Animal Rights Deviants: Killing to be RIGHT. Not Saving.  Animal Activists Who Embrace Death , See this link for Nathan’s complete article; emphasis added to statements below………….

“When a local Pit Bull advocate loudly proclaimed that Pit Bulls would be better off with a “humane death” than to be adopted to the “wrong family,” the last piece finally fell into place for me. So many animal welfare people have assumed a position of moral/ethical superiority over the “masses” by virtue of their work with the animals.”

“While they claim to be motivated by saving lives, there is something much more powerful driving them: the desire to punish.Unfortunately, animal control is generally more than willing to oblige and do just that. In the end, these activists become that which they claim to most despise—people whose actions result in the impound and killing of animals. They become the “irresponsible public.”

“…..groups which claim to be concerned with high levels of shelter killing would actually seek legislation to empower its dysfunctional animal control bureaucracy to impound—and thus kill—even more animals, is a contradiction that is conveniently ignored

“While animal lovers and advocates fight against their regressive legislation, the public, the politicians, the media, and others in the movement must be made to see that “this is not about saving dogs and cats.”

Believe us, that has been told and re-told to the legislature in California. It was told to the shelters in Southern California, the courts in California in lawsuits. But NO ONE in the court system has listened.



—====>>>ANIMAL RIGHTS LAW DON’T WORK?! <======


Nathan Winogard as we know, has worked as shelter director, heavily pushed No Kill, reform of shelters, and is focused on saving animals, not killing them. In this article, he basically says we need to discern what is driving the people who want to keep killing animals (rather than saving via No Kill) and then Nathan decidedly concludes, it is because the people believe only THEY can decide and know what is BEST for the animals.  

This is often known as the rescuer-victim syndrome, where the animals are the alleged victims, and the animal rights people are the believed-to-be-saviors; such  mindset gives the “rescuer” the feeling of heightened self esteem, superiority, and in some cases, one upmanship over others. This then places the ‘others’ who do NOT do what the rescuers do, in a perceived lower position of less esteem. 

 However after dealing with directly killing animals in shelters too long—as Ingrid did–and many animal control officers or techs do–the mind often becomes distorted.  Killing animals day by day or war killing is NOT a natural act, thus one either can turn it off, or not. 

Those that can’t (which is most people) are subject to very emotional damage to the mind. Thus those people retain emotional damage in some cases, not that much different than child abuse, since the mind is not set up to receive sustained abuse.I am not a doctor or shrink but I know this is true. And obviously if you put a kid of 12 in a shelter and told him to kill 30 dogs per day, you would ruin the kid’s mind. You ruin an adult’s mind as well.  Do abused kids often become abusers as adults?

  The adult mind will often take the killing and link it to other people’s actions—not themselves. But the guilt associated by continued killing has to go somewhere—and so it’s blamed on other people. That is the only logical way the killing can be disposed of, but then the anger transfers over to hatred of people. That is not so difficult to see, since most animal rights people do this very thing.

 If they are not actually killing animals, they still blame others for the animals being in the shelters to begin with. The focus is on BLAME—NOT a solution. And by failing to consider or understand human nature, the deviants of animal rights obviously ignore people’s behavior and concentrate on FORCING humans in particular fashion. But the truth is, animal rights is only focused on animals and does not give people the time of day! THAT is the animal rights method, to ignore people and their behavior, and to make up rules governing the animals only.  The people don’t count.  Get it?    

That “only they” can know and decide what is best for all animals–is putting it mildly.  This is true–because “these people” are animal rightists. Nathan does not call them animal rights, and in a few instances they may believe they are “welfarists”—but the true test is this.  If anyone believes it is better to kill an animal because:

(1)   It would only be “abused” by people

(2)  It would not receive the “best” food, vet care, specific exercise, or inside mandated “treatment” by owners

(3)  It would not be trained, altered, live in air conditioned quarters, taken to groomer’s weekly

(4)  It might be tethered 3.5hr per day, maybe even 4hr

(5)  It might stay mostly oustside because the dog likes it better than inside

(6)  It might have to live in a $50,000 custom kennel outside

(7)  It might not be highly socialized but doesn’t need to be due to where it lives in remote area

(8)  It might have been bought at a pet store

(9)  It might have been used for fighting

(10)  It was trained as a guard type dog  

The hallmark of animal rightists is that they, and ONLY they—–have the correct belief system. The lifestyle belief system of the philosophy that animals are pretty much equal to humans, that animals should have extensive legal rights, and that because animals are not property or commodities, that animals should not be:

(1) Bought and sold, especially for profit

(2) Raised for selling even with minimal profit, if any

(3) Purebred, because that implies superiority over mixed breeds, which are often killed in shelters

(4) Sold in commercial establishments, such as a pet store, or a commercial kennel; sold via ads, whether online, in newspapers, or any other type of advertisement, or in person out in public

(5) Raised in a commercial kennel

(6) Imported from another country, unless it is a stray dog

(7) Owned as a show dog or “showpiece” trophy type dog, because this implies breeding standards/criteria to benefit only the owner and breed type and temperament–which people don’t need–when they could have shelter dogs instead

(8)  Owned as a protection animal

(9)  Used in any form or way such as exhibition (zoo, aquarium, circus, dog show), used for food (cow, sheep,chickens, etc) used for products/product ingredients (too numerous to name), ownership (must be guardian, not ownership, because ownership makes the animal a “slave”)

(10)  Used as a hunting type animal for sport or food

Pretty much it boils down to animal Rights people think they know everything, that their lifestyle belief is RIGHT and that everyone else is wrong. That their morality beliefs as to ANIMALS is RIGHT and that everyone else’s is wrong. Something like Middle Eastern zealots as to religion–with that same belief-driven lifestyle,  always pushing, always forcing, always calculating.   In other words, the DEVIANT belief system they hold and push should be the NORM–and that the NORM should all convert.

WHY the hell are legislatures listening to animal rights deviants that have proven their  belief methods don’t work, their lifestyle inspired  laws seldom if ever work, and animals are not saved, but the killing of such animals increases, and  produces people that sustain emotional brain damage?  Duh?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s