Posted by:
kathylove
at Tue Mar 21 13:39:17 2006 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by kathylove ]
By saying..." it actually shows the opposition (and any other intrested parties) that we as "responsible" keepers bring up hypothetical situations to think about reactions..." , the statement assumes that they want the best for animals and society and that they are thinking logically. That may be true for SOME activists, but many only want to eradicate ALL pet keeping (or any use of animals) for ANY reason, and don't care whether we are responisble or not. They will take pieces of info out of context and totally twist the meaning to support their agenda.
Have you read the book about pet reptiles put out for the HSUS? It pretends to be a book about pet keeping, but in reality takes every opportunity possible to make the point that no reptile SHOULD be kept as a pet (let alone giant snakes!). The book twists facts to make it sound as though most pets are the few survivors of greedy importers, and that any breeder must be the same as a puppy mill.
Don't make the mistake of thinking of them as logical people interested in animal welfare. They have a very narrow agenda, and the "end justifies the means" to many of them, whatever it takes.
PETA isn't the only enemy. Here is my take on the subject (from my website) if you care to read it:
The Hidden Enemy
[ Hide Replies ]
|
We have to realize what they really want - kathylove, Tue Mar 21 13:39:17 2006