Pet Sitting Ipswich, QLD - Blog

Winograd's No Kill - More Harm than Good?

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 04:33:58 GMT

Nathan Winograd is a US lawyer and devout vegan who parted ways with PETA when he found out they killed homeless animals. He is considered to be the leader of the No Kill movement which has charged through US animal shelters.

Reforming shelters is part of his overall goal of granting animals the same legal rights as humans, such as the 'right to life', including making euthanasia illegal. This means making it illegal to kill animals for food. Shelters may be sued for disputed euthanasia decisions. Winograd has initiated lawsuits over individual animals euthanised.

Winograd's views seem to have much in common with animal rights philosopher Gary Francione - he has a no-compromise view about veganism and dissection in schools. Winograd was proud of his daughter for 'rescuing' a maggot from being dissected at school. He also feeds feral cats and has over 20 cats of his own. Francione believes pets are inconsistent with animal rights, whereas Winograd believes that keeping 'companion animals' are do not contradict animal rights.

No Kill sounded good at first, although idealistic, until I researched it further and found out there was more to be concerned about than just a misleading name.

Winograd is intolerant other views and accused me of 'hiding behind pragmatism'. Actually, I don't 'hide' behind pragmatism. I take a pragmatic approach (no hiding necessary) because I accept the reality that life and nature are both beautiful and cruel.

I have a science background and understand how it's a fact of life that animals eat each other and nature isn't free of 'cruelty'. Science is ethically and morally neutral and is knowledge gained from real evidence, not philosophical idealogies. That is why I support animal welfare as a compassionate and realistic approach, not animal 'rights' philosophies (which are anti-science and not in the 'real' world).

Winograd bans people (including me) for disagreeing with him. Winograd seems to see ethics and morals as absolute truths. 'Thou shall not kill'. Reminds me of religious fundamentalism - legalistic, unhealthy and unrealistic as ethics are not black-and-white.

I found him frustrating to try to dialogue with - he is touchy about being considered to have 'extreme' views and twisted my words and accused me of making personal attacks (which I thought was ironic and hypocritical of him given his own venomous attacks on his blog and Facebook page).

Winograd publicly condemns shelters that fail to achieve his no-kill targets 'overnight' via mandatory programs. PETA and Winograd have engaged in cyber-war with inflammatory attacks over their polar opposite positions about shelters. Winograd throws cyber-grenades at PETA, HSUS, and ASPCA and anyone that disagrees with him. PETA throws cyber-missiles back.

Winograd believes PETA is a political cult. Ironically, he fails to see how his movement has the same cult-like features he accuses PETA of having. "In a cult, any information from outside the cult is considered evil, especially if it is opposing the cult. Cults train their members to reject any critical information given to them, and to not even entertain the thought that the information might be true." Nathan Wingrad, PETA - a Cult-ure of Killing blog post

Decisions made weighing up keeping an animal alive and ending suffering are subjective. Quality of life and suffering are in conflict. One cannot have high quality of life with immense suffering. For chronic and severe suffering without hope, I support euthanasia. I would support euthanasia in humans too, but some humans would abuse this, therefore I would be extremely cautious about legislation for this.

Pragmatic euthanasia decisions are made on a case by case basis after weighing up quality of life, amount of suffering and resources available (money, food, volunteers, facilities, veterinary, treatments, rehabilitation programs etc). Keeping an animal alive and allowing it to suffer is cruel. Not making attempts to re-home animals is irresponsible.

'Right to live' (Winograd's view) and 'freedom from suffering' (PETA's view) are in conflict. PETA are pro-not-suffer-now-or-in-the-future at the expense of life. No Kill is pro-life (of an animal) at the expense of suffering (and the expense of humans, including children). There is no balance, no middle ground. Winograd refers to shelters that don't embrace No-Kill as Kill shelters. Only two options. If a shelter saves 80% of animals, Winograd condemns the shelter for the 20% that weren't.

PETA and Winograd's No Kill are two opposite extremes on a continuum that is pro-life at one end and 'no-suffer' at the other. I can see where both are coming from, but disagree with both positions. I think the healthiest position for a shelter to aim for is the 'pro-life' end of the continuum, but balance with resources available and community needs too, not just that of the animals. In an ideal world, no healthy animals would be euthanised. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a real world, where pain, suffering and death are a fact of life.

PETA is too quick to kill and takes their 'no suffer' justification to the extreme. They justify killing feral cats to prevent 'future' suffering. Like most animal activists, they equate pain as suffering (hence not killing for food). Pain is a survival mechanism and a fact of life. Chronic, sustained, intense pain is suffering. Winograd asserts that PETA kill because they 'enjoy killing'. I don't see that in my research on PETA. It's not that PETA 'love' to kill, it's that they tip the balance heavily in favour of killing to end suffering and are extremely broad in their interpretation of suffering (dogs being told to get of the couch is considered to be 'suffering').

Winograd takes an animal's 'right' to live to the extreme. In trying to feed and save feral cats (and rejecting science-based conservation programs that aim for all species to thrive), he is actually supporting killing of other animals (and cats don't tend to kill quickly, resulting in suffering). He evokes outrage with images of aborted kittens during spaying surgeries. This reminds me of how extreme pro-lifers for humans spread images of aborted humans. Winograd seeks to make euthanasia illegal on moral grounds, just as extreme pro-lifers for humans want abortion to be illegal on moral grounds.

As much as I dislike that abortions and euthanasia happens, making it illegal and condemning and generating hate does more damage than just ignoring the situation. Education will go much further to reduce abortions and help people understand that morals and ethics are not black-and-white for complex issues.

Deciding which animals are 'adoptable' is subjective. Dogs with aggression issues may be re-homed without adequate rehabilitation so are a public safety hazard. It is irresponsible to put animals back out in the community that have a high risk of inflicting harm on children. It's not the dog's fault if it has aggression problems - how it was treated and socialised early in life is very important and educating people in that area will help prevent dogs being dumped at shelters. There's a bigger picture to address than just the shelters in isolation.

An ugly blood-red stain is seeping through the glittery superficial foil of No Kill. The truth is emerging that No Kill is harming animals. Shelters run to strict no kill targets fudge figures and make decisions that result in animal cruelty and danger to the public. Hoarding, cruelty and maulings and suffering have increased with No Kill. How are shelters be expected to report honest figures if they will be condemned if they don't meet targets?

No Kill shelters and rescues are limited admission not open admission. They pick and choose. They only accept animals that they have a good chance of adopting. Not terminally ill, elderly, severely injured and extremely aggressive animals that open admission shelters take. I've seen Australian No Kill rescues and shelters with 'no vacancy' on their websites.

Where do the rejected animals end up if No Kill doesn't take them? And what happens when funds are low or there is a seasonal influx of animals? They get dumped or they get transferred to shelters that make the best decision they can for the animal and public safety (and then get vilified by No Kill advocates).

SPCA shelters are run independently - many are run with a pragmatic approach adopting out as many animals as they can without compromising animal welfare. A few have been converted to No Kill. A woman that volunteered with local shelters and rescues told me her local No Kill SPCA sends dogs to the pound to be killed to keep up appearances with their statistics. She is disillusioned with 'rescues' she has been involved with - hoarding animals with substandard care (especially cats), having lots of money in the bank but turning away certain dog breeds they are prejudiced against.

PETA retaliated after sustained attacks by Winograd. PETA went undercover to expose No Kill shelters and rescues. Dozens of shelters were full and unable to take animals. Some said animals were expected to spend the rest of their lives (10+ years) there. Some admitted they 'pick and choose'.

