Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Monday, October 24, 2005

Animal Advocates vs Animal Extremists

On Thursday, we published a story concerning the City paying for security measures at the homes of various Department of Animal Services staff members, in the light of increasingly upticked rhetoric from animal activist groups, such as the Animal Defense League, headed up by former child actress Pam Ferdin. Today we publish a counter point from Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals who argues that not all animal welfare advocates are extreme wackos and that their mission is to make the lives of animals better.

I live in LA. I run an animal rescue group. I also have a "real" job as a real estate broker and appraiser so I can pay for my animal habit. Whenever I'm out and about meeting new people, they always ask me what I do. I take a deep breath and reluctantly say I am an animal advocate. Immediately they take two steps back. Will I spray paint their fur coats, threaten to kill them for eating chicken, blow up their SUV because it has leather seats or will I just tell their three year old that burgers are actually dead cows? There is a big difference between the sane animal community and the animal extremists though each group has it's share of fruits and nuts.

99% of the animal community in LA just loves animals, plain and simple. Some rescue animals from the shelters, some care for feral cat colonies, some like to educate the public about proper animal care, some try to pass animal friendly legislation and some just like to have a few too many cats and dogs around the house. Some are vegetarians, some are not.

For you non-animal people, diet is a big thing in the animal world. Do you eat or use animal products or not. Vegetarians don't eat meat but do eat dairy. Vegans don't eat meat, dairy or use any animal products at all. They won't wear leather or any product made from animals. They won't buy any product tested on animals or any product associated with animal testing. They have huge lists of products they must boycott for one reason or another. There are degrees among all the schools of thought on diets. For instance, some meat eaters will only eat meat if it's free range, organic, slaughtered humanely and not a threatened species. It gets pretty complex. It gives us animal people something to fight about amongst ourselves when we're not saving animals, getting beaten up by the press or being harassed by the feds.

Then there is the 1% of "animal people" who are extremists. They don't want any animals harmed or even used in any way, either in research, as food or clothing or exhibited in zoos. They feel VERY strongly about this. They are generally all vegans or else they'd be hypocrites. Some don't even agree with euthanasia for dying animals. They don't believe it should be the human's choice. Some believe we humans should stop having babies so we will die out as a species and the earth can revert back to the animals. To each his own.

The extremists truly believe in their hearts that we as in humans are harming and murdering living sentient beings. They believe they must do anything to stop this, even if it means setting off a smoke bomb, setting someone's car on fire or spray painting someone's home with the words "puppy killer." They will quote Ghandi, Malcolm X, Lincoln, equate their cause to freeing slaves in America or saving Jews in the Holocaust. Here you will find groups like ALF, SHAC and some extreme PETA sects.

A quote from Jerry Vlasak of ADL explains their point of view well, "We are fighting for the right of nonhuman sentient beings to not be exploited, taken against their will, imprisoned, and then tortured beyond anyone's comprehension for profit and bad science." They believe they are doing the right thing by being militant, fighting violence against animals with violence against humans even though their "right" thing is against the current penal code. They believe they are following the path of historical revolutionaries who have done even more violent acts to save humans. This is where the extremists start to have problems with others and government. This is also where the rest of us animal people get a bad undeserved reputation.

I was at the LA Zoo commission meeting prepared to speak about elephants in the Zoo. There were three news vans in the parking lot. They came up to me and asked me if I was from ADL or PETA. I said no, but I know the issues well and am prepared to speak. They waved me away while driving off. If I wasn't an outspoken militant extremist, they had no interest in me. The media is only interested in burning buildings, murders and major scandals. They don't want to listen to a sane person speak about the real issues in a calm and polite manner. That's boring and won't help their ratings even though it'd be good journalism. This is why the sane animal voice is rarely heard. You will only hear the extremists. Because you only hear the extremists, the public thinks we're all extremists. We're not all violent kooks!

Now I love animals as much as the next animal person. I am totally against anyone doing anything illegal to animals. I don't like it when people poison ground squirrels but if they do it according to the law, I won't make a case against it. I will try to educate them about humane alternatives and offer my help. I'm also working through the legal process to make some poisons illegal as they are not safe for humans, pets and non-target wildlife. If the public tells me to go pound sand, I will. I don't believe in missionarianism. I don't have to convert everyone to my beliefs. I won't turn around and hit them over the head with a giant Tofu bat if they don't want to listen. I am a law abiding citizen. I also don't feel that I could save very many animals if I were in jail.

I don't like seeing adoptable animals euthanized in the City animal shelters. I want the shelters to do a better job and to become low or no-kill. I am willing to help the shelters accomplish this. But, in the meantime I won't set off a smoke bomb in the General Manager's home. True, he's not doing the best job but I work within the system. I get along with cities and the public. I go through the proper, legal channels to effectuate change. I feel my voice is better received if I'm calm and rational. As I am an "animal person" I have to act 10x more sane than a regular person anyway if I want anyone to listen to me and consider my ideas. Not only am I totally against violence of any type but I don't feel that the militant, violent approach is even effective. In fact, at times it hurts the cause, the animal community and the animals.

