the animal rights
movement shown in the last few years. The majority of the audience had a
professional demeanor and was dressed in business casual attire. It is
clear that HSUS has found - and is cultivating - a segment of activists
that are educated, organized professionals capable of making calculated
moves to further the organization's influence.

The full text of the Animal Agriculture Alliance's (Alliance) report on
this meeting is available on the password protected Members section of the
Alliance website.


--
As he backed away from Maryann, away from his rope, away from his
intentions to harm her, and, hopefully, away from his image of himself
as a big, bad dude who could have any "fun" he wanted with a woman,
he started muttering, "Bitches with guns. Bitches with guns. Bitches
with guns." He kept saying it over and over, as his own surprise gave
way to impotent anger, "Bitches with guns. Bitches with guns."
- Lyn Bates, "Bitches with Guns: A Lesson in Reality"

Jeff Dege said in
rec.pets.dogs.behavior:

Pacelle pledged his ongoing commitment to legislation and
lobbying as key paths for the animal rights movement to
move its agenda forward.

A key part of the lobbying is to purposely blur the line
between animal rights and animal welfare. I'm all for animal
welfare, but not keen on my animals having legislated rights.

Gad, I hate it when the local popular press reports something
as simple as pushing for an off-leash park as "animal rights
supporters want a park." Or the other way around, when nekkid
PeTAphiles are described as animal welfare folk. (Don't get
me wrong, the "nekkid" part is often OK.)

He urged the audience to continue
pursuing animal guardianship laws to replace animal
ownership laws. Pacelle suggested using the term "Canine
Americans" instead of dogs to emphasize the rights of these
animals.

Hmmm. "Canine" seems harsh in that context. I propose "Doggy
Ammerican" or "Fur-friend American." Plushy American? Maybe
not.

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

Rocky wrote:

Or the other way around, when nekkid
PeTAphiles

To put the two words together "nekkid and PeTAphiles
Makes light of the seriousness of Pedophilia.
I know you were speaking about P.E.T.A.
And their flamboyant ways of portraying animal rights
By being naked under fur coats and such.
That is something that is an opinion of P.E.T.A.
That is irrelevant to the issue I take
To putting two words together
That add up to naked kids that pedophiles prey on.
Please be more mindful of your language concerning children.
It is bad enough there is a full time person on this site that
Uses the non words nekKid with triple X thrown in
We don't need another person on this site using
terms that are UNCONSCIOUS and ABUSIVE
About children.
Like "nekkid PeTAphiles.

are described as animal welfare folk. (Don't get
me wrong, the "nekkid" part is often OK.)

No it is not okay to speak of children being naked in that manner.
Children being naked is not the issue.
It is the wording that is insensitive and abusive.
But them again we are speaking about
A person who comes into the group
With an e-mail name of
"I eat pussy". Choix Vox.
Keep that garbage for porn sites.

--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

Mirelle

"diddy" wrote in message
...

Thanks Jeff. Although I currently am involved in local fights against
CAFO's (Confined Animal Feeding Operations)..

This is a topic that has interested me, too - more humane farming. I
thought there had been some respected, mainstream research wrt how more
humane treatment of food animals was profitable for the farmer bec. of less
stress, less disease, better growth rates (?).

This "Canine Americans"
strikes chills in my heart, considering the implications.

I foresee dogs and cats being removed from the home by "children's
services" based on Canine American abuse, and endangering, because they
were put in a crate over night. Or veterinarians charged with MURDER for
humanely putting down a cancer victim.
Or homes going bankrupt because humane Euthanasia is no longer legal, and
families being forced to FIX the unfixable long after it becomes unviable
or just financially possible.

This last would certainly meet PETA's goal of ending the keeping of dogs and
cats as pets, wouldn't it? It would be impossible for most people to meet
these standards.

flick 100785

In article ,
flick wrote:
This is a topic that has interested me, too - more humane farming. I
thought there had been some respected, mainstream research wrt how more
humane treatment of food animals was profitable for the farmer bec. of less
stress, less disease, better growth rates (?).

