The Animal Rights Agenda

DeEtta Bohling, Communications Specialist

I recently had the opportunity to hear Karen Strange from the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners (MoFed), speak on the goals of animal rights activists.

It is important to note that animal rights” is a different term than “animal welfare”.  Animal welfare means “the rancher or farmer who’s livelihood depends on his animals can educate himself on raising the healthiest animal possible in an environment that is beneficial to him and his product. Welfare means educating those who need to improve their standards of care; working to promote responsible animal ownership, whether it be pets, livestock, exotics or wildlife along with maintaining responsible standards using common sense.” To see how much farmers care for their animals, I encourage you to view these blogs. Animal rights, on the other hand, are legal rights equal (or greater) than humans. If animals had rights, humans would no longer “own” animals, but they would instead be their caretaker.

Groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) have been fighting for animal rights for 20+ years. In fact, there is a twelve step agenda to reach animal rights.

The Animal Rights Agenda (Published in “Animals’ Agenda” magazine in November 1987)

1. Abolish animal research by law.
2. End product testing on animals.
3. Encourage vegetarian diets and make them available at all public venues (including primary and secondary schools).
4. Eliminate all animal ag.
5. Do away with ag chemicals.
6. Remove animal welfare legislation from the USDA.
7. Eliminate fur ranching.
8. Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.
9. Prevent rainforest destruction.
10. Stop the breeding of companion animals (including pedigreed or purebred dogs and cats).
11. Ban the use of animals for entertainment (including zoos, rodeos and circuses).
12. Prohibit genetic manipulative breeding.

Though I am sure this list seemed far fetched in 1987, today it is reality. You may have that organizations such as HSUS and PETA care for animals, however, things aren’t always as they appear. These organizations care about making more money and supporting/promoting an extremist agenda that advocates no interaction between humans and animals.

Agriculture must be protected and it starts with you. Become an agvocate,  educate others on animal activists, and tell your story.

“If we don’t stand together, we don’t stand a chance.”

More information:
Don’t be misled
MoFed

Humane Watch
What is the Humane Society of the United States?

Advertisements

17 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Raj on June 16, 2010 at 12:35 PM

    you are absolutely correct. I first became aware of this reading THE ANIMAL RESEARCH WAR– a great book on this topic.

    Reply

  2. Go to their website and request your bumper-sticker, just like the picture. Show your support and make the cause known…

    Reply

  3. Posted by AweStruck on July 4, 2010 at 12:27 AM

    An agenda from 1987? No one has come up with anything since 1987? It appears that whatever this group wants to make up they call Animal Welfare and anyone who disagrees with them are Animal Rightists. Here’s a real definition of animal welfare, “Animal welfare is the viewpoint that some or all animals, especially those under human care, should be treated in such a way that they do not suffer unnecessarily.” Livestock producers pay for HumaneWatch which is a Rick Berman subsidiary and then they quote them like they are an objective source. (Look up Rick Berman’s 60 Minutes Interview called Dr Evil). Do you think you are fooling anyone other than yourselves? People do have google you know…..

    Reply

  4. Thank you, Awestruck. I never did get to see or hear that “60Minutes” segment before. Now that I’ve googled it, all I can say is, it’s obvious they brainwashed Morley Safer before that “interview.” From the start, he’s looking for ways to poke chinks in Berman’s armor. He’s already decided Berman’s a bad guy and is very skeptical, from beginning to end. And how often do you see an interview with say, Igrid or Wayne, where their opponent gets almost equal “air time” in the same space? What’s wrong with saving them for another interview? All those things said against him in the so-called “interview” could be said against the two bigwigs named above and not be a bit out of context. The PR people of course are in it for money. That’s a given. But their message is something to think about. The whole trick is to look beyond the messenger and decide for yourself what you believe is truly right and correct. Do you want to be in control of your own life, or be a zombie to big brother, with punishments if you don’t -or can’t- comply? Like the news media argued some time ago, if they can censor Larry Flynt and his magazines, it won’t be long before they are doing the same with the New York Times. In the same vein, if a bartender can cut off a drunk, why should a restaurant not cut off a fatso? (Buffets have tried that and lost, btw.) If H$U$ can take my dog because his water bowl is almost empty the moment they check, then pretty soon they’ll be taking YOURS because she has tartar buildup. (they are fighting for that now, btw.) You can google the man and find all the talk against him personally, (You can also google lots of other people and find shit against them too) but the underlying message and fight are still there. -Live and let live. Butt out of other people’s lives. the “control” thing has already gone way too far, and will only get worse. We need more Bermans to speak up!