Or there is a 'please adopt a pet now before they die' campaign that may result in people taking pets without fully committing to their care. Or the shelter goes broke and closes down (failing more animals). Or a shelter fails to meet animal's welfare needs such as veterinary treatment, food, hygiene etc. The list of failed No Kill shelters keeps getting longer.

Or they end up in hoarding situations with neglect and cruelty. Like Caboodle Ranch, a No Kill 'sanctuary' that hoarded and neglected hundreds of cats. Sick cats living in their own filth. Many with horrific and painful diseases. ASPCA's biggest rescue effort in 146 years since it was founded. Rescued from a 'rescue'. Warning: this video shows sick, neglected cats in filthy conditions.

Or they end up caged and warehoused, suffering until they die. Over 300 pitbulls were warehoused in filthy crates at Spindletop Dog Refuge. In crates so small they couldn't turn around or get away from their waste.

PETA say "there are fates worse than death", which Winograd dismisses as fallacy. I disagree with PETA about practically everything, but I do agree with PETA here (but disagree extremely at what they consider to be 'suffering'). Horrific suffering is a worse fate than death. No Kill inflicts suffering on animals. What is the point of fighting for an animals 'right' to live if you steal away their quality of life by inflicting horrific cruelty on them?

Winograd fails to acknowledge the long trail of failed No Kill shelters and rescues that were closed down because of animal cruelty. Former No Kill fans have been disillusioned by bullying tactics. Shelters are blamed and not supported. They're told what to do but not how to get there. And condemnation when they don't achieve the 90% save targets (No Kill allows 10% killing).

Blackmail and lawsuits are the weapons of no-kill. Winograd threatens legal action to any organisation or individual that disagrees with him. No Kill converts are ready to fire death threats and hate campaigns against shelters and individuals. How does this help the animals?

Winograd denies pet overpopulation exists - speculative figures become 'facts'. I suspect PETA exaggerates pet 'overpopulation' but Winograd's insistence that pet overpopulation is a myth may result in complacency about breeding. No Kill is dishonest and is doing more harm than good for homeless animals.

In addition to contributing to more suffering than animals saved, No Kill converts aggressively vilify everyone they see to be 'the enemy' (PETA, HSUS, ASPCA, RSPCA and anyone that questions No Kill). They put out propaganda "Shelter X Kills!" which is hypocritical, because No Kill kills too (and contributes to prolonged cruelty and neglect - Slow Kills). I've seen photos shared on Facebook of euthanised dogs blaming shelters for killing them as though they are callous sadists.

Sadly, No Kill fanaticism has spread to Australia with the same authoritarian, aggressive tactics that ploughed through the US. I see the No Kill movement as a cult that is inflicting harm for animals and harm for the general public.

How does making euthanasia illegal going to help animals? Lawsuits against people that are faced with making the difficult choices will make things worse. I'm glad that euthanasia is available. Like many pet owners, I've had to make that call when a beloved pet's terminal suffering outweighed their quality of life. Not everyone will agree on exactly when that point is - I've known pet owners that will delay euthanasia because they don't want to let go.

But for vets, shelters and pet owners to face being sued because of disagreements of euthanasia choices? That is a disturbing prospect. Will shelters and vets get bombed by activists like abortion clinics do? Will vets and shelter directors get death threats? They already do.

How is suing everyone that disagrees with someone helping animals? It doesn't. It just enables further preaching of the Winogradian No Kill gospel and more money for legal fees to bully people into silence. And leads to increased suffering because of fears of being sued. Closed shelters can't help animals.

How does putting good shelters out of business help animals? It doesn't. Lawsuits and media tactics ('Shelter X killed this dog') over individual shelter euthanasia decisions that generate hate mail and death threats. Including shelters with over 95% save rates! Winograd and his converts play judge and jury over individual euthanasia decisions and resort to bullying tactics.

Paid ads by No Kill disciple John Sibley to vilify a shelter, Waggin Train with over 95% save rate over one euthanasia decision

How does publicly condemning shelters that have to make the decisions of weighing up life and suffering help the animals (and the public)? It doesn't. All it does is poison the public against authentic welfare charities that actually do hands on work saving animals and reducing cruelty.

Appeals are made 'click here to donate' on-line to 'rescues' who pull animals from shelters but may neglect to spend money on animals needing veterinary treatment etc. More animals suffer a cruel, slow death and more children are mauled by dogs that shouldn't have been adopted out.

Our animals need a realistic ,honest and flexible approach in reducing euthanasia. Not condemnation, rigid ideologies and intimidation that put shelters at war with each other and take the focus of solving the problem and moving in a positive direction.

Reducing euthanasia is a complex issue that isn't going to be solved by blaming shelters or treating it as a quick fix based on flawed philosophies. Winograd's rigid 'equations' and percentages are produced from speculation on pet population and number of pets people might be looking to add to their households. Blaming shelters and supplying a 'quick fix' without support is short-sighted. Tackling the issues of euthanasia is requires looking at the bigger picture. A collaborative approach with the community to achieving responsible breeding and responsible pet ownership.

While I dislike the term 'balanced no-kill' in the image below, I agree with a balanced approach to addressing euthanasia. A co-operative, sustainable, realistic and responsible view that balances the needs of animals with the needs of the community. I hope that Australia will learn lessons from shelter reform in the US and not repeat the same mistakes.

Whatever it is called, 'Low Kill', 'Less Kill', 'More Save' or something more catchy, I believe the healthiest place to strive for is on Winograd's side of the no-kill/no-suffer continuum, but without the aggressive fixation with numbers and associated condemnation. Not an over-simplistic one-size-fits-all formula - as shelters, demographics and resources available are not the same in all towns and cities and ethics can't be packaged up into a formula.

The city of Calgary in Canada has developed a collaborative animal management model that has been hailed as a huge success (but Winograd still rejects it as pushes his own model). Instead of fighting, blaming the public and blaming shelters, they have collaborated with the community to put programs into place that includes education on responsible pet ownership, licencing pets as a 'ticket home' for lost pets (with low licencing fees and reducing impounding fees) and spaying and neutering. Not only are there dramatically decreased nuisance complaints, but euthanasia rates have dramatically reduced as a spin-off.

Oscar's Law & Puppy Farms

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:00:58 GMT

Debra Tranter is the founder of Prisoners for Profit and Oscar's Law. Oscar's law was founded in 2010 as a single focus campaign to abolish puppy farming. The public is led to believe that Australia is plagued by horrific, dark, damp prisons that churn out 'designer' dogs and that Oscar's Law will 'rescue' them like little Oscar.

Oscar's Law is a slick brand with support from animal businesses, celebrities and pet lovers everywhere wearing "I want Oscar's Law" merchandise. Oscar, the celebrity dog of Oscar's Law was 'rescued' by Tranter then was seized by police as stolen property and then was finally purchased. Oscar is the ideal poster fur-child for a puppy farm campaign - he had matted fur and is now Tranter's cute and fluffy pet. He pulls heartstrings and the public open their wallets.

Oscar's Law from website

Oscar's Law on letter for supporters to send to MPs. Note "Make factory farming of dogs illegal"

The term 'puppy farmer' is viewed as derogatory. The word 'farmer' (of cows, chickens etc) now has negative connotations thanks to sustained attacks by animal activists. Most city people will never have been to a farm or a slaughterhouse and seen for themselves. Animal rights activists claim to expose what goes on in farms, slaughterhouses and puppy farms. Their motives are animal liberation and therefore cannot be trusted to provide an honest and fair representation.

