Last night in Los Angeles, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) president Wayne Pacelle showed why he’s been able to turn a group that sounds
as if it’s all about protecting puppies and kittens into an
animal-rights lobbying force with talons. He’s looking to sink those
talons into people who have the audacity to eat or sell meat, wear
leather, go to circuses, or enjoy hunting and fishing – in other words,
99 percent of America.
In front of a hand-picked crowd of HSUS supporters who attended last night’s “town hall meeting” at the Ebell of Los Angeles, Pacelle rallied the troops with a fight song:
"We have to create a clamor for change ... You can get further with a kind word and a gun than a kind word alone."
He attributed the latter quote to notorious gangster Al Capone, who
seems like an odd inspiration for a supposedly peaceful movement. But animal-rights extremists are far from peaceful.
One of Pacelle’s own staffers, Josh Balk, told the HSUS-sponsored
“Taking Action For Animals” that “there are very few instances that
companies just refuse to move with a friendly conversation … The
animals can’t wait for people to come to a revelation themselves.
Sometimes it does take force.”
HSUS sounds more and more like PETA and the terrorist Animal Liberation Front every day.
It’s been well documented that HSUS spends only a tiny fraction – less than four percent – of its budget directly funding animal shelters.
If you’re wondering how it spends the other roughly $100 million in its
budget every year, you might consider the cost of renting out the posh Wilshire Ebell Theatre,
providing the supporters-only crowd with a catered coffee service, and
hiring four burly security guards to keep out the riff-raff.
Sorry, Wayne. We got in anyway.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
OPINION:Humane Society Becoming More Like the Animal Liberation Front
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Okay...
Okay, so I see the offensive Al Capone quote -- if he really said that, I think it was a poor choice of words on his part. But I don't see the direct quote of him saying he's trying to use force to make people stop eating meat . What did he actually say? Was this comment about companies that use or sell fur ?
Your OP is so vague and defamatory that it's difficult to take you seriously.
- Babaroni
October 30, 2009 3:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You're wise not to CCF seriously.
They're a front group for lobbyists for food , alcohol , and entertainment industries.
- hap
October 30, 2009 6:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
CCF?
This article is about the Human Society.
- Babaroni
October 31, 2009 8:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
what a mean thing to do to a cat -
doesn't look like he appreciates that thing on his head. I am definitly not a PETA , HSUS or anything else follower and I'm not a vegetarian , but I do care about animals .
- petakills
November 4, 2009 8:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nevermind
Nevermind - I figured out what you're talking about. Yes. You're right. Sorry.
- Babaroni
October 31, 2009 8:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
food, alcohol and entertainment?
Huh? Where in the world did you come up with this? Center for Consumer Freedom has nothing to do with those industries. They are working for responsible pet ownership . You must have them confused with some other organization.
- dancetoday
November 4, 2009 11:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
LOLH
So, beyond this bog post, what nefarious front group have they set for pet ownership ? I haven't seen that one yet.
- CheyGirl
November 4, 2009 9:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are mistaken.
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
- hap
November 8, 2009 2:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
agree
i agree it is too vague to understand the only thing i see he said was Sometimes it does take force! i like you dont understand what they mean if they mean takes force to stop people eating meat or wearing fun...????
These groups are getting so fanatical that people are stopping taking them seriously...one has the right to eat or not eat meat and they are never going to stop the majority of people from eating meat.. i think wearing fun is wrong..there are too many replacements to kill something to wear it in these days sure in the time when people had to hunt and make clothes from it but now no one does and people could live without meat if they chose but i feel that is their choice...
- cbooh
October 30, 2009 6:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What a stretch!
So the misnamed Center for "Consumer" Freedom went to the trouble of crashing a Humane Society meeting , and the best they can get is a quote of Wayne Pacelle quoting someone else?!?!
If you want to hear an offensive quote, how about the Center for Consumer Freedom's "Director of Research," David Martosko the day acclaimed Emmy & Tony Award-winning actress Beatrice Arthur died:
"I honestly thought Bea Arthur had died a few years ago. Looks like PETA has lost another D-list celebrity." (from Twitter, April 25, 2009)
- maya
October 30, 2009 6:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
what ?
that isn't even close to an offensive quote -- someone died, someone didn't know about it and the dead person was a peta celeb. What is the big deal??
- petakills
November 4, 2009 8:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh my.
Looks like the CCF is losing their touch. Oh wait, not they're not: there just isn't anything to really trash the Humane Society on. Unlike their own operations. www.bermanexposed.com
Give us a break.
