Animal Protection Orgs: Why are they successful and growing in strength?

[TheNoNamedOne]

There is no doubt that membership in animal protection orgs has been, and continues to grow. What is it about animals and their plight that accounts for this growth in animal protection orgs do you think?

And this is not just a rich western nation phenomenon driving this growth. Even countries where abject poverty and human misery is abundant is seeing strong activism in organizations on behalf of animals . India is a prime example of this.

In the U.S.(and the world) the largest animal protection org, The Humane Society of the United States (http://www.hsus.org/) has over 10 million members donating funds, bringing well over one hundred million dollars per year in to their orgs to devote to further outreach programs, legal actions, and intense lobbying efforts at the political level. In some voting districts their members outnumber partisan affiliation and they have been able to oust non animal friendly politicians in elections.

Why do you think animal protection orgs are are so successful and growing in membership and strength?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Humane USA (http://www.humaneusa.org/), perhaps the most influential political arm of the animal protection movement, has in recent years been leading the charge against non-animal friendly politicians. Flexing its muscles it has been able to add the extra weight in votes from its members to remove those old "business and suffering as usual" for the animal politicians.

Just recently in 2006:

In California’s 11th District, Rep. Richard Pombo was named the “leading opponent of animal welfare in Congress” by Humane USA, and was our top target for defeat. Pombo, the powerful chairman of the House Resources Committee, had wreaked havoc on nearly every animal welfare bill in his fourteen years in office. He had traveled internationally to support the resumption of commercial whaling in Japan, and he has defended horse slaughter, trapping in national wildlife refuges, bear baiting on federal lands, and countless cruel practices. Humane USA backed animal welfare advocate Jerry McNerney, who defeated Pombo by a few thousand votes. Never before has a chairman of the Resources Committee been defeated for re-election, and there can be no doubt that his hostility to animal protection was a large part of his political undoing.

Why do you think animal orgs are more and more becoming so successful?

Do you hope that trend continues, or would you like to see it stopped? Do you feel threatened by it?

[TheNoNamedOne]

One reason that animal orgs are successful is that they have been able to split the populace on issues one by one. For example, an animal rights org when seeking help and support will never say to potential allies you have to buy our whole agenda in order to help animals.

On the contrary. You want to focus on dogs, then we have a section of our org for you. Cats? Got one for that, too. What? You want to focus on fur? Sure, here. No, if you want to do the fur campaign, you do not have to worry about the vegetarian side of our operations.

BAM! The populace is splintered into all these separate entities that support parts of the animal orgs' agenda. And while splintering them to support us, the animal exploitation industries find a populace split against them in many areas.

It is classic divide and conquer. Co-opt your opponents' supporters without even letting them know or think they are being co-opted.

My mother is a perfect example. She is not a vegetarian, but she has joined The Humane Society of the United States (http://www.hsus.org/) to support the anti fur and pet trade. There are a lot of people like that and they give strength to animal orgs.

Stronger all the time.

[ryukyuboi]

I don't think most individuals support the unnecessary killing of anything living, do they?

The media has succeeded in enlightening the population to the wonders and beauty of living things. The general populace is more educated about living things because of media.

The religious beliefs that all living things have a spirit has gained more respect in the West. God created all living things.....

Politics is involved as well. The Pro-Lifers, although usually associated with human life, are committed to preserving all human life. The differences between human life and animal life are not great. The Pro-Life movement continues to grow.

Science promotes the global view that all living things are connected.

Just some off the top of my head thoughts as to why animals get more respect these days.

Peace.

[Muku]

The differences between human life and animal life are not great.
Sorry to only take one sentence from your post here. I tend to agree with what you wrote however I do not agree with this.

Animal's are not here on this planet to eat human's. Human's I believe were meant to utilize the resources here on the planet for survival, and that includes eating meat.

I don't think most individuals support the unnecessary killing of anything living, do they?
I strongly agree with this as well. Well said!:thumbup1:

[TheNoNamedOne]

Animal's are not here on this planet to eat human's. Human's I believe were meant to utilize the resources here on the planet for survival, and that includes eating meat.