Sensationalist stories and photos to 'prove' abuse and neglect evoke outrage and donations. Activists utilise media including social media to spread propaganda and gain supporters and donations.

Labradoodle breeders are recent targets of smear campaigns. There are two sides to every story. Anyone can take a bad photo and put a bad story with it completely out of context. The 'depressed' and 'neglected' dogs I saw in the photos looked like they had rolled in dirt and there was some dog poop that needed scooping. They looked otherwise healthy. The kennel area looked a bit run down, but dogs don't care about superficial things like that.

The 'investigators' didn't photograph the large yards etc. Apparently RSPCA was called in to investigate and they identified a few minor hygiene matters that needed addressing.

But the damage has been done. Activists don't care about accuracy and whether they ruin someone's life with harrassment and exaggerated claims evoking public hatred. They want to shut businesses down - 'for the animals'.

Propaganda is spread wide and far on TV and the internet - there doesn't seem to be any such thing as investigative journalism these days. They just use the supplied distorted footage from activists. Tranter has quite a cult following and there are numerous viscous attacks by Tranter and her followers on Facebook and her blog.

There is no Oscar's 'Law'

Tranter refuses to provide any specific detail such as definitions for subjective terms such as 'puppy farm', 'ethic breeding' or even an Oscar's Law draft document (it doesn't exist) - one can't be sure of what exactly they are supporting. She attacks any attempts to regulate pet breeding and sales. She accuses such attempts as promoting puppy farming. Tranter considers the Pet Industry Association of Australia (PIAA), RSPCA, councils, pet shops and anyone that questions her to be enemies.

Tranter refuses to provide definitions are for subjective terms such as 'puppy farmer', 'commercial breeder', 'ethical breeder' etc. Anyone making The letter for the public to send to MPs said "Make factory farming of dogs illegal." Most breeders including purebred breeders could be considered to be 'farming puppies for profit.'

from Oscar's Law 'about' page on Facebook.

From the bottom of the 'about' section on Oscar's Law Facebook page: "You can help fight the genocide in Australia's pounds, promote rescue organisations.....Adoption is the intelligent alternative....No puppy factory whether it is 'clean,' 'model', 'state of the art' or otherwise..."

Without specific definitions on what a 'puppy factory' is, that means every breeder could be considered to be a 'factory'. How many dogs? How many litters? What size accommodations? How much human interaction?

She seems unconcerned that all breeders including 'ethical' breeders are getting painted with the same 'puppy farm' brush. She comes across as vague and contradictory. Whether she's deliberately being deceptive or whether she's a pawn in animal rights politics, it doesn't really matter. Her 'helping the animals' while attacking businesses, individuals, organisations that make any attempts to improve animal welfare is still working towards animal liberation goals.

All breeders are getting tarnished, not just puppy farms. And in the end, it's a small step for the animal rights movement to abolish the 'ethical' breeders too. Oscar's Law describes itself as an abolitionist campaign - abolishing puppy farms & abolishing pets sold in pet shops. Tranter denies seeking to abolish breeding, but she launches huge extremely biased media attacks on breeders that she has 'investigated.' Breeders are becoming afraid of being in the open (where they should be) because of fear of being attacked by activists.

Concern expressed that purebred breeders were being harassed by Oscar's Law supporters

I was banned from Oscar's Law on Facebook after asking too many sticky questions that they failed to give satisfactory answers to. Tranter accused me of being 'antagonistic' and 'deranged.' Only a few people shared similar concerns and they received inadequate answers too.

Tranter claims she has the support of 'ethical' purebred breeders. Purebred breeders might currently feel smug that hybrid breeders are under attack as they are their competitors. Will be interesting to see if Tranter finally concludes like PETA that there are 'no good breeders.'

I won't be supporting Oscar's Law. I'm wary of blanket bans that may push the industry underground instead of keeping it out in the open where it's easier to regulate. Oscar's Law supports 'animal liberation' agenda, which I oppose.
"Anyone/group fighting to improve the life of animals is a good thing. ALV (Animal Liberation Australia) run great awareness campaign for farm animals, as do Animal Australia"Oscar's Law Facebook page

Reply when I asked about supporting animal liberation's goals (of phasing out pets)

Cult Gurus of Animal Rights

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 02:21:49 GMT

In my research of the animal rights movement, I've read hundreds of pages of blog posts by animal rights activists/advocates and attempted dialogue on Facebook with them. Even though I loathe politics, I've been researching and writing because most people don't seem to be aware of what animal rights is really about or how the movement affects them. They seem on the surface to be all about animals and gain supporters from pet businesses and the pet loving public.

The 'gurus' of animal rights activism/advocacy polarise people - they are either seen as heroes or dangerous or deranged radicals. Ironically, they accuse each other of being in a cult. They are very much 'my way or the highway' - anyone that does not share their exact philosophy is attacked or discarded. I've been mocked, attacked, accused of trolling or banned on Facebook by questioning or disagreeing with them. Even by writing about the animal rights movement, I risk getting death threats and other forms of intimidation from zealots.

From my research, I'm convinced that the whole animal rights movement is a political cult that seeks to recruit new converts that will open their wallets so they can keep evangelising their message.

The message they preach on the surface often disguises their ultimate agenda - animal liberation - total separation of humans and non-human animals. Just like religious cults, political cults indoctrinate converts in what to believe. Anyone that disagrees with them is 'the enemy'.

They generate prolific propaganda, telling people what to believe, twisting the facts, invoking outrage with images and emotional appeals. The public typically only see the 'good work' that is being done 'for animals'. These cult gurus seem to sincerely believe they are doing good. Hitler sincerely believed he was doing good too. Some animal rights gurus have been compared to being more dangerous than Hitler.

New philosophies splinter from the original founder as they disagree over various issues, just as religion has evolved into numerous sects/denominations. These new cult gurus gain a new following of devoted converts who stoke their egos and defend them against 'the enemy' (anyone that questions them, animal welfare charities, breeders, meat-eaters, industry, government etc).

Very little money from donations is spent actually helping animals - the majority goes towards political campaigns to gather more supporters. It becomes a cult of the ego - the person in charge (eg of a 'rescue' group) becomes addicted to 'look what I have done.'

Various splinter movements are in conflict with each other over some issues, but still in unison - towards the goal of animal liberation, where the whole world is vegan and domestic animals are extinct.

Here are just a few cult gurus and spokespeople in the animal rights movement that are opposed to violent activism (more extreme activists that cross over to violence are considered to be terrorist threats). A few seem to have 'moderate' views, but they contribute to the overall goal of the radicals.

Peter Singer
Australian professor of philosophy. Co-founder of Animals Australia, Australia's "foremost animal protection organisation representing some 40 member societies and thousands of individual supporters". The 'father' of animal rights and animal liberation after releasing his book 'Animal Liberation' in 1975. Considered by many to be the most dangerous man in the world because he is a public advocate of human eugenics.

Believes that 'sentient' animals are equivalent to humans in value and should be considered to be 'persons' not 'property'. As a preference utilitarian, he supports painless killing to benefit the greatest number (of humans/animals) to reduce suffering.  Vegetarian and 'flexible' vegan, not because he is opposed to humane slaughter for meat, but because he dislikes farming practises and argues that everyone should be vegetarian to reduce suffering.

Believes parents should be allowed to kill their disabled children at birth. Wants all domestic animals to be wiped out (yet finds nothing wrong with bestiality so long as animals don't suffer). Admits he doesn't even particularly likes animals. Was awarded Australia's highest civic honour (go figure).

