Pheasant Ridge Ranch

Well-Oiled Propaganda Machines Convince A Sympathetic Public
Donations Are Being Used To Help ‘Poor, Unfortunate Animals’

By Patte Titus

“lf you’re shy, uncomfortable with public speaking, or new at activism, you may feel like you are all alone. But it only takes one individual to educate hundreds of people and affect their often-unwittingly exploitative attitudes and lifestyles. Perhaps there are no animal rights groups in your area, but there is at least one animal rights activist you. ”

This statement was taken from PETA’s web site. You may be wondering why I am using material from PETA. It is because in the last 16 years PETA and HSUS have used their well-oiled propaganda machines to push through restrictive legislation that affects us because of our chosen life style and we own animals. They know how to work the system not to mention appeal to the sympathy of the unsuspecting masses to accumulate millions of dollars to support their cause. They target children as young as 8, educators, celebrity figures, retirees, civic groups and companies to become activist, work for their cause under the guise of helping animals when the money raised is primarily used to legislate their rights away.

The concepts of how to become an activist, get organized, get others involved, spread the message and raise money found on PETA and HSUS web sites can just as easily be used to counteract their efforts. Neither organization is bashful about asking for money and both make it simple to make a donation. Both take advantage of a disaster like Hurricane Katrina or controversy, dog fighting, to ask for money under the guise it will be used to help the animals. Neither contribute to or maintain animal shelters nor does HSUS provide income to help those shelters that have “humane society” in their name. People across the U.S. donate to both organizations under the belief their money is going to help the “poor unfortunate animals” when nothing could be further from the truth. It’s going for administrative purposes and legislation.

In the 1991 March issue of SHORT- HAIR an article by Larry Porter, outdoor writer for the Omaha World-Herald, was reprinted with permission. The article was about an upcoming debate between Walter Howard, a 73 year old professor emeritus who retired in 1987 after 40 years as a wildlife professor at UC Davis, and Wayne Pacelle, then the national director of the Fund for Animals and subsequently President of the HSUS. The de- bate was to take place in June at the Out- door Writers Association of America’s meeting in Niagara Falls, NY. Howard acknowledged he would not sway the audience members but stated, “l need to reach the average citizen who is sitting on the fence.”

Howard made the points that the animal rights activists “entrap” young people primarily with the concept that animals were here first; that people are the intruders who need to back off because the animals have rights and the humans don’t belong here.

He went on to say, “Humans have the thought that it is illegal and obscene to die.” A point seized by the animal rights activists to use for their movement. Quoting Howard: “The animal-rights movement is dangerous in that it is giving a false impression – the Bambi syndrome—to the public …. People do not realize that nature is dog-eat-dog with far more cruelty…. Nature is ugly and brutal and in some cases downright cruel…. Wild animals don’t have compassion for other species. Only people have compassion for other species.”

lt is important to understand one cannot use reason with animal rights activists because they are convinced their ideas are correct so discussion is unnecessary. Their goal is to end ownership and use of animals by humans…. period.

Sixteen years later PETA & HSUS are larger and better organized with multi- million dollar budgets and influence continuing to expand around the world. We, on the other hand, are continuing to react instead of being proactive.

Currently, The U. S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (www.ussportsmen.org) and the National Animal Interest Alliance (www.naiaonline.org/) are working to counter the impact of PETA and HSUS on state and federal legislation. They need our support. We need to get involved on local and state levels to get out our message…. something PETA and HSUS have been doing for a while. Why don’t we get our message out first? l don’t think we can afford to wait at the rate we are losing our rights as dog owners, hunters and sportsmen.

Recommendations of things to do: Look for opportunities to write op-ed pieces for local papers that summarize an issue, develops an argument and proposes a solution. Send it to the Editorial Page editor. Keep it brief, typed or written legibly with good grammar and. Have someone proof read it. Increase credibility by mentioning an attribute that makes you especially qualified. (PETA uses this suggestion to promote a vegan diet: “As a nutritionist, I know a veggie diet is healthy.)

Speak or write affirmatively. Avoid self-righteous language and exaggeration. Don’t assume your audience knows the issues.

(Editor’s note: It is a print media maxim that to be understood by the general public, articles should be written at no higher than 12th grade level. You are not writing for a professional or technical journal so don’t get too technical. Use frequent paragraph breaks as people tend to skim over long, rambling paragraphs. And keep it brief!)

