Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Riot
The "animal rights" movement in the US is strong and frankly, quite dangerous.
There is a huge difference between the concepts of animal rights and animal welfare. I think it's quite important for people to be quite clear in their minds where they, themselves, stand - and from where authors or speakers are coming from when these topics are discussed.
For example, there is currently a bill in committee in CA that makes it mandatory that any dog or cat living in the state be spayed/neutered. Sounds fairly harmless, no? But the ultimate intent and result of this bill, if it is passed, is the elimination of private ownership of pets in CA. Last year, a bill taking away the right to hunt was narrowly defeated in that state.
PETA has long been recognized by the FBI as a domestic terrorist organization, and The Humane Society of the United States, under president Wayne Parcell, has the publically stated goal of eliminating all private ownership of dogs and cats in the US.
Neither organization, although taking in millions of dollars in donations from well-intentioned folks wanting to "help animals", does anything in the least to help animals. Their intent is quite the opposite.
Horse racing hasn't yet been the focused target of either of these organizations (it's a power/money issue) - but it will be some day.
I urge anyone with a serious or vested interest in animal welfare to be very, very cautious, and very, very well-educated, about what "causes" or "groups" one supports, when it comes to "animal" issues.
|
I didn't get to read the article cause I don't link to AOL.
Maybe someone could post it.
Is there an opinion about greyhounds? Cock fighting? Siamese fighting fish (betas)?
Heck, I even bet on male rats in a cage if there's a female rat nearby.
So, what's the problem?
President Bush is even betting with humans in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What's the difference?
The amount of the bet or the amount of the blood?
Hmmmmmm.....