- CheyGirl
October 30, 2009 7:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
center for union facts
Center for Union Facts is not Center for Consumer Freedom. The only thing they have in common is the word "Center." Do your research before posting on the internet .
- dancetoday
November 4, 2009 11:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Research?
Try this:
http://www.bermanexposed.com/associates
Maybe someone else should do their research. Berman is the long-time DIRECTOR or CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM.
Research requires more than a quick perusal of the front page. Y think?
- CheyGirl
November 4, 2009 9:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Epic fail
Is this a joke? The Humane Society served coffee at a meeting and this warrants a mention in a press release?
This rant about HSUS not spending its entire budget on local animal shelters is like complaining that the Red Cross doesn't fund local fire departments. So what? Did they ever say that they did?
Notice the dots between Wayne Pacelle's quote and Al Capone's quote. That was the context, conveniently left out by a "consumer" group that's funded by fast food restaurants.
- anthonyo
October 30, 2009 9:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More Than One Way
I will admit to having a certain problem with the idea that the only way to improve conditions for food animals is to become vegan , and more than that to do any less is worthless.
On the other hand, when one weighs the cost to the environment in terms of fouling water and air and global warming , the massive use of growth hormones & antibiotics ultimately consumed by humans before one even gets to the horrific brutality done to animals, it is prudent for people to take into account what they are putting into their own bodies and cut back on eating this tortured sick flesh and the "byproducts", ie dairy etc that go with it.
There is no question that the Western (American) diet is not a healthy one: You have only to look at our population to see that.
As for the Animal Liberation Front simile, I find that absurd. Consider the source and follow the money .
- joolmaker
October 31, 2009 10:18AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I am a rancher
My lifestyle is not fouling water and there is a whole lot of things that contribute to global warmning, cattle being very miniscule. The massive use of growth hormones and anitbiotics ? Where did you hear this, peta or hsus, thought so. Horrific brutality - our soldiers know horrific brutality, many of our citizens know horrific brutality - our cattle don't,they are the lucky ones.i know we will never agree on anything, I hope everyone dies of hunger .
- petakills
November 4, 2009 9:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Really? Lucky?
Time article:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0 ,8599,1890646,00.html
"By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane — a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide — India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats) contributes more to global warming than the vehicles the animals obstruct."
Industry pass legislation to prevent EPA from measuring/monitoring on agriculture's effect on climate change :
http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2009/10/free-pass-for-factory-farms.html
The Pew Charitable Trusts:
http://www.saveantibiotics.org/newsroom/pr_3june2009.html
"Up to 70 percent of U.S. antibiotics go to farm animals that aren't sick, to offset overcrowding and poor sanitation. This practice promotes the development of deadly strains of drug-resistant bacteria that can spread to humans."
Wanna see brutality?
https://secure.humanesociety.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=4264
Yeah, these guys look lucky. Give me a break. We never treated animals like this on our farm.
- CheyGirl
November 4, 2009 9:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Perfect Response
At first reading of the guy who hopes everyone starves to death, I simply wanted to snarl; you handled it/him much better and certainly most accurately, and I thank you.
At second reading of his remarks, I can only feel very sad for what any living thing under his "care" and control must endure.
- joolmaker
November 5, 2009 6:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
TY!
Thanks joolmaker.
- CheyGirl
November 8, 2009 2:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
HSUS isn't what it used to be.
About all I can say is spend some time on the Humane Society's website. What started out as a worthy rescue operation for pets has become more than a little radicalized. In fact, pet rescue is more a niche sideline for them these days.
The thing that really turned me off to HSUS was the way they stood down during the poisoned pet food epidemic of 2007. Literally hundreds of thousands of pet animals died slow and terrible deaths all across North America, including one of my own, and HSUS didn't lift a finger. In fact, they are so far in the hip pockets of pet food companies, it isn't hard to understand the conflict of interest involved and why they did absolutely nothing to bite the hand that feeds them.
What most people don't understand about the typical nonprofit is very little money ever goes toward the purported cause people are willing to donate to. I don't have a link handy, but there're sources online where you can look up how various outfits distribute donations. Most of them look like bailed out bank CEOs. The insiders do quite well, but that's about it.
- Don Earl
October 31, 2009 10:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What's Really Happening
You are seeing some of what you are seeing due to organizations such as PETA , HSUS, PCRM and others joining forces with reference to funds and email/member lists to raise awareness through PACS to influence legislation.
It is working.
It is not perfect.
As I recall, the HSUS did not become involved directly with the pet food mess, but DID provide links to sites where specific information about various brands could be found.
