web analytics
Login
Subscribe
Breaking News         Golden Gate KC (2)     01/25/2015     Best In Show Judge: Mrs. Eva E. Berg     Best In Show: GCH Seacrest's I'm Not What You Think     Charleston KC (2)     01/25/2015     Best In Show Judge: Virginia Lyne     Best In Show: CH Mi-Toi's Icon CM     Alexandria KC     01/25/2015     Best In Show Judge: Ms. Linda C. More     Best In Show: Dezperado's Hallelujah     Middle Peninsula KC of Virginia (2)     01/25/2015     Best In Show Judge: Mrs. Betty-Anne Stenmark     Best In Show: GCH Bayaway Jersey's Due Process Of Law     Greater Gainesville DFA (2)     01/25/2015     Best In Show Judge: Deborah Verdon     Best In Show: GCH Hightimes What The Inferno     As The Wheels Turn – When The Wolf Knocks… Can Performing a Biopsy Cause Cancer to Spread? J.J. Fuds, Inc. Issues Recall of Pet Food Because of Possible Health Risk Merrimac Dog Training Club Sparks Interest in Dog Sports in Kids with Disabilities HSUS Launches Lame Web Defense to Criticism

We'll email you the stories that fanciers want to read from all around the web daily

We don't share your email address

‘Pets Are Not Our Property,’ According to Animal Rights Extremists

SAN ANTONIO, Jan. 1, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In Defense of Aniamls claims 21 communities have formally accepted the term pet “guardian” instead of “owner” into their animal codes. Founding president Elliott Katz considers pet ownership to be an offensive term and likens his cause to black slavery and the suffrage movement that gave American women the right to vote.

Language is a powerful tool. Usage of certain words can eventually lull everyone into acceptance of an ideology. At least that’s what Animal Rights Extremists hope will happen with their campaign to change the term “Pet Owner” to “Pet Guardian.”

Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (RPOA) wholeheartedly defends pet “ownership” and property rights as freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. This may seem like a harmless distinction, but it has a potentially dangerous legal impact.

Marshall Tanick, former counsel for American Dog Owners Association, warned of substantial restrictions on pet ownership, such as: 1) Buying and selling pets; 2) Adopting pets from shelters; 3) Pet Limits per household; 4) Law enforcement searches to private homes without warrants; 5) Curtailing participation in dog shows; 6) Prohibition on breeding; 7) Challenges to veterinary procedures, including spaying and neutering; 8) Preventing appropriate euthanasia or other dispositions; 9) Lawsuits by animals against their owners or keepers, including veterinarians; and 10) Taking away animals from their owners.

Martha Armstrong, Humane Society of the US, has said: “We frequently refer, if not always refer, to the person that has an animal in his home as the guardian, caretaker or caregiver of that animal rather than owner.”

US News & World Report wrote: “A dozen law schools now feature courses on animal law, and in some cases, the teaching seems to be a simple extension of radical activism. The advantage of the litigation strategy is that there’s no need to sell radical ideas to the American people. There are almost no takers for the concept of ‘nonhuman personhood,’ the view of pets as slaves, or the notion that meat eating is part of a ‘specter of oppression’ that equally affects minorities, women, and animals in America. The rhetoric is highminded, but the strategy is to force change without gaining the consent of the public.”

For disturbing quotes from the Animal Rights Movement regarding all animal use, see:

http://www.naiaonline.org/naia-library/articles/quotes-from-the-leaders-of-the-animal-rights-movement/

Contact: Mary Beth Duerler, Executive Director
(210) 822-6763, rpoa@texas.net
DONATE: www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
RPOA formed to preserve the human/animal bond and our historic working relationship with animals.

SOURCE: Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
Web Site: http://www.responsiblepetowners.org

Written by