Speak or write so individuals can identify with you. Use positive suggestions rather than negative commands. One of the best ploys used by PETA is to imbue animals with a human quality.

HSUS and PETA are not afraid to use consumer clout to let business establishments know they will take their business elsewhere and legislation is their primary focus. If we don’t communicate with our elected officials you can be sure they will. The question: Whose voice do we want them to hear? The U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance and National Animal Interest Alliance web sites have information that will help with pending or ongoing state and federal legislation. With specific legislation they may even have suggestions of how to write letters and make points for use when writing letters to legislators.

Keep letters brief. In the first sentence mention the subject/specific bill/ actions being taken and its number. Then state whether you support or oppose it, include the specific section(s) being ad- dressed and reasons for or against with supporting data. Ask for a response. PETA and HSUS have found that persistence works if they don’t get the answer they want the first time. They’ve learned that sooner or later a legislator may change his mind and that is what they count on. Letters and faxes work better than emails.

Get to know your local city government officials; touch base with them periodically. This will help later when you sent them letters about a specific issue under consideration.

After a legislative attempt in CA to pass mandatory spay/neuter for all animals by the age of 6 months (CA bill 1625 which was subsequently withdrawn), I wrote the following that was subsequently cross—posted on the Internet:

“As I read some of the emails about the most recent legislation in CA and having just gone through a couple of bouts here in TX, I would like to offer the following insight. One would think by looking at the overwhelming percent of individuals voting against spay/neuter which is at the heart of most legislation that local Law-makers would be listening. Unfortunately they are but it’s to the wrong people.”

Concerned individuals who own pets need to go to PETA and HSUS web sites and read very carefully what they are and what they do. Pay close attention to PETA’s web site on education in the schools and receiving college course credit. Also pay close attention to the fact that the money they raise does not go to help animals but for legislative efforts. They are well organized and well funded and they don’t care if the legislation passed is ever enforced as they are on to the next local city or state to do more of the same.

Individuals who push this type of legislation will use a mantra “facts and figures” (some of which don’t exists) so as to overwhelm and shock the caring person’s senses. They argue from emotional issue points and nine times out often are not versed in the animal areas for which they accuse others of being the offenders.

San Antonio, TX, is a prime example with a committee of eight in the process of re-writing the City’s Code as it relates to all animals, pet related facilities, rodeo, boarding kennels, research facilities, etc. Only one has the background and expertise to deal with the local issues. Of the other seven, four are primarily interested in the feral cat population. Of the remaining three, one is in charge of privately run animal shelters and the other is a statistician. A majority believe a spay/neuter ordinance along with restrictive breeder permits is the only way to deal with animal problems. At the same time they refuse to take into account actual stray figures and city demographics.

Animal rights activist learn early how to position themselves in places of influence. Go look at PETA and HSUS web sites again, it’s all there. In the meantime the average pet owner has no idea of the massive movement under way to strip away their rights to own a pet.

The proponents for spay/neuter ordinance, limiting numbers and breeder permits use the average pet owner’s “donation to help animals” against them by hiring lobbyist to target specific lawmakers. They do their homework; they find out which lawmaker is leaning which direction and work on them from that angle. Some- times it’s nothing more than a trade off vote; meanwhile the common man loses his right to own and make decisions about his pets. Had it not been for two local purebred dog breeders (who also happened to be attorneys) and a lobbyist, the average pet owner would never have got- ten some of the amendments added to the recently passed “Dangerous Dog Bill” (effective as of this printing) in the TX legislature.

Helping research facts and figures for the current rewrite of SA’s City Code for Animals and sitting through many hours of testimony on both the state and local levels, I can’t tell you how many times references were made to other cities that had spay/neuter ordinances. These were being used as the model even if those cities has since rescinded the ordinances because they couldn’t enforce them or their shelter kill rate escalated because individuals couldn’t pay or were afraid they would be subject to search and seizure.

All eyes are on CA because of the ripple affect the first neuter/spay ordinance it passed in the early 1990s. I lived in Southern California when these first ordinances were passed and thought it was just something local to California. I could not have been more wrong. If we continue to sit back and let them define us and hope someone else will step up to plate think again about the last 16 years and what we had then and where we are now.

From “Shorthair Journal” November 2007