"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990)

Ingrid Newkirk
Co-founder and president of PETA, which was founded on Singer's philosophies. Devout vegan that justifies mass killing of shelter animals and feral cats as ending suffering, even potential future suffering. Has been referred to as the leader of a death cult. Her death wish is to to be chopped up and turned into Newkirk nuggets. PETA is known for offensive publicity stunts such as comparing eating meat to the Holocaust. PETA want the extinction of pets.

Refers to pets as 'companion animals'. Dislikes the term 'pet' because she believes it implies ownership or slavery. Dislikes pets and children.

"...we would no longer allow breeding...there would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters....But as the surplus of cats and dogs... declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out..." Ingrid Newkirk, The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223

"Never Breed or Buy. Always Adopt. Always Spay and Neuter....Never breed or buy from breeders or pet stores...to work toward the goal of a "No-Birth" nation. PETA's website

"Euthanasia is the kindest give to a dog or cat unwanted and unloved." Ingrid Newkirk, 2005

PETA supporters blocked and mocked me on Facebook for questioning their philosophies. They accused me of being in Winograd's No Kill 'cult'.

Gary Francione
US professor of philosophy teaching animal rights and the law since 1984. Was the first academic to teach animal rights theory in America. Devout vegan. Was closely involved with Ingrid Newkirk and PETA until he parted ways in the 1990s over philosophical differences. He thought that PETA was becoming too 'cult-like' and being too compromising by taking some animal welfare approaches.

Pioneer of abolitionist philosophy - the rejection of all animal welfare campaigns, no matter how humane. He considers all uses of animals to be 'exploitation', no matter how happy an animal is with humans. He sees ethical veganism is the most important campaign in his vision of wiping out farms, non-vegan food sources, pets, live-saving medical research involving animals, fishing etc.

Dislikes the word 'pet' as believes 'companion animals' should not be 'property'.

"... there is simply no way to have an institution of “pet” ownership that is consistent with a sound theory of animal rights....we cannot justify the perpetuation of domestication for the purpose of keeping “pets.”...we...encourage anyone who can to adopt or foster as many animals (of whatever species) they can responsibly have...

But if there were two dogs left in the universe and it were up to us as to whether they were allowed to breed so that we could continue to live with dogs, and even if we could guarantee that all dogs would have homes as loving as the one that we provide, we would not hesitate for a second to bring the whole institution of “pet” ownership to an end." Gary Francione, Animal Rights: The Abolishment Approach website

Nathan Winograd
US lawyer and devout vegan that parted ways with PETA when he found out they killed homeless animals. Argues that PETA is a cult. Considered to be the leader of the No Kill movement - a wrecking ball in shelter reform in the US and breaking into Australia. Winograd isn't the father of the No Kill movement. Richard Avanzino turned SPCA San Francisco into the first No Kill shelter in the 1990s. Winograd developed a legalistic version of No Kill which has been a wrecking ball to US shelters.

"When San Francisco became the first city in the U.S. to save all healthy, homeless dogs and cats, and was effectively talking to the public about pet adoption, there was not a single pet store left in the city selling dogs and cats." Nathan Winograd, The Book HSUS and PETA Don't Want You to Read, Interview with The Centre for Consumer Freedom

No Kill sounded great at first, until I researched it further. There is a disturbing cruel reality under the superficial glitter of No Kill. Winograd's No Kill seems to be more about politics and lawsuits than helping animals.

While killing all or most shelter animals is unacceptable, the No Kill philosophy does more harm than good for homeless animals and the community. Saving lives but tolerating cruelty which steals quality of life. 'Rescues' that hoard animals (especially cats) in filthy conditions , fail to treat sick animals, and steal donation money for oneself or for political agenda is a growing problem with No Kill. Dishonest reporting to keep up appearances with the public while attacking other shelters that 'kill' is the hypocrisy of the movement.

Winograd blocked me from Facebook because I expressed a different opinion. He blocks people for not agreeing with him, even mildly. He has even sued people for being critical of his movement and for euthanasia decisions.

Seeks legal 'right for life' for animals to prevent them being killed. Pets must be legally 'property' so people can be sued for killing them.
   more.....

Patty Mark
Founder of the Open Rescue Movement and Animal Liberation Victoria (ALV), which operates by the abolitionist philosophy of Francione, which is the belief that all 'sentient' beings have the rights not to be 'property'. This means no pets and no bacon and eggs. To Mark, free-range eggs are just as unethical as battery-hen eggs and according to her beliefs, should not be available for sale.

Mark, a vegan has been on the Australian animal rights scene for over 30 years. Mark developed the 'open rescue' method, where activists invade property (trespass) to 'rescue' (steal) animals and gain footage to take to media. The media don't bother verifying or doing their own investigations. Propaganda is sensational and snapped up by the media.

Open rescue activists don't disguise their identity. The public and courts are more sympathetic to 'open rescue' as opposed to the clandestine 'rescues' of the underground resistance Animal Liberation Front, who also destroy property and are listed as a terrorist threat.

An abolistionist isn't interested in improving animal welfare standards. They are about getting rid of farming and pets altogether. ALV say their focus is farm animals are silent about their position on 'companion animals' (the abolitionist philosophy is no pets). Dislikes the term 'pet'. Calls them 'companion animals.' Their puppy farm campaign links to Tranter (below). They have a 'keep RSPCA honest' smear campaign.

Debra Tranter
Animal rights activist for over 20 years. Has done several 'open rescues' with Animal Liberation Victoria and appears in several ALV media items. Blogs on Prisoners for Profit and campaigns to abolish puppy farms under the brand, Oscar's Law, which has won an animal activism award with prize-money.

As a single focus campaign, Oscar's Law is popular with the public and has supporters from many pet businesses.  Tranter seeks to make it illegal to sell pets in pet stores and to advertise pets for sale.

Tranter works closely with Trish Burke from Pets Haven who pulls animals from pounds and sells them as 'rescues' via a shop front as a hybrid pet shop/shelter. Pets Haven has a turnover of $500,000 and has been shut numerous times for compromising animal welfare. Burke has done 'open rescue' with Tranter.

Tranter denies seeking to wipe out breeding of pets, yet refuses to be specific about Oscar's Law and accuses various breeders of being puppy farmers.

Involved with Animal Liberation of Victoria (but cagey about his, although several connections on internet, including being called 'campaign manager' for ALV). No Kill advocate.

I was banned from Oscar's Law website after asking sticky questions. I enquired with Tranter direct, who still evaded questions and called me 'deranged'.
  more...

Michelle (Shel) Williamson
Disciple of Winograd as regurgitates Winograd's No Kill doctrines. Shel Williamson evangelises Winograd's No Kill gospel in Australia via her blog, Saving Pets and other forms of media. Animal activists Vickie Davy and Williamson run PetRescue, a website that lists pets up for adoption from No Kill 'rescues.'

I thought Williamson's blog was aggressive (like Winograd's, although Winograd has a very 'legalistic' writing style) with biased propaganda. Like Winograd, she publicly condemns shelters that don't jump onto the No Kill bandwagon, including shelters that adopt out most animals.
How does attacking animal welfare charities help animals?

By attacking animal welfare charities, animal rights activists hope to have people stop donating to animal welfare and donate to animal rights instead, including 'rescues' that aren't accountable for how they use donations.

If they were really for the animals, they would not attack shelters that are actively reducing euthanasia but have a different philosophy to No Kill. Unfortunately, the animals are the ones that end up suffering. Animal rights is about politics and egos, not the animals.