I don't see any evidence that we were "put" here in order "to" do something. That implies some superiour being with an intent for us to do something.

What evidence we do have is that we evolved here along with all other animals and that each animal evolved in a way to use whatever recourses it was capable of. At one time we were the food of animals and not always at the top of the food chain. There was no favoritism stemming from a false belief in anthropocentrism.

------------------

Another reason for the growth and success of animal orgs is their ability to capitalize on what drives the media: Controversy and sensationalism in news reporting.

What news manager doesn't think about sending a news crew out to cover a nude demonstration when they have been faxed a press release from the animal org that one will be taking place at location X?

Let's face it. Sex (as well as violence or civil disobedience) sells. Nude bodies get eyeballs. Attraction to the issue of animal suffering is half the battle.

When people come to these events they see the message on posters and in pamphlets. With meager recourses spent on media advertisement, animal orgs make a killing with their skillful use of the news to get free air time and their message out.

[DougP]

I don't see any evidence that we were "put" here in order "to" do something. That implies some superiour being with an intent for us to do something.


To include protecting animal rights?:D

[P_chan]

Another reason for the growth and success of animal orgs is their ability to capitalize on what drives the media: Controversy and sensationalism in news reporting.

Nothing like cashing in on people's gullibility to try and push your agenda. Kind of reminds me of organized religion.

[TheNoNamedOne]

To include protecting animal rights?

Why, yes. Well, we weren't put here to do that. But different thoughts on morality, ethics, and social engineering have made it so that that is allowable. Hence animal protection orgs being a movement within our society.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Animal orgs are also well versed in appealing to the public's sense of sympathy and justice e.g. Michael Vick; since the news broke of his involvement in dogfighting the Humane Society of the United States, as well as other animal protection orgs, have been seeing a spike in memberships and pledges of donations to their efforts to combat dog fighting.

[P_chan]

Animal orgs are also well versed in appealing to the public's sense of sympathy and justice e.g. Michael Vick; since the news broke of his involvement in dogfighting the Humane Society of the United States, as well as other animal protection orgs, have been seeing a spike in memberships and pledges of donations to their efforts to combat dog fighting.

Isn't that similar to being manipulative?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Isn't that similar to being manipulative?

What orgs seeking to address the public to undo those things they view as wrong or shortfallings in our society are not manipulative to some degree?

My sympathy is engaged by the Salvation Army when they ring that bell outside of storefronts with a poster of needy children set up next to them.

My sympathy is engaged when Doctors Without Borders show pics of people suffering that they are going to in distant lands to try and help and ask for some donation to help them with that.

My sense of justice is engaged when the NAACP shows images of the gravel road and pick-up truck of the black man from several years ago that was chained to it and dragged for over a half mile.

We are manipulated every day with bright colors of yellow and red on McD's commercials peddling their food (yellow and red excite our appetites).

Hmmm... I geuss animal protection orgs are in good company on the point of manipulaton within society. All of us guilty as charged!

[P_chan]

Never said that animal protection organizations were the only one's who did it. Seems like you enjoy putting words in my mouth.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Never said that animal protection organizations were the only one's who did it. Seems like you enjoy putting words in my mouth.

Ok, so long as we know manipulation is just something inherent with all orgs trying to sway the public to support them.

No reason to hold one to higher standards than any other. That agreed, it is moot to even bring up the point.

[P_chan]

I also never said it was ok for other orgs to do it either.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I also never said it was ok for other orgs to do it either.

Doesn't really matter. The reality is that humans are an quiet emotional species and we recognize that in persuading others. One of the best ways to do so is to appeal to their emotions. That is why we have never become a species of Spocks.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Another reason why animal protection orgs are so successful lies not only in what THEY do, but in what their OPPONENTS do. Often the opponents of animal protection orgs in arguing against more protections and rights for animals cannot meet the arguments for them head on with reason, instead opting for indignance (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8211&postcount=26).

Indignance does not keep progress for rights from moving foreward. Indignance sooner or later is seen for what it is -- empty, and surely not a barrier for more advancement in the battle for the goals animal advocates keep relentlessly fighting for.

