Natsamjosh,



>>given pet ownership has nothing to do with farming or agriculture…



Unfortunately, it does. From the Endangered Species Act (ESA), it is clear that one of intents of the ESA was to regulate the commerce of commodities…Which by definition are agricultural and mining products traded on a market. In addition to the animals themselves as part of the ESA regulation, this includes EVERY PRODUCT DERIVED FROM THEM. This includes meat, eggs, leather, etc…So by regulation (ESA), it has everything to do with farming and agriculture.



Additionally, the AR agenda (of which the ESA clearly is) in total can be summed up in this article (link below)…



http://www.njabr.org/programs/animal_rights/



An excerpt from the article above is as follows...



>>The basic "platform" of animal rights calls for the end to all human "exploitation" of animals - this includes, but is not limited to:



>>Use of animals and animal products for human or animal dietary consumption (meat and dairy)



>>Confinement livestock and poultry production



>>Hunting, trapping, and fishing



>>Fur-farming



>>Use of animals in cosmetic and product-safety testing



>>The practice of owning pets



>>Use of animals and animal products in clothing and domestic products (wool, fur, leather, silk)



>>Use of animals for any medical or veterinary research or procedure



>>Zoos, circuses, rodeos, horseshows, and dog-shows



>>All performing animals



>>Guide-dogs for the blind



>>Police dogs and search and rescue dogs



The AR crowd are nothing more than the PR wing of the ESA bureaucrats with the agenda of granting "human rights" to animals...They are both different "trees" of the same "regulatory" forest. As different "trees", they each have different roles to play in the accomplishment of the same agenda (regulatory forest).



Later,

Jim.



PS: The pet trade is commerce in an agricultural commodity which THEY deem as inappropriate (by philosophy) and thus, seek to ban it.


-----
CSRAJim

[ Show Entire Thread ]