Introduced to animal rights via June Bird from Animal Liberation NSW, who ran an anti-pet shop campaign. She ran her own anti-puppy farm anti-petshop campaign with Tranter providing website content, winning an animal activism award with prize-money. 'A puppy mill or puppy farm is a large dog breeding facility created to mass produce puppies for profit.'Where do Puppies Come From? website

Promoting adoption of animals and discouraging the public from buying pets from breeders is consistent with Francione's goal of phasing out pets. The drive to adopt 'orphaned' animals is a tactic to stop people from sourcing pets from breeders.

Williamson advocates No Kill (pet population a myth), anti-pet shop & anti-puppy farm campaigns including Oscar's Law (anti-pet shops & anti-'puppy farm' breeders) which fits animal liberation's agenda of phasing out pets.

Animal Rights or Wrongs?

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:49:38 GMT

Even though I loathe politics, I've been researching the animal rights movement in my spare time. I started researching after I was attacked on a Facebook page for not being vegan.

Animal rights isn't what I thought it was (helping animals). No, animal rights at its core is about animal liberation - having non-human animals 'free' from humans. That means converting the whole world to veganism and for humans to have nothing to do with animals at all - not even as pets.

Animal rights is not animal welfare. Animal rights activists believe animal welfare is not enough. They see the vegan diet as the only compassionate way to live and most activists are opposed to keeping pets (even if they make out they are supportive of pets).

Unfortunately, most people aren't aware that of this and are also not aware of the main objectives of animal rights activists. Most people would also find the philosophies of animal liberation to be radical. Animal liberation is a political movement where converts have beliefs as strong as someone that is devoutly religious. The more I research this topic (I have read hundreds of pages from activist's blogs, websites and attempted to dialogue on Facebook), the more I am convinced the movement is a cult.

Since veganism is a minority (estimated less than 0.5% of the population is vegan), and not all people on vegan diet support the animal rights philosophy), the movement is being funded by the majority, who would most likely oppose the movement if they were aware of what it really is.

Millions of dollars are donated to the animal rights/liberation movement, which includes PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), Animal Liberation Victoria (and other states) and Animals Australia. People think their money is going to helping animals, but really it is being used to campaign towards animal liberation - veganism and getting animals out of our lives.

Animal rights activists (who often call themselves 'advocates' as it doesn't sound as radical as 'activist') will usually use an animal welfare front to gain supporters. The public are duped into thinking they are doing wonderful work stamping out puppy farms and rescuing pets and don't research what their true motives are.

Using a welfare front to dupe the pet loving public into donating money is only one of the dirty tricks animal rights activists employ. Many people believe that animal rights is like religion in that there are moderates and extremists, and that PETA is considered an extremist. From my research, I'm convinced that even the ones that appear more 'moderate' have exactly the same goals to eliminate pets from our lives (even if they deny it and seem to 'love' animals).

I will explain more in further posts.

Animal Welfare

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:26:52 GMT

The animal welfare philosophy is that is is acceptable and natural to use animals for companionship, food, fibre and other lawful purposes, so long as animals are always treated with respect and not subjected to cruelty. Doing so strengthens the natural bonds between humans and non-human animals.

The Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare:

Freedom from thirst and hunger – by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour.
Freedom from discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
Freedom from pain, injury, and disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
Freedom to express most normal behavior – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind.
Freedom from fear and distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

This is consistent with the Australian Veterinary Association's policy of animal welfare:

"Where humans make use of animals or interfere in any way with their natural environment, a level of care should be established that befits our dignity as rational, intelligent and compassionate beings.

Such care should be humane. This implies consideration and sympathy for the animal, an avoidance of unnecessary stress, and the demonstration of compassion and tenderness towards our fellow creatures."

Animal welfare is not the same is animal rights. In contrast, the animal rights philosophy is the rejection of all animal use, no matter how humane. If the interests of humans conflict with non-human animals, animal rights holds the view that the conflict is to be resolved in favour of the animals. The animal rights movement view is that animals are not for humans to eat, wear or even interact with.

That means no pets, no bacon and eggs, no fishing, no dairy products, no zoos and no wildlife centres. Their goal is to have everyone eat vegan and for animals to be 'liberated' (free from human interaction).

Even though animal rights and animal welfare are incompatible, many animal rights activists and organisations use some animal welfare approaches to gain public support in the form of donations. This way, they can broaden their campaign efforts to gain more public support (from non-vegans and people that want animals in their lives). They are political cults of ego and abolishment, not caring for animals. Animals are just pawns to get money from the animal loving public for their political ends.

RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and WSPA (Animal Welfare and Preventing Cruelty) have historically been animal welfare charities, actively prevent cruelty to animals by promoting their care and protection. But in recent years, this has been changing.

(R)SPCA in each state/region/city are run independently of each other and their philosophies may differ. Sadly, philosophies of the animal rights movement are infiltrating animal welfare charities including some SPCA's. Some SPCAs and AWL (Animal Welfare League) shelters have adopted a No Kill philosophy, which is doing more harm than good.

Do Vegans Care More About Animals?

Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:17:11 GMT

Recently, I commented on a Facebook page that I thought was about animal welfare - concern for more humane treatment of animals. It was a page about greyhound racing. Turns out the admin and supporters are hardcore animal rights activists that vilified anyone that ate meat, fish, eggs and milk.

They put up a photo of an animal being pony about to be shot (I now realise it's a common tactic of animal activists to use graphic media to push emotional buttons). A woman expressed upset at being subjected to such images, insisting it was abuse and that she was leaving.

Vegans see meat as disgusting corpses. Disgust is a campaign tactic - eggs are 'chicken's periods' and honey is 'bee vomit'.

The page admin retorted back, "Before pointing fingers...look at your involvement with animal abuse...Are you wearing cows, are you eating chickens, are you using cosmetics tested on animals? Mmmm have a think about that having a little tantrum."

I said it was a bit unfair to consider breeding animals for food (and using their skins afterwards) as the same as breeding and disposing of animals for entertainment. I got lectures from page admin and supporters telling me that humans are herbivores and eat meat by choice. I was told to check out various videos supporting their position (I felt like I was being evangelised to). When I disagreed with them, they accused me of trolling and deleted most of my comments.

This is a common assertion by vegans I encountered

It wouldn't matter how many animals one rescued or how much one donated to help animals. People are judged on only one factor as meeting their criteria for compassion for animals - whether they are vegan. To them, only vegans are truly compassionate about animals. Vegetarians fall short in compassion, because they eat some animal products including - eggs, dairy, honey and wear animal products such as wool.

This experience started me on a journey of researching the animal rights movement over the past few weeks. I've read several activist websites, blogs and tried to dialogue with activists to understand where they're coming from. This is one of several posts I intend to write because of my concerns about the animal rights movement. I'm writing about veganism because it is one of their core idealogies.

Vegans are divided about whether it is cruel to feed cats (obligate carnivores) a vegan diet. Vegans are divided about whether even keeping a pet is moral.

I eat meat and I also care about animals and discuss this conflict in my blog post, 'Can Animal Lovers Eat Meat?' Vegetarians make up less than 5% of the population and vegans around 0.5%. If it were not for meat-eater's support (financially, practically etc), animal cruelty would continue.

The black and white mindset of many vegans are reminds me of religious extremists with a 'holier art thou' attitude. I find statements such as 'meat eaters are murderers' just as offensive as religious people preaching 'gays are going to hell'.