If you want to see some examples here on JU Forums of indignance and replies to them go to this thread and read posts #26 by Uchinamuku (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10589#post10589) and #27 by myself.

Here are some of the indignant sentiments (paraphrased) they usually let fly somewhere during the course of the argument:
"How dare you use words like exploitation and cruelty! Those words are only for humans who are the target of those things!!"
"How dare you make any analogies to animal exploitation and slavery!"
"How dare you use any aspect of the Jewish Holocaust experience with animal killiing!"
"How dare you use mentally handicapped people to make a point about cognitive abilities about animals!"
"You're not playing fair! You are using human experiences we can relate to to animals!! Just stop doing that!!!"
"Why why why I am just insulted that you use yada yada yada and my being insult is enough to counter your argument. How dare you!!!"
"How dare you this..., How dare you that..., HOW DARE! HOW DARE!! HOW DARE!!!"


Funny if it weren't so pathetic.

And all the while they refuse to address the reasoning behind arguments put to them and for animal protection, progress on animal protection keeps marching on. Their indignance just doesn't get the job done of stopping the growth and success of animal protection orgs.

One reason it fails is because many arguments end up in court and judges do not allow indignance to silence an argument. Indeed, lawyers will battle the reasoning of each others' arguments.

Another reason mentioned earlier, people slowly but surely see through the weakness of indignance.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Even the food industry admits to the success of AR activism. A part of that success rests with hundreds of lawyers flocking to AR/AW groups to work on cases on a pro-bono basis. That number will increase in years to come as more and more universities are adding more courses from popular demand in the area of animal law.

But, here is a news article from Supermarket News (http://supermarketnews.com/viewpoints/shoppers-believe-worst-animal-care-0311/) within the industry:

HSUS is a very well-funded charity with a base of 10 million members, more than 400 staff members and $200 million in net assets, according to the organization’s 2006 annual report, the most recent one published. Its "litigation SWAT team" is led by 12 full-time attorneys and supplemented with more than 100 lawyers working on a pro bono basis.

It has an impressive ground game, too. Most recently, by mobilizing a group of 4,000 volunteers, the organization collected almost 800,000 petition signatures to place their "Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act" on California’s 2008 presidential election ballot. Similar ballot initiative efforts led by HSUS resulted in Florida banning the use of sow gestation crates by pork producers in 2002. Arizona voters did the same thing in 2006. In addition to banning gestation crates, this California measure will likely force the state’s entire egg industry to go cage-free by 2015.

Think what you will of HSUS, but definitely think about them. Their undercover video filmed at the Hallmark/Westland meat packing plant in Chino, Calif., led to the largest beef recall in U.S. history, and amply demonstrated that the group has developed a knack for sparking consumer outrage and getting its arguments in front of congressional committees quickly.

[GODH8SU]

MMMmmm, ANIMALS. TASTEY!

[okisteve]

Doesn't really matter. The reality is that humans are an quiet emotional species and we recognize that in persuading others. One of the best ways to do so is to appeal to their emotions. That is why we have never become a species of Spocks.

I can't think of many other reasons that political organizations exist than to try to influence people. Call it manipulation if you like, but you still have free will.

Now, TP,...... Compared to which other species are human beings a "quiet emotional species"? Howler monkeys maybe, but that might be their version of hip-hop music.

[TheNoNamedOne]

lol.

Oops. "quite".

[TheNoNamedOne]

It's always nice to look at the other side's reaction, in this case a cattle/meat industry news magazine, and see how they note the seriousness of the battle they are in against animal protection advocates. They sure do not pooh pooh the stated goals of ARists and threats to their industry like some, who try and dismiss the future as if they will be eating the same amount of meat 20 years down the line as the are now.