I was easily able to change brands and/or offerings within brands to avoid danger to our seven cats.
- joolmaker
October 31, 2009 10:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not what YOU think it used to be
I think you're confusing HSUS with some other group. It did not start out as a "rescue operation for pets ." Among its earliest campaigns was getting the Humane Slaughter Act passed in the 1950s, as well as advocating for the welfare of animals in laboratories. Those of us who are actual donors are very familiar with the group's goals.
I'm sorry to hear about your pet's death from tainted pet food , but you should consider finding out about the class-action lawsuits against the pet food companies if it's not too late.
- anthonyo
October 31, 2009 11:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes and no.
This Wiki piece seems to be consistent with what you say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Society_of_the_United_States
At the same time, HSUS does have limited involvement in pet rescue, and the article makes an interesting reference to complaints that HSUS encourages the notion it is pet centric to generate donations.
As far as lawsuits are concerned, the food that killed my cat was never recalled by Menu Foods. All available evidence indicates Menu was spiking pet food with cyanuric acid long before the Chinese melamine ever showed up and that the cyanuric acid being used was cross contaminated with acetaminophen. I have my own lawsuit going.
It's a long story, but the short version as far as it's relevant here is that NONE of the organizations, including HSUS, that advocate anti cruelty lifted a finger, or lift a finger, when it comes to animal food safety or accountability.
Over the past 10 years, on average, there is one mass pet poisoning event every 3-4 months. For outfits that get up in arms about how livestock is slaughtered, even when worst case is fast, they don't seem to give a rip when pets die slow and terrible deaths as a result of poisoned food. That doesn't count livestock feed problems that have at times wiped out entire herds.
- Don Earl
October 31, 2009 5:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
one rationale and educated response on here
Thank you Don. I'm glad someone is actually reading from the source. I've read the HSUS web site, too, and many quotes from Pacelle that are really scary. Like when he said that he has never really related to any non-human animals ? The head of an organization that supposedly works for them doesn't relate to them? He poses with them for publicity, sure! They are a political action organization, not an animal rescue organization. Look at what they did during Katrina. They posed for lots of pictures with animals and then left all of the work to local groups. When the mayor complained about them they donated some money for a shelter to get him off their backs. This is typical. They come in, get in photos, and then leave all of the work to the local groups.
- dancetoday
November 4, 2009 11:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More research?
4 million to Katrina Shelters
http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/hsus_disaster_center/disasters_press_room/archives/2006_disaster_response/animal_shelter_grants.html
More money :
http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/hsus_disaster_center/disasters_press_room/archives/2006_disaster_response/new_grants_for_katrina_recovery.html
Even more money:
http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/hsus_disaster_center/disasters_press_room/archives/2006_disaster_response/hsus_announces_additional_katrina_grants.html
Oh, and they spearheaded the effort to pass the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards (aka PETS) Act.
On no, and in 2007 they gave more money and began spay/neuter outreach in the area:
http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/hsus_disaster_center/disasters_press_room/archives/2007_disaster_response/after_katrina_101907.html
Wiki is some source...
- CheyGirl
November 4, 2009 9:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Huh?
What was HSUS supposed to do about the pet food recall ? I remember getting warnings from them. And, "hundreds of thousands"?
- CheyGirl
November 4, 2009 9:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
RE: "What was HSUS supposed to do about the pet food recall?"
If you're interested, this is a project I started a little over 2 years ago:
http://www.pfpsa.org
The reason I started it is because the outfits with 9 and 10 figure budgets weren't doing a damned thing.
You quite obviously don't get it, but until you've watched a happy, healthy pet die a slow and terrible death because the food you bought to preserve its life was poisoned, you don't know what "cruel" really is.
It wasn't a one time event, and it was NOT limited to 16 pets . It's something that happens over and over and over again, because none of the so called spca organizations will lift a finger to stop it.
As one poster noted above, and I wouldn't single out HSUS as being unique in that regard, nonprofits tend to do photo ops, rather than anything resembling real work. The Red Cross is another good example of the 'all blow and no go' nonprofit.
These kind of outfits will wade in blood up to their knees to get a good publicity photo, but when you look at things a year later, the only thing that's different is they have bigger houses and nicer cars .
- Don Earl
November 5, 2009 1:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Actually, I do.
I am a veterinary technician that treated four of those dogs and one died. And, have seen many die from other causes. I totally understand.