Animal rights activists fight amongst themselves about whether it is moral to keep pets and fight about 'no-kill' shelters but advocate for veganism. Most of the money donated to animal rights organisations (often with an animal welfare front) may be spent on campaigns to convert young people to veganism and to have animal products banned.

I have a background including qualifications in science and education and find it frustrating when someone claims pseudoscience 'facts' such as 'humans have teeth like herbivores, therefore are herbivores' (incorrect, humans are omnivores and their teeth, biochemistry, gut etc reflects this).

These people are only interested in converting me to veganism. Debating with them is as futile as arguing evolution with a creationist. Their belief systems are so strong that they override any rational thinking. Attempting to explain or reason is a waste of time and effort and I get accused of trying to 'deconvert' them.

I enquired on an animal rights activism page asking if all animal rights activists are vegan or pressured into becoming vegan. I woman replied saying she was both an animal rights activist and vegan.

She asserted that animals are "abused for fun" before they are "killed for the selfish appetites of humans...humans are herbivores...meat is unnatural and very unhealthy... killing equals abuse".

One of PETA's anti-meat campaigns

It was pointless pointing out anything to the contrary to her black-and-white beliefs. Her final comment to me was "your stupidity is literally lowering my IQ, goodbye."

I don't have a problem with someone choosing to be vegan. I do find it unacceptable though if someone allows their child to die from malnutrition because of their beliefs. I do have a problem with those vegans that call anyone that eats meat and fish a murderer. I have a problem with animal rights activists that portray all scientists, farmers, breeders, egg and meat-eaters, pet owners etc as evil.

I don't support any movement that seeks to destroy freedom of choice with propaganda (one of the main goals of animal rights activists is to convert everyone to veganism, which includes banning meat, eggs, milk etc).

Vegetarian/Vegan mock duck made from wheat gluten. Gluten is a poison for me and many people.

I've read several comments by vegans and ex-vegans. Not all vegans like animals. Some just have an aversion to meat, like some people have to other foods. I don't understand why many vegans and vegetarians eat mock meat that is intended to replicate the texture and flavour of meat.

Some vegans are so horrified if they discover they've accidently consumed food 'contaminated' by traces of an animal product that they are physically ill. The veganism seems to be more about personal purity and moral superiority than about saving animals. Veganism can become legalistic dogma.

Apparently grain harvesters don't slice mice. Actually, they do. Animals die from cultivating crops but these are written off as unintentional deaths. That would technically make road-kill vegan. And eating one's placenta - that doesn't involve killing sentient animals and herbivore animals do it. Some vegetarian and vegan women do eat their own placentas - as a smoothie, stew or encapsulated in veggie capsules.

Extracts of a conversation on an animal rights forum between two young vegan animal activists:
vegan 1: "..there was a thread about RSPCA hosting a sausage sizzle...it's the animal welfare people that call themselves animal lovers while devouring burgers who annoy me..."
vegan 2: "...when vegans/vegetarians make comments like this, this is why no one takes us seriously."
vegan 1: "...claiming to love animals while eating them is why I don't take a lot of people seriously."
vegan 2: " They don't eat dog sausages..."
vegan 1: "In non-AR terms that's like saying "They're rapists, but they don't rape white people."
vegan 2: "(you're) being rude with a damn self righteous attitude..."
vegan 1: "explaining to you what you misunderstand is neither argumentative, rude, nor self-righteous..."

comment by a 'compassionate' vegan - perhaps some animal protein will help with rational thinking?

Anyone that deflects as vegan, now an apostate is accused of never having been a 'true' vegan in the first place. It is a brave blogger that admits they are ex-vegan - they are targets for death threats by vegans. Long-term veganism is a difficult diet to remain optimally healthy on. Most vegans will become ex-vegans.

A popular vegan blogger, Tasha received a flood of hate mail from vegans when she admitted she quit veganism after suffering health issues on the diet. She also received hundreds of emails from people that felt they weren't alone in failing veganism. Some prominent vegans contacted her to admit they weren't really vegan behind closed doors, but were too afraid to admit it publically.

Although initially devastated that she failed in her quest, she now feels at peace with eating a non-vegan diet, as well as regained health. Veganism is supposed to be about compassion, but there is an angry misanthropy undercurrent. (If you've never experienced that, go comment on a few animal rights pages on Facebook). Tasha says:

"I know that as a vegan I was angry. The world is a brutal hellscape of pain and death and misery when you are a vegan. The problem is it isn’t just humanity that is causing it; nature is far more violent and bloody than vegans want to admit. As a vegan, the very cycle of life and death was monstrous to me. And I think it is to many vegans, and it is something they try to hide from. Now that I’ve accepted the logical fact that things inevitably must die for others to live, it is something I am at peace with."

Tasha said the "moral arbitrariness of the whole endeavour" was the worst thing about veganism. Convoluted defenses and moral gymnastics to appease their own anxieties. Strict rules with an 'us-against-them' mentality.

"For some vegans it seems like animals become trivial factors overshadowed by the lure of endless philosophical proselytizing. In a clear mirroring of many superficially religious people, for these vegans, following the dogma behind the vegan label becomes more important than actually living the ideals of veganism."

Veganism only exists because of highly industrialised communities. Ironically, more animals are harmed and the planet is impacted negatively by adhering to a vegan diet that requires importing of industrially produced soy-milk, supplements, egg-replacer, fossil-fuel synthetic clothing than eating local produce.

"It is unsettling how many vegans make claims about farming and the environment without any first-hand knowledge of the subject. The only reason so many people can advocate veganism is because most of those people live in highly industrialized communities and have no notion of what it takes to grow food and no experience living in equilibrium within their local foodways."

"When we make the choices that are best for our local ecosystem and our planet as a whole, we are doing the best thing for the animals. Now that I’ve moved away from arbitrary dogma and embraced a more holistic and realistic viewpoint, I feel that I am able to live far more sustainably, which is ultimately the best thing I can hope to do."

So do vegans care more about animals than non-vegans? I'm not convinced that veganism is for love of animals. It's not realistic - we are part of a biological food chain and that it's a fact of life that animals eat other animals (and humans are animals too). That doesn't mean we can't be kind to animals and have animals as part of our lives. I won't be adopting a vegan lifestyle any time soon.

19 most annoying things about being vegan (by a vegan). Here's number 8:

PETA Hates Pets

Sat, 30 Mar 2013 19:18:59 GMT

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is the largest international animal rights activism organisation.

PETA was founded in 1980 by co-founder and president, Ingrid Newkirk. Newkirk's death wish is to be turned into Newkirk nuggets.

The public seem to believe that PETA is doing good for animals, because revenue for PETA last year was over $30 million, comprised mostly of donations.

PETA targets children - this vegan campaign tells children their parents are murderers

Practically none of this went to animal welfare. Nearly all goes to their propaganda machine - they frequently use nude women and violence in their advertising campaigns. They don't hide that children are their main target to convert. Animal rights activists will typically evoke an emotion of outrage to gather support, such as sharing upsetting images of animal abuse on Facebook to gain supporters.

PETA operates within the law, but has been linked to extremist groups including Animal Liberation Front, considered to be domestic terrorists who commit crimes such as arson, theft, intimidation and releasing animals into the environment.

PETA preaches that eating meat is 'murder' - to them meat is the 'Holocaust on a plate.' Yet they kill nearly every cat and dog that comes into their 'kill-shelter.'

In the last 5 years, PETA killed 94% of homeless cats and dogs. They are typically killed within 24 hours, which isn't much time to assess them. When killing animals, whether adoptable or not, PETA calls it euthanasia.