    And no, H$U$ hasn’t really come up with anything new since ’87. Show’s the extent of Pacell’s imagination and creativity, doesn’t it?

    Reply

  5. Ms Bohling;

    You write: “You may have that (sic) organizations such as HSUS and PETA care for animals, however, things aren’t always as they appear. These organizations care about making more money and supporting/promoting an extremist agenda that advocates no interaction between humans and animals.

    Agriculture must be protected….”

    I am curious as to your reason(s) for wanting to “protect” agriculture, it appears that what you want to protect is the ability of human animals to exploit, enslave, abuse and kill non-human animals for money.

    You object to HSUS and PETA on the grounds they “care about making more money” (which is somewhat silly on the face of it, if they achieve the goals you ascribe to them, they then have no reason for existing) but you neglect to point out that the goal of animal agriculture is to make money.

    Hmmm, interesting mental gymnastics you engage in here…..if they do it…..bad, if you do it…..good.

    To reiterate, the goal of animal agriculture is to make money by exploiting, enslaving, abusing and killing non-human animals.

    I would suggest instead that you go do something that helps the planet, not something that kills innocent beings for money.

    Reply

    • Posted by DeEtta Bohling on August 19, 2010 at 2:49 PM

      Veganelder–

      First and foremost, thank you for your thoughts and comments.

      You ask why agriculture should be protected. U.S. farmers are producing food for your table, whether it’s in the form of steak, tomatoes, peaches or tofu. Besides the obvious answer of feeding a growing population, farmers are vital in producing products such as ethanol, bio-diesel, and biodegradable plastics all which are helpful to the environment.

      As David Kruse, president of CommStock Investments Inc. said, “Agriculture needs a mission statement. My suggestion would be– Agriculture’s mission is to produce healthy, bountiful food in a sustainable manner, so that people can devote fewer financial resources to their nutritional requirements, giving them more energy and resources to devote to cultural and technological development, ‘arts and science’, raising standards of living, advancing the human race.

      Agriculture accounts for 18% of the workforce and 20% of the GDP, therefore making it any easy target for blame from activist organizations.

      You are correct- agriculture, as any business, must make money in order to survive. That is no secret. Farming, however, isn’t a “get rich quick scheme”. Farmers work with the soil and animals because it’s what they love. Farming is their passion.

      Groups such as the HSUS, are not upfront with where the money from their supporters goes. In fact, in a 2010 survey, 83 percent of Americans think that HSUS supports local animal shelters. 71 percent of Americans, according to the same recent national poll from Opinion Research Corporation, believe HSUS is an umbrella group for pet shelters. If you pledge $19 a month to HSUS, less than one-half of 1 percent (.5 percent) of HSUS’ $100 million budget goes directly to animal care. Think of it this way, barely $1.15 of your $228 annual contribution will trickle down to pet shelters.

      I work for the family farmers in Kansas who produce corn and/or grain sorghum. Their strong set of morals guide them to care for animals, the environment, and their communities through church, school and non-profit organizations. I am often reminded of the positive impact American farmers have on the world when I’m driving down the highway and see the sun set over a peaceful cornfield.

      I hope you will also read my article on “Factory Farming”.

      Reply

  6. How strange… Someone responded to veganelder – YET… No post is visible. That’s the problem with deleting comments – It makes your blog (and opinions) look like they are censored. Oh wait! They are!

    You’re welcome btw for the spelling correction on “breeding” companion animals… No charge. But it would be great for “freedom of speech” if you actually left civil discussions up for examination by others. Also, it would show that you don’t feel “threatened” by another POV.

    Good day.

    Reply

    • Posted by DeEtta Bohling on August 19, 2010 at 4:46 PM

      Bea,

      This information is found under the about ksgrains tab: “Please feel free to leave your comments. Only appropriate comments will be published and discretion will be left to the Kansas Corn and Grain Sorghum staff.”

