Aspies For Freedom

I saw the film "I am a human animal".  What I thought about it was that Peta seemed to waste a whole lot of money on flying to Paris to vandalized some designer's store front.  They only showed one part where they went to help someone's dog.  I think the owner must have been a poor person since he lived in a trailer and did not have money for vet's bills.  They also spent much money producing numerous and offensive ads including ones showing dead bodies of victims of the Nazis and women with cow's udders spewing milk from where their breasts should have been.   They also sent some stupid guy with a hidden camera to an "undercover" investigation in a turkey slaughterhouse because Ursula thinks that people need to stop the senseless slaughter of turkeys every thanksgiving.  At the end of the film Ursula says she wants her body BBQ'd when she dies.

Then we received an unsolicited beg letter from Peta.  They obviously bought our address from some other company.  They sent "free" address labels, a survey and a  beg letter.  The letter stated, unlined "Every dollar that you send is put to work instantly to sponsor crucial legal cases, public education, and veterinary care - the save animals from senseless cruelty and pain."  So what money is being used for overhead, salaries and the mailing campaign and unwanted address labels?

The letter also stated that the government of Canada was killing thousands of animals in testing pesticides.  Some tests for the developmental neurotoxicity of pesticides on developing nervous systems of animals. I checked the government research website and they do use rats to test pesticides.

Two paragraphs down the page from this they state underlined "your own dog or cat could easily become a victim .... because each year, "pound seizure" laws force unwilling animal shelters to turn over tens of thousands of lost cats or dogs to experimenters."  We we don't have any pets.  Then I didn't call the local humane society.  I know they have pets up for adoption and there are other agencies that make foster homes for pets.  I don't know if animals are sold to research facilities.  I don't actually believe that they would do that.  All I could find out was that there was a bill proposed in 1987 addressing that issue but it was never passed.

It is a good idea for people to at least put a tag on their pets. Our city just passed a law that all cats and dogs must be licensed.

I have been reading various opinions on the matter of animals rights, using animals for research and Peta's activities.

I have also encountered people who say they support Peta and don't eat meat but said they couldn't watch the film "I am a Human Animal" because of some graphic footage.  I did find the footage of an animal being skinned alive very disturbing, however it looked  vintage, 40 years old at least.  I would like to know the date and place that this footage was taken and also some other "stories" about animals being killed.

some sites I have found that discuss the film:  http://www.bloggernews.net/111734
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_deta...line/1865,

human stell cells and animal research http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/41693.php

All I could find out was that lost dogs/cats are kept at the city pound for five days.  What happens to them after that?  Are they put up for adoption?  killed?  sent to other facilities/shelters?  foster homes?  sold for research?

actually it is legal for a pound to have to give over a lost pet to a research facility but that is only because it is going to be destroyed/killed anyway but the regulations must be followed: http://www.pirweb.org/pir07a_act.htm

best for people to get their pet microchipped and make sure that anyone caring for their pet while they are on vacation knows what to do if the animal runs off without a collar on.

Some of those "animal rights" groups are for anything but animals' rights. Some of them believe people shouldn't live with dogs and cats and that dogs and cats should die out because they are domesticated (thus showing no understanding of the true relationship between humans and these animals). Some groups "set animals free" with no assistance for the animals and no understanding the animals will all die (or perhaps just no caring). One group actually adopted a bunch of cats from shelters and then killed them. As a someone concerned with the real rights of cats, that makes me sick and almost makes me want to call my views something other than animal rights considering how the term is being perverted into justifying animal cruelty.

And I've heard her talk about the reasoning behind that barbecue thing. It's really stupid. No species that wants to perpetuate itself is going to eat its own members in any widespread fashion, but lots of species eat other species, and humans are built as omnivores. This doesn't mean some people can't be vegetarians or vegans but the entire world isn't going to change into them and shouldn't have to (I used to be vegetarian and vegan, and I was never so evangelical about it as some of these people, I stopped for health reasons by the way because despite supplementation my health was a mess by the time I stopped).

anbuend Wrote:

Some of those "animal rights" groups are for anything but animals' rights. Some of them believe people shouldn't live with dogs and cats and that dogs and cats should die out because they are domesticated (thus showing no understanding of the true relationship between humans and these animals). Some groups "set animals free" with no assistance for the animals and no understanding the animals will all die (or perhaps just no caring). One group actually adopted a bunch of cats from shelters and then killed them. As a someone concerned with the real rights of cats, that makes me sick and almost makes me want to call my views something other than animal rights considering how the term is being perverted into justifying animal cruelty.

