January 23, 2008
RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATESP.O. Box 1406 Newport, WA 99156Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows E-mail US firstname.lastname@example.orgBlog http://rdows.wordpress.com E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821Judy Schreiber-Dwornick, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, email@example.comHermine Stover, Secretary, Press Liaison, CA, firstname.lastname@example.orgMary Schaeffer, Finance Director, email@example.comArizona Director, John Bowen firstname.lastname@example.orgCalifornia Director, Jan Dykema email@example.comIllinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard firstname.lastname@example.orgIndiana Director, Charles Coffman email@example.comIowa Director, Leisa Boysen firstname.lastname@example.orgMississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield email@example.comNevada Director, Ken Sondej firstname.lastname@example.orgOhio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky email@example.comOklahoma Director, Jade Harris firstname.lastname@example.orgTennessee Director, Gina Cotton email@example.comTexas Director, Alvin Crow firstname.lastname@example.org OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO ARIZONA HB2516
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States was formed October 15, 1989 to protect the civil rights, Constitutional rights, and interests of dog owners. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States takes the position that animals are valuable property. Animals are among the most ancient of traditional property of human beings.
Responsible Dog Owners is opposed to Arizona HB2516 as it violates the commerce rights of the citizen dog breeders of Arizona. If enacted as introduced HB2516 will cause the importation of pure-bred dogs bred by breeders outside of Arizona in order to meet in state demand for pets. HB2516 acts to the detriment of Arizona’s dog, and cat breeders whose ability to breed and sell pure-bred animals is curtailed by HB2516.
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States calls upon the Legislature of the state of Arizona to curtail the mass importation of animals by not for profit animal shelters, and rescue organizations that flood shelters with animals from Asia, Romania, India, and elsewhere while creating a false “animal over-population crisis” and pointing fingers of blame at responsible Arizona dog breeders. See the evidence in the articles listed below.
(1) TUFTS: FILLING EMPTY DOG POUNDS (FROM 02-06-03) http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/020603FillingEmptyPounds.htm Pet Underpopulation: The Pet Shortage in the US by Laura Baughanhttp://spanieljournal.com/33baughan.html(2) Dog imports raise fears of a resurgence of disease http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-21-dog-imports_N.htmOutbreak of Drug-Resistant Salmonella at an Animal Shelter http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/nov_dec_2004/outbreak_of_drug-resistant_salmonella.htmlDisease shuts animal shelter (Las Vegas) http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-10-Sat-2007/news/12517017.html(3) Rabies Treatment Saves One, Does Not Work for All http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267191,00.htmlHuman Rabies — Indiana and California, 2006 http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5615a1.htm(4) 8 Things You (Probably) Didn’t Know About Dog Shelters http://www.toybreeds.com/animalshelters.htmABC NEWS: 300,000 Imported Puppies Prompt Rabies Scare http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3765973&page=1
HB2516 violates the United States Constitution under the 5th, 14th Amendment, and the Commerce Clause. The state of Arizona does not hold title to the property rights of Arizona’s citizen’s animals. Animal’s genetalia belongs to the owner of the animal. Arizona dog breeders are deprived of selling as many dogs as the fair market allows. No other part of Arizona’s animal breeding industry is restricted by legislation. Cattle, and sheep ranchers are not restricted in their breeding, and sales
It is the duty, and the responsibility of the legislature to protect, and defend the rights of the people of Arizona. HB2516 is a taking of the property and use rights of Arizona’s pure-bred dog breeders. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States calls upon the Arizona State Legislature to kill HB2516.