      Other POVs are certainly welcome. If you look at the comments under each post you will see a wide variety of views. Thanks for your concern.

      Reply

    • I apologize. I did not see that comment made by veganelder. It was a reaction based on past experience on other animal ag sites that normally delete comments from the other side. I commend your open mindedness in allowing reasonable discussions to continue.

      Reply

      • I share your frustration. I am still waiting for my post to appear on “The PETA Files” blog. It’s important that we continue to engage opposing POVs in conversations to better understand one another and to reach common ground. Thanks for your comments!

  7. Two sites that might be of interest regarding whose in it for the money or not:
    http://humanewatch.info/blog/2010/08/06/overcompensating/

    http://www.vegan.com/blog/2010/08/16/top-executive-compensation-hsus-vs-aaa/

    And finally, in regards to “legal protections for animals” – ownership vs. guardianship. As it stands my dishwasher has more “rights” than my dog. Sentient beings are not “things” therefore should not be regarded as such. It is high time to stop assuming we have the “right” to use nonhumans simply because we have the “might” to do so. That mind set has been the root of all exploitations, wars and poverty. Aren’t we ready as a “civilization” to evolve into a more harmonious co-existence with Others on the planet… Before it’s too late for us all?

    Reply

  8. Ms. Bohling,

    I suspect my responding is futile but here goes anyway.

    You know full well animal rights folks are interested in one thing and one thing only and that is the ending of the exploitation, enslavement and killing of non-human animals. That despicable activity is only a part of what is meant by the term agriculture….deliberately ignoring that fact doesn’t make it disappear.

    I know family farmers, I grew up in rural Oklahoma, I worked on a farm, my grandfather farmed all his life…..animals are only a part of what is meant by agriculture. Humans live quite well on plant based diets, in fact research suggests they are healthier for doing so. Animals are not necessary for food.

    You know this and you know that animal rights folks have no interest in disrupting or ending the growth of plants for food. Obfuscation does not change that fact.

    Please, being disingenuous doesn’t alter reality……the exploitation, enslavement and killing of animals for food is not necessary for agriculture nor is it necessary to provide food for humans.

    Animal rights folks believe that non-human animals have a right to live their lives without interference from human animals. This stance has nothing to do with being against non-animal based agricultural practices or being against family farmers producing food.

    Trying to pretend that animal rights supporters oppose the production of “food” is like saying someone that opposes rape is against sex. Your professional field is that of communications, precision of meaning, veracity and truthfulness are or should be strongly held values in that area. Please don’t misrepresent what animal rights folks stand for.

    Thanks

    Reply

    • Veganelder,

      I’m curious, are you okay with killing insects, snakes, and mice to harvest the plants you suggest feeding the world with? It’s simply not practical to expect to feed the world without killing another species. In fact, it’s not practical at all. It’s all a part of the food chain.

      That aside, I will say I enjoy eating meat and I’m not going to be ashamed to say so. During the animals’ time on Earth, you can be assured that they are comfortable and taken care of.

      I’m not misrepresenting what animal rights folks stand for, I’m letting you know what it looks like from an agricultural standpoint. Then again, perception is reality.

      Reply

  9. Hi… I can’t help but comment about the killing of insects, snakes, and mice during the harvest of plants which we absolutely *need* to survive. While it is unfortunate it happens without deliberate intent. It’s not as if we were breeding these beings to purposefully put them in harms way – under the threshers and blades of the harvesters. I agree it probably is impossible to feed the world without causing harm – But we can, as thoughtful people, do as little harm as possible. And even if someone were deeply concerned with the loss of lives harvesting plants… They would still opt for a plant based diet – causing less harm by eating the food directly, instead of fattening animals first.

    But if this is one’s line of reasoning… “That innocent animals are killed during plant harvesting, we might as well slaughter cows, chickens and pigs too” – It begs this question: Since there are auto crashes which harm people, we might as well just deliberately mow the crowds down anyway. That line of logic just doesn’t make sense. Causing as little harm as possible – does.