What I don't understand, it what the HSUS had to do with it? Only the FDA can recall pet food , and the HSUS informed its constituents, sent out press releases, etc.
http://hsus.org/search.jsp?query=food +recall&x=0&y=0
And, it looks as if they set up a safety info line:
http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/pet_food_information_line.html
Is there something that you know that I don't that they could have done? Looks like they did all they could feasibly do.
I am sorry you lost your cat, but you are blaming the wrong people. The FDA, the pet food company and the legislature is responsible for food safety. Not an animal protection organization.
- CheyGirl
November 8, 2009 2:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More "Consumer Freedom" hot air
Another Center for "Consumer" Freedom exposé shocker: The Humane Society spent donor money on -- brace yourselves -- COFFEE for supporters who attended a meeting ! Who's the next CCF target? PTA meetings? Neighborhood Watch? Talk about anti-climactic!
Since there's no context for the Al Capone quote, I think it's safe to infer that it refers to the tactics of the corporate thugs who bankroll the CCF.
The real surprise is that big business is actually PAYING the Center for "Consumer" Freedom for their pathetic, amateurish, half-baked publicity attempts.
- pedrito
October 31, 2009 5:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
what's your source?
Pedrito,
What is your source for your accusation that "big business" (and what is the budget of HSUS? I think that would count them as a big business, IMHO) is paying CCF?
- dancetoday
November 4, 2009 11:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Questioning others sources?
Just check out CCF's clients for yourself. You have the link.
- CheyGirl
November 4, 2009 9:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ah, CCF...
Surely you can't think that there are many people gullible enough to take the information you provide as anything but grossly manipulated and slanted.
I don't agree with HSUS, and I would never blindly accept the information they present, but your FOX News version of reality is, as usual, laughable.
- mike
November 4, 2009 11:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lies again
More lies from animal rights zealots. Methane gas makes up worldwide only 7.9% of the total of greenhouse gases with fossil fuels and co2 being the most prominent. Livestock make up less than 17% of the total of methane gas which works out to less than 1.% contribution to all greenhouse gas . The largest contributor to methane production comes from rice paddies, tropical forrests, and wet lands along with soybean production for tofu and soy milk the main substitutes for protein in the vegan diet . The slash and burn monocrop of soybean in Brazil alone creates more methane than any other source. Plants release more methane than any other form with rice paddys, wetlands, and crop burning being the most potent. You need to read "Plants release methane, a potent greenhouse gas", in this study by the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics the researchers made a surprising discovery that plants release 10 to 30 percent of the world’s methane not livestock. This surprising discovery that plants release methane, a greenhouse gas goes against all previous assumptions. In terms of total amount of production worldwide, the scientists' first guesses are between 60 and 240 million tonnes of methane per year. That means that about 10 to 30 percent of present annual methane production comes from plants. The largest portion of that - about two-thirds - originates from tropical areas, because that is where the most biomass is located. The evidence of direct methane emissions from plants also explains the unexpectedly high methane concentrations over tropical forests, measured only recently via satellite by a research group from the University of Heidelberg. Carbon dioxide is the most important gas to consider and it comes from fossel fuel production. Instead of worrying about the 7.9% solutions to global warming we should be worrying about the other 92.1% of the greenhouse gases. This misinformation coming from HSUS and PeTA is very dangerous to stopping green house gas emissions. The focus should be on C02 not cows. By the way methane gas production in cows has been bred out and grass fed cows don't pollute. So, quit lying to the public about methane gas. It doesn't even stay in the atmosphere very long whereas C02 does. Wayne has made it very clear in all of his speeches that his organization is about ending the use of all animals . He wants to see the day when there are no more domestic animals. He does not think they have the right to live on this earth and all of his lobbying efforts go to ending their lives, not protecting them. They are out of the closet and you can no longer pretend this is about animal welfare anymore. Guess why the vaccine production is held up, no more eggs being produced in California. It takes three eggs to produce one dose and thanks to Senator Dean Florez and HSUS the egg producers for vaccine production where put out of business with proposition 2 in California. These idiots know nothing about farming, but they do know a lot about lying to get money from the public. Note the German High Court found PeTA guilty of faking videos and of actually paying people to skin animals alive for their fake videos. Both HSUS and PeTA have killed more animals than they have even remotely saved and by just being in business they have prevented all of your donations from truly helping animals in shelters find homes. Why do they always fight so hard against no kill shelters if they are for the animals. This is a cult and they want to control your lives.
- Rosset
November 5, 2009 3:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ummm..
...yeah, methane is a minor component. You are forgetting about all the CO2 caused by the food for the animals , the slaughter of them, transportation to different farms, slaughter houses, stores, etc.