Cattle Update: “We Have Met The Enemy” (http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=212044)

The recent beef recall, which was the largest in U.S. history, has made the entire beef/dairy industry take an introspective look at itself. As the Scottish bard, Robert Burns said, “O wad some power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us!” We have to be concerned with public perception because it affects demand and demand is a major determinant of price. We simply can’t keep handing ammunition to the very people who want to put us out of business. Maybe the cartoon character, Pogo, said it best “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

So, AR/AW groups are successful, and have been successful because for so long the producers did not take the threats seriously, and now they are woefully late in playing catch up. But they realize the threats amongst themselves in their industry. The good ol' boys and gal consumers still are too fat and satisfied to recognize the threats.

That's ok. I am glad they are staying unorganized in protesting against AR and AW orgs. Their apathy to get involved and join the battle is what will help to cause meat prices to rise and scarcity along with that as more regs come about and more and more victories from animal advocate groups come about.

[TheNoNamedOne]

One of the most successful and influential animal protection orgs is The Humane Society of the United States. Their board of directors (http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2008/04/hsus-board.html) have helped guide their org to successes and a membership with over 10 million.

While the educational and other background experiences of leaders do not ensure success, they certainly can indicate quality characteristics of those persons. Like the profile of David Wiebers who has recently stepped down as chairman of the org after four years:


Emeritus professor of neurology and former division chair, professor, and consultant in neurology and clinical epidemiology at the Mayo Clinic and Mayo Medical School in Rochester, Minn.
chairman and chief medical officer of Preventive Medicine Inc. in Bethesda, Md.
Author of more than 330 papers on medical topics
Author of seven medical textbooks


To be replaced by Anita Coupe:

Former partner in the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Served in executive management in practicing labor and employment law in Washington, D.C. and New York City


Along with new vice chair, Jennifer Leaning:

Professor of the practice of international health at the Harvard School of Public Health
Associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School
Senior Advisor on International and Policy Studies at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study
Co-director of the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative


Quality credentials in a wide variety of fields.

[Doomrider]

Didn't read every page of the thread.

Tp I am all for animal protection and humane treatment. No Animal should be tortured or beaten. But I think Peta and Alf are a bunch of bullshit with their extremist idea's. (I.E complete animal liberation, fire bombing research centers ect.) All the rest are fine in my eyes it's just the majority of people seem to get behind the cause of these two organizations.

Also let's face it a lot of our medical research would be set back years without animal testing or research. Which is sad but in my opinion needed.

Now testing of cosmetics on animals i do find incorrect and no need for.

Sorry if I am rambling.

[TheNoNamedOne]

All the rest are fine in my eyes it's just the majority of people seem to get behind the cause of these two organizations.

The majority are not behind PETA and ALF.

PETA has 1.6 million members. ALF, one of the direct action arms of the AR movement has nowhere near that number. They are far less than the number of PETA members.

In contrast, HSUS has approx 10 million members. In addition there are many many other non-PETA associated animal advocacy groups whose combined numbers are likely to be just as high as PETA's or more.

PETA is one part of the AR movement, and they are not the majority of ARists within the Movement. Though, the fact that they do use the media quite skillfully does leave the impression that they are -- but that impression is not an accurate one.

And, on that latter point, that is another reason why AR movements are quite successful in impacting the animal exploitation industries; they know how to use the media.

[kombu_kid]

So, AR/AW groups are successful, and have been successful because for so long the producers did not take the threats seriously, and now they are woefully late in playing catch up.

How would they play catch-up anyway?......more commercials about "BEEF....IT'S WHAT'S FOR DINNER!"? I've got a feeling maybe all the ARists are smugly wishing it were that way, but I don't think the cost of meat has shot up a whole lot over the last 25 years.....as a matter of fact, I'll bet a good argument could be made that it's CHEAPER. Just look at how many fast-food places have $1.00 value menus with chicken sandwiches/beef burritos etc.

My mother is a perfect example. She is not a vegetarian, but she has joined The Humane Society of the United States to support the anti fur and pet trade. There are a lot of people like that and they give strength to animal orgs.

When she finally agreed to join, did she say something like "ALL RIGHT ALL F**KING READY.....I'LL JOIN!!!":D I can only imagine how THAT came about.

But seriously, hey, there's nothing wrong with treating animals better.......I would say that a lot of the indignation from people comes from ARists that say man shouldn't be able to eat animals. BAM! We just lost a right and a huge one at that. And based on?......what a small group believes is "right". If a shark eats me while I'm swimming in the ocean, I wouldn't hold it against him. It's all part of the game.