15 December 2007 Recently Amber, a California Healthy Pets Act blogger new to the scene (and to California) wrote “Bill Hemby Chairman of PetPAC has lied so many times about AB1634 California’s Healthy Pets ACT that we lost count.” Since my curiosity was piqued, I thought I would click on the link. What to my wondering eyes did appear but a sad-faced doggie behind bars with a message “HE NEEDS OUR HELP.”Now, that’s a surprise. It is a similar sad-faced doggie just like the ones “used” by the Humane Society of the United States when they are soliciting for their donation du jour. We all know by now the woman-behind-the-man-behind-the-bill, but please add PETA and the Humane Society of the United States to the list of organizations working fast and furious behind the scenes of California Assembly Bill 1634 to remove Fluffy and Fido from the family photo! ‘Tis the season so I read on. New blogger (obviously drinking kool-aid from the California Healthy Pet punchbowl) writes: “LET’S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.” Imagine my disappointment when new blogger failed to accomplish her goal. She presented “lies”. She presented “facts”. She did NOT present the truth!! Since I had some time on my hands between decorating the tree and wrapping presents for my dog’s extensive list of canine friends, I thought “I” would help to set the record straight. I did have to take a break or two to pop more non-vegan cookies into the oven and slice a ham for our holiday gathering with friends this evening, but the importance of setting the record straight kept my fingers busily clicking away on the keyboard. New blogger is most concerned with the nature of PetPAC. Perhaps new blogger needs to delve more deeply into the nature of Social Compassion in Legislation instead, a key supporter of AB1634. Principals are Judie Mancuso, her husband Rolf Wicklund, Jane Garrison, and her husband (the chiropractor?) Mark Garrison. I do think a few of those names are PETA-esque. I wonder if they are on Ingrid Newkirk’s and Wayne Pacelle’s Christmas card lists. (Is Christmas a vegan holiday?) Why does Social Compassion in Legislation want to be just a figurehead supporter asking for donations (“click to donate”)? Wouldn’t you think they would want financial contributors to know all about their good works so that those potential contributors could delve deeper into their pockets this holiday season and SEND MONEY? If you have free time, google Social Compassion in Legislation. You will find bubkus! [also spelled bubkes or bupkis ... means you will find "nothing at all"] I thought I would share some further insight into the “coalition”. By the way, I have heard on numerous occasions by Ms. Mancuso that “hers” is a Republican coalition. Do you honestly think the puppies and kitties care if you vote Democrat or Republican? A recent press event held in Los Angeles by Lloyd Levine and “legendary” television star Bob Barker and members of the coalition informed one and all of the return of this blithering bill. Senators have had to ask Santa for fax machines throughout the State to accommodate the ensuing piles of SUPPORT or OPPOSITION faxes soon to arrive with the New Year. The Associated Press had another report recently (14 Dec) that I thought I would share with you: “PRICE WAS RIGHT, BUT THE CAR WAS WRONG, CONTESTANT SAYS” According to a lawsuit filed this week in Los Angeles Superior Court, in June 2004, a contestant on “The Price Is Right” guessed that a sports car was worth $33,495 and left the stage thinking she had just won a new 2004 Pontiac GTO Coupe. In her lawsuit against the game show, CBS Broadcasting, the auto dealership that provided the vehicle and the transportation company that delivered it, the contestant alleges the GTO Coupe she received was not new, as she had been promised, and had been in an accident. When she took the car, which arrived in her home state of Washington in September 2004, in for service the next year, she was told that it had suffered structural damage to the frame and front end, “but the repair work was such that an obvious effort had been made to conceal or hide the damage.” OOPS! For full text of above referenced AP article, please click here:
Okay, where was I? Oh, I remember. Back to setting the record straight. Let’s chat awhile about pet overpopulation. Do you know that there is actually a SHORTAGE OF ADOPTABLE DOGS in the United States? Let me repeat for those AB1634 “supporters” who might be reading challenged. There is actually a SHORTAGE OF ADOPTABLE DOGS in the United States!! Do you know that there is a prison program offered by the Marin Humane Society? Oh, I see a potential problem looming. Perhaps the California Healthy Pet “supporters” are geographically challenged and are NOT aware that the Marin Humane Society is located in CALIFORNIA!! Perhaps the California Healthy Pet “supporters” are NOT aware that the Marin Humane Society is located in NOVATO, CALIFORNIA, only 100 miles from Santa Cruz, CA, the sacred capitol of all things right with sheltering according to Assembly Member Lloyd Levine and the coalition. What’s that? You don’t remember Santa Cruz being a role model to emulate? Just this week it was announced in Santa Cruz County that their Animal Services Authority General Manager, Katherine Vos, was ousted! Loyal shelter workers staged a sickout. Both volunteers and employees were