We are very sad to report that animal advocates against anti pet laws have lost one of our greatest assets with the passing of Mr. John Yates of Pennsylvania. Mr. Yates was a newsman for years, and excelled in honest reporting with specific details. His consistent and unwavering written work in the American sporting Dog group has often been quoted and used against many AR proposed laws.
We are extremely sad that we were never able to actually meet Mr. Yates in person, but feel compelled to say that he brought to the table the passion that many of us do not have, to fight the AR laws that consistently threaten us.
With the loss of a great anti pet law advocate who consistently stood up for all of us owners, it is hoped that each person who owns an animal will do more on their own behalf for their fellow owners and make sure to spread the word that we can prevail by working in unity. We have no time for divisiveness, or to be glory hogs. We believe that John Yates would have expected us to carry on with even greater determination, to stifle the insane Animal Rights nonsensical anti-animal, anti-pet, anti-owner proposed laws nationwide. And so we will, by again saying that the AR mentality is based upon BELIEF, NOT FACTS.
This logo is available on a T shirt, http://www.thedogplace.org/PROJECTS/BBR/09092-Animal-Rights-Abuse_CardozoEsq.asp which has a link to buy. There are several versions and one is shown on the link. The article also talks about the Animal Rights faction and “abuse” they keep claiming, when there is no abuse. There is much more on the site!!
We cannot buy into the AR allegations and then attempt to prove them wrong. Instead, we will NOT accept any AR allegations as truth, since they are based upon fallacy. We will not attempt to negotiate with ARs. That is a losing proposition.
Not surprisingly, some have claimed that Petdefense is considered “radical.” We should note George Orwell’s quote:
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
The truth: ALL animal rights laws are based on the *belief* that animals are NOT property in the laws. That is why we see completely absurd laws being proposed, some of which criminalize legal conduct as “abuse.”
Nearly everything is “abuse” in AR-land. So rest assured that any laws ARs (H$U$, ASPCA, PETA, ALDF, et al) propose will be based on fallacy, NOT facts. Animal rights almost never have or use facts. What they USE— are emotional ploys.
For example, if an OWNER of an animal is no longer an owner, but is only a guardian or custodian, they do not technically “own” the property and their rights are seriously less than that of ownership.
If legal conduct is criminalized as “abuse”– such as selling/displaying an animal in an outside setting, but groups such as Humane shelters or rescues can do the exact same conduct—and it is NOT criminalized—it is obvious that the ACT is not abuse. Yet ARs will propose laws that make legal conduct a crime.
The bottom line to all of the AR proposed laws is that they are all based on fallacy. Most proposed anti-pet and anti-animal laws have no basis in fact. ARs have to use deceit, subterfuge, lies, misrepresentation, etc. because they have no facts.
We recently saw that some owner advocates believe animal breeders should publicize web sites which show their animals, the puppies, the number of pups, the older animals, the animals inside the home, etc. in an effort to show the public where pups actually ‘come from.’ Let us tell everyone the truth.
The public at large in general, loves animals. However, trying to refute the message by Peta+others- that there is no such thing as a ‘responsible’ breeder– is completely missing the mark. The question is not whether one is a responsible breeder, but whether laws can or should be allowed to interfere with the ownership of property (animals), interstate commerce of animals (property), and violation of rights due to being an owner (of property) rather than a guardian.
Refuting AR based laws requires facts. Trying to prove that Peta is wrong about no breeder being responsible is futile, because Peta believes any and all breeding is inherently wrong no matter how good it is. So why set yourself up for failure? ARs say MSN saves animals? Except wherever it’s used, it has failed/killed more animals at the same time (on purpose of course.) The truth is, ARs just don’t want any animals sold, bought, or bred, period. NONE. So they claim everything is ABUSE to deter people from owning an animal, breeding, or selling.
We have noticed (as attorneys) that some advocates believe that “working” with ARs to negotiate LAWS is the solution. Nope, that is the surest way to dig your own grave. ARs have no limits, and they will simply modify the law to suit their own purposes.
Anyone who wishes to maintain the right to buy, sell, trade, show, own, give away, keep, or breed an animal— better get one thing straight. You don’t fight the AR proposed laws by not understanding the core *belief* systems of ARs. The only core *belief* they have is that animals are not property in the law. Here is their belief, taken from the Animal Law casebook which is used to teach Animal Rights law class:
“If indeed the property status of animals were to be abolished, what would be the legal and practical effects on the commercial use of animals?
What would happen to the animals themselves–should they be put in sanctuaries, sterilized, or permitted to move towards extinction?”
Notice the 3 situations stated.
Clearly, all three scenarios show that animals would not be owned, bought, sold, traded, bred; no business could be based upon animals. No businesses dealing with animals would survive, unless it possibly included sterilizing the animals still living. Think very very hard about this, because this is what animal rights is based on–the belief that animals are NOT property in the law. [The truth is that animals are in fact, property under the law and with very few rare exceptions]
To do otherwise, would enable animals to have the same rights as humans which would open Pandora’s Box in the legal world, interstate commerce, and the pet/animal trade; a loss of a minimum of $45 billion in interstate commerce, and an untold amount of related economic loss in both jobs, food production, retail products, base products, and related goods.
That is what the Animal Rights would like to see, is the total collapse of the United States economy. We are already partially on our way there, and certainly don’t need AR help in wiping out the United States. With Obama at the helm, we may well be on our last leg.