[Doomrider]

The majority are not behind PETA and ALF.

PETA has 1.6 million members. ALF, one of the direct action arms of the AR movement has nowhere near that number. They are far less than the number of PETA members.

In contrast, HSUS has approx 10 million members. In addition there are many many other non-PETA associated animal advocacy groups whose combined numbers are likely to be just as high as PETA's or more.

PETA is one part of the AR movement, and they are not the majority of ARists within the Movement. Though, the fact that they do use the media quite skillfully does leave the impression that they are -- but that impression is not an accurate one.

And, on that latter point, that is another reason why AR movements are quite successful in impacting the animal exploitation industries; they know how to use the media.

Thanks for the info buddy.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Thanks for the info buddy.

You're welcome. Anytime.

[TheNoNamedOne]

How would they play catch-up anyway?......more commercials about "BEEF....IT'S WHAT'S FOR DINNER!"?

I thought it was in this thread (maybe another) that I had posted a link to a meat industry magazine where they acknowledge they are facing some real threats and are taking them seriously. The trend for more animal protection is increasing, and the meat industry is behind in that their image has been taking a beating in terms of PR.

I've got a feeling maybe all the ARists are smugly wishing it were that way, but I don't think the cost of meat has shot up a whole lot over the last 25 years.....as a matter of fact, I'll bet a good argument could be made that it's CHEAPER. Just look at how many fast-food places have $1.00 value menus with chicken sandwiches/beef burritos etc.

The only reason meat has stayed cheap compared to produce is because of the massive amounts of subsidies they reap. Do you support subsidies, so that noncompetitive products remain in the market at artificial prices which are supported by taxes? Or should the product swim or sink on its own according to the market?

If a shark eats me while I'm swimming in the ocean, I wouldn't hold it against him. It's all part of the game.

Then why are sharks, mountainlions, aligators, bears etc... which are suspected of having killed a swimmer or hiker, tracked and killed? If you lived in a Texas suburb on the border of a national park, and your 3 year old child were playing in the yard and a coyote suddenly grabbed it, and mawed it in its attempt to carry it away, you wouldn't want police to track it and shoot it to prevent it from coming back to the area and perhaps hurt another child?

What you are talking about KK is far from reality. Animals are routinely targeted and killed once it is thought they have killed a human -- even if it happened totally within the wilderness -- the animals' home.

But yeah, if you are eaten you won't be able to hold it against that shark, because you will be dead without a mind to hold anything. But if your son or another one close to you experiences the same fate, I imagine you, and if not you, many others would. Hence, as often has happened in the past, ships and helicopters are sent out to try and find that particular shark.

[radool]

Animals that kill humans are treated just like humans imo, we put humans who kill humans to death why should we not hold animals to the same standards?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Animals that kill humans are treated just like humans imo, we put humans who kill humans to death why should we not hold animals to the same standards?

In KombuKid's opinion we shouldn't. Perhaps he'd like to explain why.

After I give him a chance to explain his explanation, I will do so mine. It is rather quite simple actually.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Other reasons for success: Articulate leaders respected and invited by institutions to speak on the topic of their orgs' goals.

Wayne Pacelle, the president of the Humane Society of the United States on April 30, 2008 gave a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (http://www.hsus.org/about_us/board_and_staff/experts/experts/wayne_pacelle/wayne_woodrow_wildson_speech_04302008.html). Here are some excerpts from that:

I've been around animal advocates all of my adult life, and though the issues and arguments have changed over the years, the basic convictions have endured. At its best, the cause of animal protection is one of the more altruistic concerns you'll find. It's a cause that arises from some of the best instincts of humanity. It reminds us that animals have claims of their own in the world. They are not just here to be used and killed. They are not just things, or resources, or commodities, or targets, or economic opportunities in the waiting. Animals have the same spark of life that we have, formed from the same dust of the earth. They want to live just as badly as we do. Often, they experience life as we do … they can feel playful or angry … affectionate or afraid … sad or joyful.