AFRAID TO SPEAK TO THE MEDIA … for fear of losing their jobs! Why is that? What could possibly be gleaned by this change in command in Santa Cruz? Someone wouldn’t be trying to “conceal or hide” anything, would they? In response to the article about Katherine Vos leaving Santa Cruz, I thought I would do a bit of my own homework. Here is some interesting information straight from the minutes of the Santa Cruz Board meetings: Dec 2007: It is announced that Animal Services Authority (ASA) General Manager, Katherine Vos, will leave in January 2008. [Was it politically motivated??? ] Let’s go back. April 2007: Newly appointed General Manager to the ASA, Katherine Vos, is introduced to the Board. May 2007: Lisa Carter, Executive Director of the SPCA, encouraged the board to endorse the California Healthy Pet Act, AB 1634. [This is the same woman who just happened to call-in to the recent KGO radio program with Judie Mancuso. Interesting how Lisa always gets on every radio program that Ms. Mancuso is doing. To be fair, KGO's radio host did describe Lisa as "one of her dearest friends."] To continue setting the record straight, the County of Santa Cruz took over animal-control services and the bulk of sheltering in 2002 amid a FINANCIAL SCANDAL at the local SPCA. The SPCA now serves as an advocacy and education group but does NOT handle shelters!! (see below) Financial scandal? Doesn’t handle shelters? OOPS! At the Board meeting in May, Ms. Carter passed out a copy of the California Healthy Pet Act and a list of sponsors and supporters. Please note the following: BOARD ACTION: The Board recommended staff put this item on the next agenda for a vote with a copy of the bill and a comprehensive analysis. [If Santa Cruz has been consistently touted as Lloyd Levine's "model," then wouldn't they jump at the chance to support the bill? This appears odd to me.] Annette Hogue, Watsonville Shelter Volunteer wanted to show her support for the California Healthy Pet Act, AB 1634. Sammy Ettenger, SPCA, explained the difference in understanding of the California Healthy Pet Act, AB 1634. Lynne Achterberg, Project Purr, handed out their newsletter. [And "still" the Board took no action to "support" the bill despite the fact that Santa Cruz is the RECOMMENDED STATE ROLE MODEL for the California Healthy Pet Act?] Let’s look further. June 2007: BOARD ACTION: Take no action on the bill at this time. Board directed General Manager to draft a letter with comments in regards to Santa Cruz ordinance verses the AB1634 bill. [Even though "supporters" were pushing AB1634 down the throats of the Board members via feeding tube, the BOARD STILL TOOK NO ACTION!] Sept 2007: BOARD ACTION: Accept and file report and directed the ASA General Manager to bring back to the board an update on efforts made to decrease the euthanasia rates at the Santa Cruz County Animal Services Authority Shelters. [What's this? Santa Cruz needs to DECREASE THEIR RATE OF EUTHANASIA? Do you think Lloyd Levine knows about this? Do you think Lloyd Levine cares? Let's go a bit further down memory lane together, shall we? Gotta set the record straight!] May 2003: On April 26, 2003 through April 28, 2003, the Santa Cruz Sentinel published an expose of the issues surrounding the Santa Cruz SPCA and how it led to the creation of the ASA. In addition to the SPCA article of April 26th, an article regarding the status of the ASA and it’s role in the delivery of animal services was published. These articles have drawn considerable attention to the agency. OOPS!! An expose? Missing funds? Corruption? And shelter shutdown? Sept 2003: FIELD SERVICES: In late September, with a full complement of Animal Control staff on board, we will be refining our animal control dispatch services with a training day on the enhanced uses of our Chameleon animal control data base system. In addition to this training, our new clerk/dispatcher will be spending a day at NetCom learning some basic dispatch procedures that can assist us in our own operations. [Hmmmm..... This couldn't be the same Chameleon animal control data base system that Ed Boks, General Manager at LA Animal Services and California Healthy Pets Act coalition member, is using, could it? Must be a coincidence. I do recall reading on a few occasions by another well-researched blogger that Chameleon is Ed's software-of-choice for "cooking the books"! Not my choice of words but interesting nonetheless, eh?] Nov 2003: Accepted a report from the General Manager. Animal Control and shelter activity has continued to increase over prior months. In addition, there has been a noticeable increase in field activity such as animal biting incidents and barking dog complaints. [What's this? Animal biting incidents? I didn't think this was possible with spayed and neutered dogs according to Lloyd Levine and Judie Mancuso. Could this possibly mean that Santa Cruz is failing in accomplishing their goal? Santa Cruz canines nibbling on neighbors and chomping on the postman and the meter reader?] Here is more from the Board meeting in November 2003. The shelter has gained in traffic through the facility. The latter is reflected in the ASA’s increase in revenue generated in Humane Services, which included adoptions, reclaim fees and other shelter-related activities. Staffing has consistently presented a problem in our response to the workload created by this increase in shelter