    And I too used to enjoy eating meat… I didn’t stop eating meat, eggs and dairy because of taste – but because I questioned how much does “taste” (or tradition) matter – when weighed next to what they cost in lives. And I must say, after 8 years of being “meat free” and 3 years as a vegan, even the “taste” factor is a distant shadow… There are delicious foods in an enormous abundance, that no meat eater can imagine because they are restricted to the mindset of: chicken, beef or “pork”… I know – I ate this (SAD) diet for over 50 years and have never eaten a more satisfying variety than the one I live by now.

    Finally, I’m always amazed that animal ag and “livestock” people can be so convinced that “food” animals are happy and content prior to being killed. Yet none can ever know or admit that the animal does not wish to die. Is the concept that they love their lives, just as much as any dog, cat, frog, man, squirrel or whale loves theirs, too hard to grasp? Or is it that in doing so, they would have to concede to forcing sentient beings to relinquish their existence for the frivolous pleasure of little sausages?

    I’m not misrepresenting what meat eaters stand for, I’m letting you know what it looks like from an objective animal rights standpoint. Then again, truth is reality.

    Reply

    • Thanks for informing me on your POV, Bea. It’s all very interesting.

      It is impossible for the whole world to survive on a plant based diet. There’s currently not enough plants or farmers to care for and harvest the food. Harsh winters make it difficult to grow year-round, therefore more shipments of fruits and veggies would be traveling across the United States, let alone we would likely become more dependent on other countries for food. This causes a problem, as many countries depend on us to feed them.

      Though becoming vegan was the right lifestyle choice for you, It may not be for myself and the other 97% of the population who continue to be carnivores. I believe it is up to each individual to decide what is right for them, especially when it comes to food choices.

      Thanks again for your insight.

      Reply

  10. Hello again. Don’t know where I inferred that the whole world could survive (right now) on a plant based diet. Those who could though, include myself, my neighbors, the people in the next 4 states surrounding me… And even YOU. For the most part any who have the luxury of debating this issue in the comfort of their own air conditioned environments probably don’t live 20 minutes away from the closest mega-grocery store where there are thousands of other options besides meat, eggs and dairy. I certainly didn’t meant to include the bushman or Inuits, or anyone outside of “civilization”. I thought that was understood.

    As far as shipping plant food to and fro – aren’t we already doing that by the millions of tons – To fatten animals?

    I agree we’ve lost diversity in our foods due to the massive mono-cropping… To raise “cheap” foods to fatten animals.

    It’s unfortunate that the farm bill provides less than 10% into the research to discover better vegetable, fruit and grain production – Perhaps we could tap into some of the 92% of plant based foods that aren’t grown (but could be grown) in this country. But as we all know, all the incentives are in discovering “new ways” to grow animals instead. Pity.

    And you have good cause for worry about other countries providing US nutrition… Especially after seeing that Goldman Sachs just invested $300 million in Chinese chicken farms… Following the billions already invested in foreign “poultry and pork” by Tyson and Smithfield. I’d say if these are the stellar examples of “American” food suppliers – they are bailing out for “greener pastures” and fast!

    Regarding your flesh-foods… no matter from where they are gotten – Neither you nor any human is a “carnivore”. Indeed if anyone attempted to eat a diet of “meat only” – they’d soon perish from lack of vitamins sourced from plant foods. And while we can live as omnivores… eating nearly any food – Doesn’t mean we have to.

    So in conclusion, if being vegan is the right lifestyle for me, it’s because I’ve done the critical thinking and have assessed that it’s the most rational and ethical choice to make. If 97% of the other folks don’t think so – I dare say it’s indoctrination that has kept them from thinking about what (or who) is on their plate – Or why. Most it seems lack the courage to question, following “group think” or “custom” instead. And that totally eliminates any “choice” in the matter. That’s more than a pity… It’s a tragic sin.

    Reply

    • Omnivores- right. Wow, I don’t know what I was thinking this morning.

      Again, I think its great that you feel you made the right choice to be a vegan. You are obviously very passionate about it. I too I have thought a great deal about the concept of being vegan. I am confident that each person can make the decision that best fits their lifestyle and morals. We can’t all be one or the other. Diversity is key.

      When it comes down to it- who’s to say the calm calf in a pasture is more “important” than the grasshopper in the field or the tomato plant in the garden? We all WANT to survive. The fact is, if one organism eats, another organism is sacrificed for its survival.

      I will continue to “choose” to eat meat.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: