Tuesday, August 14, 2007

"And if California slides into the ocean..."

.. it may be better for the rest of us!

A debate in the LA Times begins by framing the issues thus: "There's wide agreement that most dogs should be spayed and neutered." Really?

But worse is to come. "I am a volunteer humane advocate going against you, Bill, a paid lobbyist and profiteering dog breeder allied with a PR firm that unsuccessfully defended Big Tobacco and fought against a living wage law. Birds of a feather, readers!" [See Eric at Classical Values, also quoted earlier here, on the mindset of "activists"]

(Snip)

"Not once have I seen an e-mail response from a breeder, puppy mill or pet store saying that they will save these animals' lives. It would mean one less family to which they could sell a puppy or kitten at a profit. These profiteers not only fail to help, they are now frantic to stop those of us who are demanding a change.
Who do you trust? Those who sacrifice or those who profit?"

So now all breeders are blood- drenched profiteers, while only animal rightists love and do right by animals.

Oh wait, dog haters do too. Here is a columnist in the same paper who also supports mandatory spay neuter (he recently also caused a controversy by writing that he hated people in the military though admitting he had never met any):

"I used to believe that I hated dogs. But now I realize that I'm apathetic about dogs, as I am about any animal that is not delicious. Dogs to me are a lot like flounder.

"What I've come to realize is that what I really hate is you, the dog owner. Because you're the one who honestly believes that your dog is sentient and that he loves you. Your ego is so grandiose that you can't see that your dog is just using you. Yes, your dog loves you, but only in the way that Anna Nicole Smith loved old, rich men. Yet you honestly believe that your dog's love is particularly meaningful because your dog is special -- almost human, really. In fact, you think, he's an almost-human that happens to be a lot like you. He is a lot like you if you happen to assess colleagues by smelling their butts and enjoy publicly eating your own vomit."

As a dog owner and breeder who has taken a loss, not a profit, to breed rare and useful dogs that could not even be expensively exempt under the proposed law, I am nearly speechless.

Sorry, Mary, but there is no compromise with fanatical hidden agendas (no more domestic animals) or invincible ignorance and arrogance.

Molon Labe*.

HT Margory Cohen & Reid.

*"Come and take them"-- what the Spartans said to the Persians when ordered to surrender their weapons.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Steve, as we discussed earlier in the week, I recall when Barry Goldwater suggested it might be a plus for the nation if California did float out into the Pacific, and we all thought that he was 'way too radical to be President.

As it turns out, he was most probably a gentleman of amazingly accurate foresight, even though the departure of CA would have probably left him holding the title to a lot of beach front property in Arizona.

As to the debate in the LA Times, I for one am so sick and tired of hearing about all the greed and profit associated with being a "breeder" that I've begun to wonder if perhaps I've been missing something with my own financial status. I keep looking, but I can't find all that filthy lucre people with AR tendencies assure the rest of the world is the motive for all of us who appreciate a blooded animal, bred for centuries to fulfill a specific purpose. But then, folks who live and work in SO-CAL are probably so immersed in that status aware-cult of personality-culture that they truly don't understand quality, whether it happens in the creative arts or in a living breathing being.

Not that these folks who live and die by the dictates of the what's in gurus would understand, but they out to take a long hard look into the eyes of any well bred, purebred animal. A quality dog, horse or bird sure as hell doesn't need a celebrity pundit to tell them what is worth having, doing or being. They are born knowing.

Maybe that is why these folks hate animals so much - they bring them face to face with their own inferiority.

Black Dog Lady

prairie mary said...

Someone asked someone whether the media was liberal or conservative. The wise answer was "neither -- they are oppositional." They set everything up as big crashing Lord of the Rings conflicts when in fact they are complex and many-layered processes. I would put pets or animals in general (you think YOU got troubles -- consider the beef rancher!) in that last category. But the media believes that what sells papers is what Eric Berne used to call "Let's you and him fight!"

I spent five years trudging around Portland door-to-door talking to people: good, bad and indifferent; and one entire year struggling with a panel that met once a week for a year, a panel that my boss deliberately packed with every extreme plus some middle folks and then asked to develop an ideal animal law. That's what I base my opinions on.

I sat there and watched the dog-hater slowly come around, the dog-lover slowly come around, and occasionally major insights break through the polarities and carve a middle ground. It CAN be done. I saw it.

Incidentally, the original (if there is such a thing) west edge of Montana was the coastline. All that NW stuff just drifted in! (See John McPhee.)

Prairie Mary

Mike Spies said...

California -- lunatic asylum, or paradise lost?

I am happy to report from the front lines. But first, a bit of background.

I was born in Palo Alto, California in December of 1945. I grew up in California, was 'educated' in California. and still reside in the state.

I keep a kennel full of English setters, and hunt and field trial them in California and neighboring states. I have been involved in the resistance movement opposing AB1634 - the infamous Spay and Neuter bill recently killed in Senate committee.

It might be interesting to discuss this misguided piece of legislation, but I risk swamping people in names, dates, political nuance and, frankly, it would not be interesting. The genesis of this bill SHOULD be interesting to many people - within and without the state of California.

It is generally recognized that the energy behind this legislation came from an organization called the Humane Society of United States (HSUS). Since their successful explotation of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in Louisiana, their warchest has swollen to about $17 million. Interestingly, their contributions to the welfare of animals in the form of assistance to local Humane Societies (which are NOT affiliated with HSUS) has been nearly zero. They maintain a single shelter in Texas with about 200 animals under their care. The balance of the money is used to fund advancement of their political objectives - specifically, to outlaw the private ownership of animals. This sounds ridiculous, but when anyone has an idea and $17 million to spread among selected (and for sale) politicians, they should not be viewed as ridiculous - but dangerous.

For thiose unfamiliar with the HSUS, they are headquartered in Washington, DC, not Caliifornia. They rolled the dice here, and lost this round due to the sustained efforts of a number of individuals and organizations. I am confident that this proposal will be back in referendum within a couple of years.

The same HSUS has invested in New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and other states. If you have not seen this happening where you live, then wait a bit - it's coming.

On to California - the state everyone loves to hate. Between WWII and about 1998, California grew at the rate of about 1000 families PER DAY. They came here from every corner of the US and abroad. They came for money, and they came for the weather, and they kept coming. The angst felt by native Californians is not something that is easy to explain, but going from a population of less than 8 million people in the early 1950s to the current population of over 35 million was painful. I doubt that any other area of the country has been afflicted with this level of sustained population growth.

This growth is the real reason for the problems that have surfaced - water resource allocation, regional political conflict, over-development of rural areas, and the paving of the Golden State.

Paradise is lost. I am leaving here within a year or two - there is simply no place left that I can enjoy the outdoors with my dogs without conflicts with other (mainly urban) recreation seekers. When I move to another state, I'll likely have to immediately remove my Calironia license plates and be vague when discussing my origins. I understand. People do not want to be crowded out of their space by new people coming in to live. I understand very well.

Matt Mullenix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reid Farmer said...

I'm glad I moved!