visits by the public. [It appears then that this is a "revenue generating" bill? Is that what Levine and Mancuso mean when they say "SAVE MONEY, SAVE LIVES"? Has Mr. Levine NOT read the part in the Santa Cruz Board meeting minutes that staffing has consistently been presented with problems with the ADDITIONALLY CREATED WORKLOAD caused by MSN? Isn't AB1634 the cure-all feel-good bill of the future?] The California Healthy Pets website says communities will be SAFER. They drool on by informing that “Mandatory spaying and neutering will reduce the dangers caused by roaming stray animals, the transmission of rabies, and injuries from dog bites. Unaltered dogs are three times more likely to attack humans and other pets.” Since Santa Cruz field authorities state that there is a noticeable increase in field activities such as animal biting incidents WITH mandatory spay/neuter, it would appear that “mandatory” spaying and neutering is DETRIMENTAL to communities and NOT SAFER! OOPS! Must be an oversight on the California Healthy Pets website. I do hope their new blogger is reading this! Here is a link to the recent Santa Cruz Sentinel article “Animal Shelter Workers Protest Leader’s Departure” (12 Dec 2007) <http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/story.php?storySection =Local&sid=51502> It appears the first paragraph explains things quite nicely. Workers suspected that Katherine Vos resigned Monday “under pressure.” The article also states that “workers declined to comment to the press on Tuesday in fear of losing their positions.” Some shelter workers called in sick on Tuesday to protest a decision they said was “forced on them.” Vos, the second general manager to oversee shelters in Scotts Valley and Watsonville since the county agency was formed in 2002, stated “I know there’s been a lot of dissension about me leaving and this is not what I wanted.” (The shelters house a combined 6,500 animals.) The county took over animal-control services and the bulk of sheltering in 2002, amid a FINANCIAL SCANDAL at the local SPCA. The SPCA now serves as an advocacy and education group but does not handle shelters. The Animal Services Authority is governed by a board of city and county administrators and law enforcement heads. Only one elected official, Sheriff Steve Robbins, serves on the board. Vos has worked in animal sheltering and enforcement for more than 25 years, and is vice president of the state Animal Control Directors Association. Before coming to Santa Cruz she worked as chief animal control officer for El Dorado County and chief animal care officer for Sacramento Animal Care Services. [Wouldn’t you think Santa Cruz would want to keep the VP of the Animal Control Directors Association on their payroll?] Continuing on setting the record straight, here is a link to an article about “Taiwanese” dogs in the State of California. <http://www.cooldoghalloffame.com/rescue-dog-hall-of-fame/prison-program-turns-problem-dogs-into-pets/1377> From the San Francisco Chronicle (14 Dec). “Taiwan? There are dogs in shelters here from Taiwan? Yes, there are. In some parts of the United States there is a shortage of adoptable dogs, not an overpopulation. Dogs are being imported to the U.S. from Puerto Rico to as far away as Taiwan to fill shelters here so people can adopt them. It’s currently easy to import dogs into the U.S. though, as diseases like the canine version of rabies are eliminated here, more people are worrying about the diseases that such dogs may bring with them into this country.” [Thanks to Cool Dog Hall of Fame!] “PRISON PROGRAM TURNS PROBLEM DOGS INTO PETS” Last year, Melody was just another typical mongrel from Taiwan: sharp features, pointy ears, curly tail. [please click on above link for full text of article] In closing, Santa Cruz MSN is a miserable failure. No “ifs”, “ands” or “buts” about it. It failed. Plain and simple. However, Lloyd Levine and Judie Mancuso are going to continue beating a dead horse. By the way, when I asked Ms. Mancuso in October 2007 the following question, “Judie, whose bill is this? Yours? Or Lloyd’s?” Her reply was swift. “Why it is MY BILL, of course! Lloyd is busy with his Senate campaign.” I had no idea that Ms. Mancuso was now an elected official. I must have missed that part. My bad. The Santa Cruz shelter statistics that are being utilized by the coalition are unverifiable. Please note that when mandatory spay/neuter was first implemented in Santa Cruz (1995-1997), sky rockets were going off. Impounds and euthanasia went through the roof. There is NOTHING “healthy” about AB1634. This unfunded bill will cost the State of California MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. The California Healthy Pets Act will NOT save the state ANY money. It will NOT save lives. Thousands more dogs and cats will lose their lives in shelter “death camps” needlessly throughout the state! Let’s kick this bill to the curb and get back to what we all love … our companion animals. Make 2008 the year that this legislation goes to that great big doghouse in the sky. NOW the record has been set straight! Happy Holidays,Brat Zinsmaster P.S. Please feel free to share this “record” with your Assembly Members and Senators, with your local news media (print and radio), with your local shelters, the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker. Permission to cross post is encouraged!