PETA's bloody 'Meat is Murder' protest in New York. This is typical of where donations to PETA are spent. Not on animal welfare.

No Kill shelter advocate, Nathan Winograd calls it violence. Euthanasia is a mercy death for animals that are suffering when death is near. Mass slaughter of healthy animals as the first option is not euthanasia. It's worse than slaughtering animals for food. PETA claims they get all euthanasia requests coming in as a shelter of 'last resort'. Hard to believe that only 6% of animals were considered adoptable.

PETA sent a postcard to Winograd: "We do not advocate 'right to life' for animals."

PETA advocate veganism. PETA believes they are compassionate and that I am a murderer, because I am not vegan.

PETA's black-and-white beliefs and their personal attacks of anyone that challenges them reminds me of extremist religious cults. PETA is as militant and hateful about meat-eaters as Westboro Baptist is about gays.

Winograd is puzzled why if PETA are vegan if they are okay with killing healthy cats and dogs. He asks, 'Why not promote more humane methods of slaughter?' I am not vegan but I am disgusted with PETA's slaughter of healthy and cats dogs, especially because they call meat-eaters murderers.

I don't find the word 'pets' derogatory at all - it's an affectionate term for the animals that have enriched my life. It is a mutual relationship - they are loved and cared for and I enjoy their company.

In my business, I provide high quality care to other people's pets. I oppose any movement that seeks to take pets out of my life.

I support efforts to re-home as many adoptable animals as possible. I donate to re-homing centres that find homes for stray cats and dogs.

This is my employee Julz, giving care and attention to client, Keter. PETA doesn't value life, nor does it value jobs that will be lost if they achieve their goals of making pets extinct

PETA's website promotes adopting a pet from a shelter and they want mandatory breeding bans and mandatory desexing. Having pets adopted from shelters is a slower process than killing immediately, but it still supports their goal of phasing out pets. Is it violating an animal's rights by desexing it? Animal activists are opposed to vivisection which can include surgery like spay and neutering. But they make exceptions here?

RSPCA Queensland is an animal welfare charity I support. They received similar donations to PETA last year. RSPCA spent 47% on animal welfare and 15% on fundraising and public campaigns. PETA spent nearly the entire $30 million on political campaigns to promote their agenda with very little practically helping animals.

Ingrid Newkirk is the president and co-founder of PETA. Quotes by Newkirk:

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."

"I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through (other workers abusing the animals.) I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day." - about working in an animal shelter in the 70s

"I don’t use the word 'pet.' I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship — enjoyment at a distance."

PETA state on their website that there are no responsible breeders. They are pushing for no pets to be obtained at all from breeders plus mandatory de-sexing in their push for zero birth of new pets. Strange how they don't consider de-sexing as violating animal rights? Animal rights activists are opposed to any cutting of animals, including surgery (which would include spaying and neutering). But looks like they can make exceptions when it means culling the pet population.

"One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."

Newkirk can't imagine how pets can enjoy their lives with humans. She obviously hasn't met pets like the ones I care for.

"Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the earth."

Humans are scum. We get it. Humans are the exploiters. Humans shouldn't have any rights, only animals should. But wait, humans are animals too. In my ideal world, people would only have kids that they have the means to care for themselves. I have one child.

"I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don’t have any reverence for life, only for the entities themselves."

The whole message from PETA is negative, negative, negative. Martyr yourself with vegan diet, deny yourself enjoyment from pets, humans are scum, meat-eaters are scum, life is not worth living. Animal rights activists generally elevate the rights of animals above humans. Rights are a human created concept.

"I’m not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is nothing but vanity, human vanity."

PETA hasn't stated their abortion stance. It's pretty easy to work out what their stance is. Their philosophies are anti-human and anti-life. PETA is pro-death. Animal rights extremists are pro-death. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is appealing for humans to stop breeding completely to 'save' the earth.

"We do not advocate 'right to life' for animals."

Very interesting. PETA values death but not life - not even life of animals. A death cult that is so disgusted that suffering is a fact of life that it seeks to destroy all life out of 'compassion.' Some compassion. She reminds me of Hitler, Jim Jones and The Grim Reaper.

More quotes:
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." John Bryant, PETA

It's easy to see why they hate cats so much. Cats are obligate carnivores and enjoy hunting. They often play with living prey and don't eat it. I don't like that cats can behave like sadists, but they don't know any different.

"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." Peter Singer, the 'father' of 'animal rights' activism.

Animal rights people don't love animals. It's not about the animals. It's about their political agenda to end suffering and the only way they see this is to end life. Starting with pets. Then meat-eaters. Then extinction of humans.

"We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society of the United States (another animal rights organisation with a misleading name).

There would still be 'cats' and 'dogs', just less variety and more wary of humans. The more curious ones would live close to humans to seek food, just like they would have when first were domesticated.

"This is a best-case scenario. Millions of dogs spend their lives outdoors on heavy chains in all weather extremes or are kept locked up in tiny chain-link pens from which they can only watch the world go by.... Even in "good" homes, cats must relieve themselves in dirty litterboxes and often have the tips of their toes amputated through declawing. Dogs often have to drink water that has been sitting around for days, are hurried along on their walks, if they even get walked, and are yelled at to get off the furniture or be quiet." PETA

PETA believes pets are oppressed and suffer even in 'good' homes. This is typical of PETA. They paint the worst picture and make out it's the norm. They poison the minds of the public and of lawmakers with inaccurate claims, shock campaigns and preying on children. They have no respect for life and don't care about animals. PETA states on their website that their goal is a "no-birth nation". Phasing pets out is only part of their twisted agenda.

I am a professional pet sitter and care for numerous cats and dogs at their own home. No dogs are tied up with heavy chains or locked up in tiny pens. No cats are declawed. I scoop cat litter trays daily. If any client were to neglect their litter trays, they would soon fine that their cats will find an alternative toilet elsewhere, so it's in their best interest to keep the litter tray clean. We provide fresh water daily. Dogs love their walks. Pets are happy and loved. Their joy is my joy.

I will not support any movement that seeks to phase out pets.

Taking Better Pet Photos

Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:58:28 GMT

I take candid photos of pets during pet sitting visits. I like to give my clients some prints as a bonus as well as use photos in my marketing. Several clients have said that my amateur photos are the best photos they have of their pets, which is a pretty nice compliment.

At first I found cats trickier to photograph than dogs, because most cats keep moving when smooching. I take photos of pets while they're relaxing, playing, enjoying a tummy rub or brush. One hand operates the camera and the other hand is free to interact with the pet. I like to capture the pet's mood and personality - interacting with the pet naturally rather than staged poses.

Many pets are curious about the camera and I've had many a wet nose touch the lens checking it out. Some show off for the camera and a few are a little camera shy at first.

Lucy is one of my most photogenic pet sitting clients. She loves showing off for the camera in a variety of 'poses', including upside down, pausing in between.

Tips for Better Amateur Photos

It helps to have a reasonably decent camera. My camera is a Pansonic Lumix DMC-FZ35 with 18x optical zoom and 12 megapixels. This is a larger camera than the little pocket compact cameras as it has a better zoom lens, but less expensive than the single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras with detachable lenses used by serious amateurs and professionals. A reasonable camera will cost $500 to $700 (cameras used by professionals range from $5000 to $100,000).

Photos taken with my smartphone are okay for updates for clients, but not great for printing. The colours aren't as good and the shutter delays and often misses the moment. The quality is often poor (grainy or too dark).