It all adds up. You can't just consider one component, you have to take the entire production process as a whole to accurately account for its effects.
- CheyGirl
November 8, 2009 2:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Numbers do include transport and food
The EPA studies did take into account the fossil fuels needed to raise livestock. What you fail to take into acccount is that methane can be used as a fuel, but soybean production in Brazil is slash and burn plus the fossil fuels necessary to process this bean and transport it around the world requires substantially more than grass fed livestock or domestic animals . This is not about global warming but about another agenda and that is to end the use of all domestic animals. Food for animals raised organically as we use to do does not cause CO2 in sufficient quantities to warrant not using them, nor does methane gas which does not stay in the atmosphere that long and is part of the atmospheric cycle. What is important is to recognize that plants produce more methane than animals in the great scheme of things. But the real culprit is fossil fuels and to process soybean and move it around the world produces the most CO2 and methane. Eating locally and eating organically reduces fuel consumption except when you take into account all of these people driving around to local farms to pick up their food instead of going to one distribution spot a grocery store to purchase their food. And while they ask for the tofu and soy milk and veggie burgers these items requires massive amounts of fossil fuels to produce and move around the world. They are never locally produced. No the numbers include transport and food. That is the fallacy of the animal rights arguments.
- Rosset
November 10, 2009 10:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not Quite.
"More lies from animal rights zealots. Methane gas makes up worldwide only 7.9% of the total of greenhouse gases with fossil fuels and co2 being the most prominent"
Actually Water Vapor is by far the most prominent Greenhouse Gas, between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds.
- tbcass
November 15, 2009 10:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ARs use fear to fuel a hidden agenda
We cannot do anything about the evaporation of water , but we can do something about fossil fuels and instead of focusing on animals which contribute so little to methane we should instead focus on fossil fuesl and alternative energy sources. But animal rights zealots are using fear to fuel their agenda which is to end the use of all animals which if you cannot have meat to eat biologically you will be harming the human race . We are omnivores biologically and just choosing to not eat meat will in the long run do irreparable harm to your internal organs. This is what we are seeing now from the strict vegans in medicine .
- Rosset
November 15, 2009 4:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I Agree
I wasn't disagreeing with your premise just your numbers. If you're going to use statistics try to be accurate or people won't take you seriously. Personally because there is so much more water vapor than there is CO2 I tend to doubt that CO2 is as much a factor in global warming as we are led to believe. There isn't much difference between the animal rights zealots and the environmental zealots. Both tend to exaggerate, bend the truth and push the worse possible case scenario.
- tbcass
November 15, 2009 4:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
HSUS is wrong! We have to change the minds of the consumers!
I am vegan but I am not an HSUS supporter. However, I think this article is twisting the comments made by Mr. Pacelle and Mr. Balk.
"We have to create a clamor for change ... You can get further with a kind word and a gun than a kind word alone."
I dont think Pacelle is arguing that we go out and destroy the property of institutional animal users or gun them all down. I think he's speaking about using more force of LEGAL ACTION against them. (ie. campaigning for welfare reform)
"The animals can’t wait for people to come to a revelation themselves. Sometimes it does take force.”
If HSUS took all of the time and money that they spend campaigning for more "humane" forms of animal exploitation, and put it into VEGAN EDUCATION (teaching people why they shouldn't eat animal products at all, rather than teaching them that if they dont want to go vegan, its okay because you can be morally superior by eating "humane" animal foods) than a human revelation wouldn't seem so far away.
Of course we can't wait for people to come to a revelation by "THEMSELVES"... this is why education is so so important.
Taking "force" and shutting down the operation of an institutional user (whether through violent or legal means) is gonna do jack for animals. So long as the DEMAND for the product is there, then it will simply move elsewhere to another institutional user... and so on.
We have to change the minds of the consumers!
www.abolitionistapproach.com
- Gronlandic Edit
November 5, 2009 10:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
thought
has the humane society recommended FLU vaccines to people?
Are the Eggs used from free range chickens?
Do the Eggs Used have the possibility of creating a life?
I just happened to see the chickens in cages on the article's photo.
And thought about the flu shots and my minor allergy to eggs.
In that few moments I tied chicken cruelty to the creation off flu shots and now wonder if being a vegetarian / animal rights means
that a vegetarian/animal right's person should not get certain vaccines that deal with the need of animals to create them?
- question with boldness
November 8, 2009 11:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good question
I doubt an animal group would be making medical recommendations for people though.
- CheyGirl
November 8, 2009 2:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.