October 10, 2007
Baltimore County Councilman Vince Gardina who was elected to serve the 5th district is using his position to attempt to target certain dog owners. Unfortunately he isn’t targeting the negligent, or irresponsible dog owners he is targeting owners of specific breeds of dogs, and owners of dogs having a certain physical appearance. Yes!! You guessed it Vince Gardina is targeting the mythological monster “pit bull”.
Since “pit bull” isn’t a breed of record, Councilman Gardina has decided to target low density, low population breeds, that to the best of our research and knowledge, finds that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a breed has not been involved in one bite incident in North America since their recognition by the American Kennel Club in 1972. The American Staffordshire Terrier has three bites to its record since its recognition by the AKC in 1936, and no fatalities, and the American Pit Bull Terrier has only one record of a pure-bred registered dog being involved in a fatal bite incident it was in the 1980′s, and involved an unsupervised toddler. These breeds and their owners are being singled out for extraordinary treatment under the law for incidences done by undocumented dogs of questionable background. All provably pure-bred dogs have documented proof of registration, and of pedigree. Any dog that has no documentation is not provably pure-bred.
Councilman Gardina is quick to spout urban myth as truth, and to embroider upon it by comparing living, breathing flesh and blood animals to inanimate firearms. Mr. Gardina apparently believes that there is such a thing as a supernatural dog. A dog that is more cunning than the drooling idiot, genetic genius breeders are capable of out-thinking, controlling, or containing.
And who could blame him when newspapers, and media reports are full of the stuff of which myths are created? The dogs that appear out of nowhere, that can disappear that can “lock their jaws”, that can escape like Harry Houdini, that are larger than life, and evil incarnate. It is interesting that media reports concerning “pit bulls” take on a sinister quality that surrounds no other breeds of dogs even when they are involved in a human fatality. “Pit bull” articles always play up the “dangerousness” of the dogs even when it is supposedly a positive article.
Councilman Gardina take a tip from Mark Twain, it is as true today as when it was written; “It has become a sarcastic proverb that a thing must be true if you saw it in a newspaper. That is the opinion intelligent people have of that lying vehicle in a nutshell. But the trouble is that the stupid people–who constitute the grand overwhelming majority of this and all other nations–do believe and are moulded and convinced by what they get out of a newspaper, and there is where the harm lies.”
- “License of the Press” speech
Councilman Gardina prefers the myth to the truth. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States among other national organizations has sent reams of factual, useful, and sound information to Councilman Gardina’s office. Councilman Gardina is blissfully wed to his Pit Bull Bill. Although he knows that there wont be enough vote to pass it. Councilman Gardina will take his Bill to a vote October 15. It is really a stunning shame that Councilman Gardina doesn’t want to apply equal treatment for all dog owners, and equal protection from all dogs to his Bill. He would rather discriminate, and pass arbitrary legislation that is based simply upon his personal bias, and has nothing to do with reality, or legality.