This shot of Andy is actually through wires (can see the blur of white wires at the sides). Was a matter of adjusting the distance and zoom to 'avoid' the wires.

This photo of Boo is in less than ideal lighting conditions - lots of bright glare where direct sun is

Natural light is best, but avoid direct, strong sunlight, especially on white as it will just make a big white glare. If indoors, move near to a window or if outside, move to a shadier area to avoid strong sunlight. Artificial lights usually result in distorted colours such as a yellow cast.

Avoid taking photos when there is insufficient light. My camera takes great photos with sufficient light but the quality isn't great when it's too dark. The photos come out grainy and colours are distorted. The camera doesn't cope well with moving subjects in darker situations. A built-in direct flash usually is bad with pets eyes - reflects to give a 'spooky' look.

Avoid brightly lit backgrounds. The background will come out as a bright glare and the subject will be dark and lack detail. In most cases, a bright background can be avoided by moving to face in the opposite direction (so the bright light is behind you).

Take lots of photos - there's often one great shot amongst a dozen mediocre (or even terrible) shots. A bonus with digital cameras is the images can be uploaded to the computer and the crappy shots can be deleted. No need to worry about the cost as with film cameras.

Make sure the lens is clean before shooting, so there's no distortion from a dog slobber smudge or similar grime. Use a non-scratch lens cloth to wipe the lens. My camera lens has a scratch on it which is hardly noticeable on photos - pretty sure it was from one of hubby's snakes snapping at the lens. It could be edited out later, but I don't bother as hardly noticeable.

It was very bright and sunny, so I went under the patio to the shade. Charlie followed. If taken in the bright sun, usually whites are 'washed out' and lack detail. Is nice to have the pet looking at the camera.

This photo of Misty isn't as good as it could be as the focus is not on Misty's face, but her bowl. It was too dark in most of the house, so I moved her food bowl to a room with more light

Lighting wasn't ideal for this photo of Storm. It was a miserable, dark day and not much light in the house anyway. Photo is grainy with poor detail and not true colours

Experiment with different settings to figure out what you prefer and what you camera is capable of. I nearly always just use my camera on Auto rather than fluffing around with settings. If the camera wasn't coping with a given situation with Auto, I might try one of the cheat's settings. Say if a dog was zooming around the yard at high speed, Auto usually copes, but I might want to use a faster shutter speed to capture the action.

The professional and serious amateur will gain an understanding of concepts such as exposure, aperture, shutter speed etc. A good professional will be able to use the camera in full manual mode. I've met a photographer with a $100,000 camera that uses predominately the aperture priority mode. In a nutshell, use a faster shutter speed (smaller fraction number) to 'freeze' fast action. Or use the 'sports' cheat mode. The aperture setting is to control 'depth of field' - usually for a sharply in focus subject with a blurred background (or can use 'portrait' or 'closeup' cheat settings).

Avoid clutter in the background that distracts from the subject (the pet). In addition, I try as much as possible to avoid clients' TV's, computers, identifying features of property etc in the photo. Also avoid cage wires. This can be just a simple matter of changing the angle of approach and/or distance and/or zoom.

Try different angles. Get down on the floor to the pet's level. Take some close-ups, some at mid-distance, some of face only. Be ready for when the pet looks your way or pauses. More pet, less background is usually better.

Try to focus on the pets face, particularly the eyes. Most autofocus cameras require the operator to hold the shutter button halfway to focus before pushing all the way.

My camera has a multi-shot setting which takes 3 images in quick succession. This can be handy when a pet is constantly moving. I just aim the camera in the pet's general direction (zoomed in or out an appropriate amount), try to hold the camera steady and hold the shutter down. More often than not, one of the images is good.

Capture the pet's mood. Here is Poppy, happy to see me.

Pets are often curious about the camera. Here is a funny photo of Doka. It's not a particularly good photo, but it does capture his curious nature.

Upload the images to a computer to edit. I upload mine and clear the camera memory stick ready for more photos. Then I go through and select the images I wish to use and edit them in a photo editor. This is not essential, but it does make the photos nicer. I use Photoshop Elements, which is a cheaper home version of Photoshop. I can crop photos if needed, resize them and adjust the lighting and colours of the photos to make them look their best. I don't like photos that have had too much 'saturation' applied so the colours look unnatural. There are free photo editors available. Photos for print should be at least 300 ppi at the desired printing size. Smaller file sizes are better for online photos as they load faster.

Happy snapping!

Thor

Dogs Trained to Drive Cars

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:54:43 GMT

In an RSPCA drive with a difference, shelter dogs have been taught to drive a car. Shelter dogs are often written off as second-class mongrels and the aim of the campaign was to demonstrate mutts are smart, can learn new tricks and are worthy of adoption.

Acclaimed animal trainer Mark Vette and his team are experienced at training animals for movies and TV ads. This was their most challenging assignment, and a few weeks into the project, they were confident they could train the dogs to drive a car solo (rather than with TV trickery).

Three dogs from RSPCA Auckland, New Zealand were selected to start training. (The same shelter where my dog, Bailey was adopted from over a decade ago). The dogs were trained on rigs using clicker training methods before progressing to a Mini modified for paws.

The dogs were trained to start the car, take the brake off, put the car into gear, accelerate, turn the car to follow a curve and stop. It is hoped that the three dogs, Monty, Ginny and Porter will find a 'furever' home and that the public will consider adopting a shelter dog.

Driving dogs on Facebook

Ginny driving the training rig

Dogified Mini

Monty drives the Mini

Famous Cats on Internet

Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:39:46 GMT

A few cats have gone viral on the internet recently, because of their unusual faces. Tardar Sauce aka Grumpy Cat has been popping up on my Facebook feed with various sarcastic captions. Before that, Venus the 'two-faced' cat was 'going viral'. Both kitties have such rare faces that many insisted they were were 'photo-shopped' or that Venus was painted.

Both cats have a huge fan base.

Grumpy Cat

Grumpy Cat really isn't grumpy - she just looks like she's frowning. A photo of Tard went viral captioned with memes such as 'I had fun once... it was awful.'

The public fell in love with her and wanted Grumpy Cat merchandise. Grumpy Cat appeared on TV and has her own website and Facebook page with over 100,000 likes. Over 25,000 Grumpy Cat christmas cards have sold. Various artists have drawn her as a cartoon character.

Oblivious to her sudden fame, Tardar Sauce is laid back and cuddly and certainly not grumpy. A portion of merchandise sales is donated to animal shelters.

Venus

Venus went viral recently when a photo of her face was circulated on the internet. There were initial protests that she was a hoax. She since has her own Facebook page and has been on TV.

There has been debate over whether her genetics are 'chimera' or 'mosaic'.

It is common for tortoiseshell cats to have a 'split face' with ginger fur on one side vertically, and black on the other.

Venus has tortoiseshell colouring and the colour split on her face is more obvious because she has a large solid patch of colour on each side of her face. The ginger side has a tabby coat pattern (some cats are a 'patchwork' of tabby and tortoiseshell (tortie)- patched tabbies or torbies).

She also has heterochromia - two different coloured eyes, which adds to her dramatic appearance. Heterochromia is very common with white cats but is seen less frequently in other cat patterns such as tortoiseshell.

Blue eyes have less pigment than green eyes which have less pigment than brown eyes. Eye colour in cats is linked to fur colour. Venus has a blue eye (less pigment) on the side of her face with less pigment.

Tortoiseshell cats often have a reputation for being cranky, but Venus is a very sweet-natured kitty, obvious to how famous she is.