Some deduce rights for animals, others reject that term, but it can be an academic debate because what we're really talking about are limits and boundaries in our conduct. We need laws, and standards, and clear, bright lines to halt cruelty and abuse. It is for us to exercise restraint because in our dealings with other animals, there is an asymmetry in power. We hold all of the cards. ...

[Asshat]

Some deduce rights for animals, others reject that term, but it can be an academic debate because what we're really talking about are limits and boundaries in our conduct. We need laws, and standards, and clear, bright lines to halt cruelty and abuse. It is for us to exercise restraint because in our dealings with other animals, there is an asymmetry in power. We hold all of the cards. ...

How can any human find fault with that statement?

[TheNoNamedOne]

How can any human find fault with that statement?

Here is some more from the same speech:

The care of animals (http://www.hsus.org/about_us/board_and_staff/experts/experts/wayne_pacelle/wayne_woodrow_wildson_speech_04302008.html) doesn't just present a moral problem—it presents a moral opportunity. Kindness to animals makes us better people; it fosters responsibility in young men and women; it is a feature of any civil society. ...

...Human beings have given thought to the proper treatment of animals for as long as we have been capable of moral thought. People have pitied animals, and empathized with animals, and sought compassion and mercy for animals for as long as we have understood any of those values. When the proverb declared that "the righteous man regards the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel," this was not a foreign notion the world had never heard before. The admonition expressed a truth already well known, a feeling understood then and now as moral intuition and common sense.

[kombu_kid]

I thought it was in this thread (maybe another) that I had posted a link to a meat industry magazine where they acknowledge they are facing some real threats and are taking them seriously. The trend for more animal protection is increasing, and the meat industry is behind in that their image has been taking a beating in terms of PR.

Well, I would just imagine that a lot of their fear is that the humane treatment of animals going to slaughter is going to really drive up their costs of moving these animals through their system. I don't know, and I don't know if you provided, info on whether these meat producers (and fast food places like KFC, Taco Bell, & McDonald's) are experiencing any decline in sales of their menu items which include meat. I'm guessing NO.

The only reason meat has stayed cheap compared to produce is because of the massive amounts of subsidies they reap. Do you support subsidies, so that noncompetitive products remain in the market at artificial prices which are supported by taxes? Or should the product swim or sink on its own according to the market?

I really have no idea how much they get in subsidies......but I don't really freak out on certain industries getting subsidies, I mean, unless they're going to be eliminated across the board, why freak? Demanding an end to farm subsidies.......well, I have to wonder if that'll come back to bite us in the ass.

Then why are sharks, mountainlions, aligators, bears etc... which are suspected of having killed a swimmer or hiker, tracked and killed? If you lived in a Texas suburb on the border of a national park, and your 3 year old child were playing in the yard and a coyote suddenly grabbed it, and mawed it in its attempt to carry it away, you wouldn't want police to track it and shoot it to prevent it from coming back to the area and perhaps hurt another child?

Well, I think that's an interesting point......if it can be proven that a particular type of animal would have more of a propensity to return to an area inhabited by humans to "hunt down" a human child prey, if it had been successful at it in the past.......then of course I'd be in favor of that.

It does seem like an odd policy......to get a team together and track down and kill an animal that was hunting for food in it's own habitat. For example, if a child were to get lost in a forest for a few days and got mauled by a mountain lion, as sad as that would be......to have the authorities hunt it down and kill it seems strange......as a policy. Unless, as I stated above, it could be proven that said animal would be more likely to wander into an area inhabited by humans, to eat some more young 'uns.

BTW, let me also just throw in here that if a particular animal ate any of MY children, it would be payback time.......and I won't go into details, but it wouldn't be a quick death for that animal......why, you might ask?

The reality is that humans are an quiet emotional species

[kombu_kid]

In KombuKid's opinion we shouldn't. Perhaps he'd like to explain why.

After I give him a chance to explain his explanation, I will do so mine. It is rather quite simple actually.