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
September 25, 2007
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Have you ever noticed that the animal rights movement wants to sell us all on imitations? They claim that meat is murder, fish is poison, fur is cruel, leather is something terrible, hunting, and fishing are torture, and want us to replace all of these ancient traditions with fake stuff that looks, smells, and supposedly tastes like the real thing. Is this truly abhorrence, or is it flattery? In my delicate sensibilities, I find fecal matter most abhorrent. I do not make things that look like, smell like, or taste like fecal matter. The animal rights movement touts foods that not only are shaped to look like meat, or seafood, smell like meat, or seafood, and taste like meat, or seafood, they want us to believe that it will save the world. Where is the logic in that? Are they going to plug a super volcano, or catch a stray asteroid with this stuff? They state that fake fur is so realistic it is difficult to tell from the real thing. If I really thought that wearing fur was murder, I would not wrap myself in an imitation, and talk about the glamour of faking something that I believed was akin to murder. Would you? Think about that the next time that you see an animal rights devotee flaunting their imitations. Leather? Why, oh why does imitation leather excite these people so much? Wouldn’t a cotton rope hold up their pants, and make more of a statement than a cheap piece of imitation leather? Why not wear woven grass shoes instead of plastic? Their feet would be able to breathe, and they would put less stress on the oil industry. Wait! I’m trying to apply logic to the animal rights movement. That is like trying to apply logic to the beliefs, and actions of a cult. No how, no way does logic fit into the equation of animal rights. The animal rights most devious imitation is their pretence of compassion for animals. Under the guise of compassion their ultimate goal is the abolition of all animal ownership, and use. Compassion does not have an agenda of annihilation. Real compassion for animals does not exploit them as the animal rights movement is so prone to do. Real compassion is caring, nurturing, and preserving. Real compassion is calm, steady, loving, educational, and generous. Real compassion is not confrontational, filled with lies, and geared toward destruction. Real compassion does not steal from the rightful owner. Real compassion looks like Mother Theresa, not like Ingrid Newkirk, Wayne Pacelle, or Tammy Grimes. The animal rights movement has a twelve step program (Hmmm, another imitation). Surely there is one or even two items with which you find that you can agree. This is how they hook people. We cannot look at a tiny portion, we must look at it as a whole, and see that taken all together it is poison. These are the twelve steps of the animal rights agenda. 1. Abolish by law all animal research. 2. Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing, and classroom demonstration 3. Vegetarian meals should be at all public institutions, including schools. 4. Eliminate all animal agriculture. 5. Eliminate all herbicides, pesticides or other agricultural chemicals. Outlaw predator control 6. Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the Department of Agriculture. 7. Eliminate fur ranching and the use of furs. 8. Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing. 9. End the international trade in wildlife goods. 10. Stop any further breeding of companion animals, including purebred dogs and cats. Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by state and municipal governments until all companion animals are extinct. Abolish commerce in animals for the pet trade. Eliminate pet ownership. 11. End the use of animals in entertainment and sports (resulting in no horse shows, cat or dog shows, animal actors, rodeos, animal movie stars). 12. Prohibit the genetic manipulation of the species The great animal/agriculture industry is the backbone of our nation. It is the basis for our wealth, and for our ability to not only feed ourselves, but the world. It is the basis for our economy that makes us the richest nation on earth. It allows our great generosity to nations that do not have the ability to feed their people. Without the animal/agriculture industry our economy would collapse. Without research on animals veterinary medicine would make no advances, nor would human medicine. Hunting, trapping, and fishing are the most ancient of human traditions. Each gives us the ability to feed ourselves, or clothe ourselves. The trade in wildlife goods is as old as human kind. We human beings have practiced animal husbandry since before we became an agrarian society. Are you noticing that the entire animal rights agenda is about removing all of our most ancient and traditional ways of life? Before we had pesticides we had massive crop failures. We still have crop failures that are weather related, but we also have the ability to mass transport foods. We must never forget history. We must never give up our real humanity. The animal rights movement is not about compassion for animals, but about recreating humanity into a cheap imitation of the real thing. Since most people live in cities today, it is romantic to dream about a Utopian world where our ancient traditions, and skills are unnecessary. Food does not originate in supermarkets. We are just one super volcano eruption, or one major asteroid strike from being tossed out of technology back into self sufficiency. It behooves us to cherish our traditions, and to hone our skills. Any time in history that there have been conflicts there have been food shortages. Just because we live in the most abundant time in recorded history does not mean that it will last forever. Cherie Graves, chairwoman Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States http://www.povn.com/rdows http://rdows.wordpress.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BSL56-UAOA http://www.unitedAnimalownersalliance.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RDOWS