And I've heard her talk about the reasoning behind that barbecue thing. It's really stupid. No species that wants to perpetuate itself is going to eat its own members in any widespread fashion, but lots of species eat other species, and humans are built as omnivores. This doesn't mean some people can't be vegetarians or vegans but the entire world isn't going to change into them and shouldn't have to (I used to be vegetarian and vegan, and I was never so evangelical about it as some of these people, I stopped for health reasons by the way because despite supplementation my health was a mess by the time I stopped).

PETA in particular have gotten in trouble for euthanising animals and then disposing of them in standard bins with no concern for public health. What really sickens me about this in particular is that they could have let these animals get adopted into loving homes or if they insisted on "freeing" them they could have taken them to a nature reserve or something close to the natural habitat for whatever species.

As for cats and dogs - many domesticated breeds have now evolved a co-dependency with humans, the old saying that a dog is "man's best friend" (one i'd disagree with as I can't stand dogs personally) is quite accurate indeed. Cutting off a cat or dog from humans if it's a domestic breed would be the same as taking an animal out of the rainforest and locking it up.

PETA in general seem to abuse a lot of animals, but the main one they abuse is homo sapiens.

When humans are cannibalistic on a cultural scale, it's usually in a limited ritual context (whether religious or war or something), not a "liking to eat people for food" thing. It's also extremely dangerous health-wise and not at all advisable.

That particular woman wants to do it as a publicity stunt to gross people out about eating meat in general, by having them say "How delicious this meat is, what is it?" and then having them told. She somehow thinks that will turn people vegetarian.

Oh, also, most stories of "cannibalistic tribes" are either stories of those limited ritualistic contexts, or racist stories used to justify calling people savages to make them easier to conquer or massacre (or both) with a guiltless conscience.

I wonder... what do Peta supporters do if they get infected with head lice?

Korrigan Wrote:

My husband says he only eats things that can defend themselves (all animals, no veggies.)

Mmm, do you want Venus fly-trap or sundew with your steak?!

M Wrote:

Aeolienne Wrote:

I wonder... what do Peta supporters do if they get infected with head lice?

Actually head lice is a huge problem. People don't want to use chemicals on their kids heads. There must be some other or herbal treatments that work.

The only herbal thing that could work would have to be toxic enough to also pose a risk to the person using it. For fleas (not lice), chitin inhibitors work - can be consumed safely by most mammals but kill fleas, and since fleas will feed on blood by biting, they'll pick it up from the bloodstream.

Natalie Wrote:

While PETA is pretty bad, the Center for Consumer Freedom wasn't formed by saints either. It is created and run by various tobacco and meat companies, and they really don't give a *** about animal cruelty. If there were laws passed that would help protect livestock and other captive animals from cruelty but would cost more for the meat industry, they would most certainly campaign against it. It is necessary to read information from both of these radical organizations very skeptically.

I was rather shocked that CCF regards campaigning against animals in circuses as on a par with campaigning against all livestock production. I eat meat and wear leather and wool, but I regard animal circus acts as outdated as chimpanzees' tea parties.

Er, Guess Who, what was the point of your last post? Are you sure you're on the right thread??

Korrigan Wrote:

DogBrain Wrote:

NOT PETA THREAD THING--NO BISCUIT!

On this thread we have discussed spiders, fleas, lice, and snakes. Read back a bit.

Then use the REPLY button!

Joker Wrote:

Earlier, I mentioned a comment made by an anti-sealing activist, and after a bit of digging, I've found a wikipedia article on the guy. His comment is in the Controversy section, I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watson#Controversy
"In early April 2008, Watson stated that, while the deaths of three Canadian seal hunters (a fourth one is still missing) in a marine accident during the 2008 Canadian Commercial Seal Hunt may be considered tragic, he feels that the killing of seals is even more tragic. Canadian Federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn said that Watson is gutless, shameless, and without a shred of human decency."

So, moving onto another controversial topic...
Don't feel that I'm directing this at anyone here, I'm just blowing off some steam about the seal hunt.

The strange thing about all the protests of the seal hunt... there is no big crisis. The seals are not going extinct. There is no underpopulation. They've been commercially hunting seals for a long time; It's been happening for decades, unless you go back to when the Inuit first started, but I have no idea how long that's been.