I can't see holding an animal accountable for it's actions, killing a human in it's own habitat. Animals are dumb creatures. Animals get hungry. But an animal wandering into a city looking for humans to rip up and eat........well, that sucker's goin' down. If it's between us and them, I pick "us".

[TheNoNamedOne]

More articulate words continued from Wayne Pacelle and his speech (http://www.hsus.org/about_us/board_and_staff/experts/experts/wayne_pacelle/wayne_woodrow_wildson_speech_04302008.html):

The very concept of "cruelty to animals" implies moral disapproval. Yet for all the cruelty in the world, you won't hear many people admit to the offense. I've seen people club and hack hundreds of seal pups to death in the morning, and think nothing of it for the rest of the day … people who shoot elephants, and can hardly contain their joy at the sight of the fallen giant—the bigger the better … and people who preside over factory farms and slaughterhouses, and sleep every night undisturbed by second thoughts. The people emotionally and financially invested in these activities never see themselves as cruel. Instead, they try to explain their conduct away. They search for justifications—in economics, or in cultural traditions, or in nature itself. They offer elaborate arguments attempting to prove that animals don't feel pain or that the animals would be worse off but for the coup de grace delivered by them. There's an old saying that "man is not only the rational creature—he is also the rationalizing creature." We run into that a lot in our work at The HSUS. In the exploitation of animals, excuses are the one resource we'll never run out of.

[TheNoNamedOne]

BTW, let me also just throw in here that if a particular animal ate any of MY children, it would be payback time.......and I won't go into details, but it wouldn't be a quick death for that animal......why, you might ask?

Just so we know your emotions and inconsistent beliefs got you all wrapped up to inflict depraved torture on a being for revenge, and not out of necessity for living.

[kombu_kid]

Just so we know your emotions and inconsistent beliefs got you all wrapped up to inflict depraved torture on a being for revenge, and not out of necessity for living.

Well, truth be told, I honestly can't guarantee that's what I'd do.......but is that inconsistent? If I eat meat, I kill animals already, right? And let's just say I DO torture the animal a bit before killing it........that might not be too different from how it would be killed in the wild. Nobody knows what they would really do in a situation until they're in it.

[TheNoNamedOne]

And let's just say I DO torture the animal a bit before killing it........that might not be too different from how it would be killed in the wild.

Except for the demented satisfaction you get from torturing a being. Let's just say it is not too different from serial killers who start out with torturing and killing animals. And here you are saying you don't know what you'd do in regards to the moral choice of to torture or not a being that killed for necessity in satisfying its natural drives?

[TheNoNamedOne]

More articulate words continued from Wayne Pacelle and his speech (http://www.hsus.org/about_us/board_and_staff/experts/experts/wayne_pacelle/wayne_woodrow_wildson_speech_04302008.html):

and...

We now have an organized resistance to cruelty, and to the great credit of the United Kingdom it really began there. Men and women of conscience came to believe that if cruelty was wrong and unworthy of humanity, then the law should not be silent. Why just rebuke cruelty in word, or caution against it in lofty admonitions? Why not forbid cruelty in law, as we do other serious wrongs? In time, the first major cruelty statutes were enacted, defining and enforcing standards of conduct in the treatment of animals. Skeptics at the time warned of radical implications, and in a way they were right. There's always something a little radical when we dare to live up to our own beliefs.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Always nice to look at the degree of respect and worry from the exploiters in animal industries that they give to the animal activist groups. They have learned the hard way to not discount them:

Officials: Don't Discount Welfare Groups (http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/45111.htm)
Tom LaMarra, May 8, 2008

Though their views and actions may at times be considered extreme and bizarre by some, animal rights and welfare groups have a large constituency, have proven effective at making their point, and shouldn’t be disregarded when they seize on an issue, officials said. ...

“They are very well-funded and have a great deal of public relations experience,” Jay Hickey, president of the American Horse Council, said of the groups. “I think they have to be taken seriously. This is not a new issue to some of these organizations.

“Even if you disagree with some of their specific suggestions, you have to pay attention to what they say. They have an awful lot of constituents.” ...

He said they are particularly “savvy” with electronic communications to constituents and lawmakers.