The issues raised by CAFOs go beyond humane treatment of
animals (although there's certainly that) to sustainability
and environmental issues. Last year a dairy CAFO up at Tug
Hill had a retaining wall on one of its manure pits blow
out, spilling 3,000,000 gallons of manure into the Black
River.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

in thread : "flick"
whittled the following words:

"diddy" wrote in message
...

Thanks Jeff. Although I currently am involved in local fights against
CAFO's (Confined Animal Feeding Operations)..

This is a topic that has interested me, too - more humane farming. I
thought there had been some respected, mainstream research wrt how
more humane treatment of food animals was profitable for the farmer
bec. of less stress, less disease, better growth rates (?).

This is a minor arguement, yes. Although not insignificant to the animals
themselves, Humane Farming is a platform we touch on when we take a stand,
but it carries little weight with the government officials making the
laws. As soon as we bring up Humane Farming as an arguement, you can see
faces fall, and any progress we may have made up to that point gets
dismissed and we get painted with the broad Lunatic paintbrush. We try not
to bring that one up. We loose too much ground.


This "Canine Americans"
strikes chills in my heart, considering the implications.

I foresee dogs and cats being removed from the home by "children's
services" based on Canine American abuse, and endangering, because
they were put in a crate over night. Or veterinarians charged with
MURDER for humanely putting down a cancer victim.
Or homes going bankrupt because humane Euthanasia is no longer legal,
and families being forced to FIX the unfixable long after it becomes
unviable or just financially possible.

This last would certainly meet PETA's goal of ending the keeping of
dogs and cats as pets, wouldn't it? It would be impossible for most
people to meet these standards.

flick 100785

Yes, yes, It most certainly would.

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...

The issues raised by CAFOs go beyond humane treatment of
animals (although there's certainly that) to sustainability
and environmental issues. Last year a dairy CAFO up at Tug
Hill had a retaining wall on one of its manure pits blow
out, spilling 3,000,000 gallons of manure into the Black
River.

Blech.

I had read some things about feed lots and slaughterhouses in Iowa, I think
it was. Pretty disgusting pollution-wise and humane-wise, both.

flick 100785

In article ,
flick wrote:
I had read some things about feed lots and slaughterhouses in Iowa, I think
it was. Pretty disgusting pollution-wise and humane-wise, both.

Unfortunately it's hard to get people to care much about the
treatment of farm animals, but the economic consequences of
the Black River manure spill got a huge amount of attention
in NY. Tug Hill is a pretty desolate area and the state
government has been trying to promote it as a great
recreational resource (which it is), but between making the
river unsafe for residents and completely destroying the
recreational base on the river (canoeing, rafting, and
apparently some really great fishing) this was a big setback
for the state DEC. It's simply impossible to fine the farm
enough to cover the economic losses incurred by the spill.
(Well, you can fine them but they can't pay.)
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

"diddy" wrote in message
...
in thread : "flick"

This is a minor arguement, yes. Although not insignificant to the animals
themselves, Humane Farming is a platform we touch on when we take a stand,
but it carries little weight with the government officials making the
laws. As soon as we bring up Humane Farming as an arguement, you can see
faces fall, and any progress we may have made up to that point gets
dismissed and we get painted with the broad Lunatic paintbrush. We try not
to bring that one up. We loose too much ground.

It's too bad, but I too noticed, back when I had time to go to area govt.
meetings, that the minute you bring up the H-word (humane) is when
officials' eyes glaze. I tried to encourage the local humane org people to
discuss treatment of animals in terms of public health issues - which it is.

flick 100785

in thread : "flick"
whittled the following words:

"diddy" wrote in message
...
in thread : "flick"

This is a minor arguement, yes. Although not insignificant to the
animals themselves, Humane Farming is a platform we touch on when we
take a stand, but it carries little weight with the government
officials making the laws. As soon as we bring up Humane Farming as
an arguement, you can see faces fall, and any progress we may have
made up to that point gets dismissed and we get painted with the
broad Lunatic paintbrush. We try not to bring that one up. We loose
too much ground.

It's too bad, but I too noticed, back when I had time to go to area
govt. meetings, that the minute you bring up the H-word (humane) is
when officials' eyes glaze. I tried to encourage the local humane org
people to discuss treatment of animals in terms of public health
issues - which it is.

flick 100785





And that's the track we are taking.