It's opposed because people envision cute fluffy baby seals being killed, despite a complete ban on all pups (animal rights groups are quick to shift the focus from adult seals to their cute cuddly little pups). The population is stable at over five million seals, and less than half a million are hunted each year. In fact, it's below 300,000 right now.

People just don't understand the real figures, the reality of the hunt, and let themselves drink up dark fantasies painted by animals rights groups. People don't feel nearly so guilty about their chicken, pork, beef, and fish. It's that the population of the animals being killed is wild, and the hunters have to hunt is what makes people act weird. They don't react the same to slaughterhouses, the animals there were bred to be killed and eaten. What's so bad, then, about hunting a seal?

As a Canadian, I stand by the seal hunt, and feel that it's a perfectly legitimate aspect of our economy. Sorry if you disagree, but I feel no guilt about the seal hunt. It's just another industry, and it's only considered "bad" because people don't like the idea of cute seals being killed to put food on plates, clothes on backs, and keep the population from overgrowing, causing fish shortages, and of course, the deaths of many seals from slow, painful starvation.

The seal hunt is more humane than what would be created in the vacuum of its existence.

Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic...
(I was a tad surprised to read this was still going on here - I was under the impression that seal culling had been phased out, not because of Peta activism, but because of the growing importance of seal-watching for the Scottish tourism industry)

Tough new rules brought in to curb Scottish seal killings

As headless animals are found on a Skye beach, the government takes action to stop year-round slaughter

By Ian Johnston
Independent on Sunday, 25 May 2008

Tough new regulations are to be introduced to curb the killing of seals by Scottish fish farmers, The Independent on Sunday has learned. The move comes as two headless seals – one heavily pregnant, the other a juvenile – were discovered last weekend on a beach on Skye.

A company that runs a nearby fish farm admitted last week it had shot two seals. Campaigners believe up to 5,000 seals are shot by fish industries in Scotland each year. The firm, Marine Harvest, said it did not know how or why the seals were decapitated.

The new rules will prevent fish farmers from shooting seals to protect their stocks for the first time during the closed season, according to a confidential draft of new legal guidelines.

Common and grey seals are supposed to be protected during their respective breeding seasons under the 1970 Conservation of Seals Act. However, the so-called "netsman's defence" – which permits fishermen to kill seals that threaten to damage their equipment – has been used by the growing numbers of fish farms that now occupy virtually every sea loch on the west coast of Scotland.

But draft guidelines to be published by the Scottish government next month will make clear for the first time that the defence does not apply to fish farms. The Act has been criticised by conservationists and the police for effectively permitting the shooting of seals by anyone with a reason to do so all year.

For common seals the closed season runs from 1 June to 31 August; for grey seals, it runs from 1 September to 31 December.

Scotland is home to the majority of the UK's seal population of about 180,000, and conservationists estimate that up to 5,000 seals are shot every year. This figure is disputed by the industry, but it is not required to record shootings. Seals were hunted until 1914, when numbers of grey seals in the UK were put at just 500. That species' numbers have since grown to an estimated 120,000, about a third of the total world population.

Andy Ottaway, of the Seal Preservation Action Group, said that, in the wake of the latest killings, the group would renew calls to supermarkets to sell only salmon reared by farms that use non-lethal methods to deter seals,such as acoustic deterrent devices, or scarers, and tensioned nets.

"It is ironic. We have public boycotts of Canadian products over the slaughter of seals, and we have the same slaughter on our own shores," Mr Ottaway said.

"We want the law changed from a licence to kill seals to one that protects our globally significant seal population. We believe that killing seals is too high a price to pay for Scottish salmon."

Chief Inspector Paul Eddington, wildlife crime co-ordinator for Northern Constabulary, said the Skye shootings had been investigated but there was no evidence a crime had been committed. "The legislation on this is woefully inadequate. The Conservation of Seals Act does not help us one bit in investigating these cases," he said.

M Wrote:

The fox hunts were banned (except in Northern Ireland).

Why is NI exempt? Maybe after the success of the Good Friday Agreement it was decided that the sectarians needed to have something else to vent their predatory instincts on.

M

M

M

M

anbuend

Gareth

anbuend

anbuend

Aeolienne

Aeolienne

Gareth

Aeolienne

Aeolienne

Aeolienne

Aeolienne