Now you know the difference between an animal advocate and an animal extremist, a vegan and a vegetarian, an international terrorist and the crazy cat lady down the street. Just because we love helping animals, doesn't mean we're all violent looney nut cases. The next time you see one of us walking around with a t-shirt that says "I love cats," don't instantly call us a tree-hugging PETA loving wanna-be Osama bin laden. Maybe the person actually just loves cats. Judge us all independently. We're not all "terrorists" who want to blow up your house because you eat bird embryo omelettes with a side of dead pig. If you want to clog your arteries, be my guest. Some of us just like animals, and humans. Humans are of course animals too. Can't we all just get along?

22 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Misses the point, once again, that MAV made a promise, and won't keep it.

"Wacko" or not, it needs to keep being said.

Broken promises = unfit to govern.

October 24, 2005 11:06 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Well, those screwing Vegans are crazy! I know my meathead son in law is one.

October 24, 2005 11:22 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The problem isn't vegetarians, vegans or other animal friendly groups. It's radicals that would rather threaten and inflict injury than promote change through organizing and educating.

Problem is that these methods take longer and distort the message.

October 24, 2005 12:10 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

To each their own, indeed. But I will never have sympathy for a cause when I have to be evacuated from my house because someone has called in a bomb threat against my neighbor's house, or when a group marches down my street screaming in a bullhorn - when I don't even live on the same street as the guy they're protesting!

I recognize that there are plenty of animal activists who would never do this and I'm sure you're one of them. But frankly I do feel more suspicious of the movement in general because of the activities of these groups. Maybe other animal activist groups should point that out to your lunatic fringe, that they are harming your cause more than helping it.

October 24, 2005 12:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Why are the animal activists so radical? There's a lot of groups who protest and get their point across however I think when you go to the homes of employees that crosses the line. These people are dangerous and should be arrested if they threaten to do bodily harm. Antonio promised and then went back on his word.

October 24, 2005 12:40 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The point is that NOT ALL animal activists are crazy like this fringe. Are all Christians nuts because of a few abortion clinic terrorists? Are all Muslims nuts because of individual suicide bombers? Are all Irish crazy because of some N. Ireland liberation bombers?

Just pick your group and you'll find a fringe.

October 24, 2005 12:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I think these animal activists ought to use their energy for the betterment of humans (perhaps, I know this sounds radical, homeless people). It is just a thought.

October 24, 2005 12:47 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"99% of the animal community in LA just loves animals"

Query: How do you love an animal?

It is disturbing that some people have elevated dogs and cats (ok, mostly dogs) to the level of loving them. Look out for your fellow human.

October 24, 2005 12:53 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

12:53 -- can't compare the two Targeted Communications polls? Let me help.

The June survey was 39.3% Pacheco, 12.1% Huizar.

The October survey, using the same methodology - live callers, was 35.1% Huizar to 22.3% Pacheco.

That's Pacheco's margin moving from +27.1 to -12.8 -- a whopping negative 39.9% move for Nick.

The only question now is, does Huizar win this without a runoff?

October 24, 2005 1:12 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

anyone recall those Faces of Death videos? the monkey in the middle of the table? the puppies in the Phillippines? animals make out okay here in USA. get off your high horse activists and enjoy a steak once in a while.

Jacob Osgood

October 24, 2005 1:41 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Animal Activists have no one to blame but themselves. Their setbacks are all their fault.

It's interesting how they blame the Mayor when they know he can't succumb to terrorists threats or illegal activities.

Do you guys really think Stuckey has that much influence in the Villaraigosa administration? NO.

But the animal wacko community clearly has no political spidey-senses because they endorsed Wacko Walter and smoke bomb private citizen's houses.

Not exactly the way to go about getting your business done.

Well i don't agree with the mayor keeping stuckey -- i think the Mayor can't be seen as caving into terrorists activities.

Sorry animal weirdos, you did it to yourselves.

October 24, 2005 1:49 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

1:49 - good thing animal activists don't have to worry about morons like yourself having any authority over stuff. The rational folks realize that the wackos don't represent all animal groups.

October 24, 2005 2:26 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This mink coat is so cozy on these cold days. And my leather shoes keep my little toes warm.

Nancy

October 24, 2005 3:15 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

1:12 p..m.

You're LOST on the wrong thread, and WRONG, read it again. NOT the same questions, NOT the same candidiate matchups, NOT the same terminology used in the questioning. NOT, NOT, NOT...

Wishing don't make it so, go back and look at it through less star-struck eyes.

If by "same methodlogy" you mean telephoning people, well DUH! Most polls DO do that.

Moron!

Huizar get's pretty much every endorsment possible and rides heavily on the mayor's coattails, PLUS spends HALF a million bucks in less than three months (inc. IE's and he's still barely at one-third of the electorate.

If he's got another $500K to through out in the next week or so, he MIGHT pull it off without a runoff - but he won't. Then, after everyone KNOWS who he is, and how LITTLE he's done at LAUSD, and all the silly also-rans are gone, it's just "what can each one do for CD14" in a short period of time.

And THAT's too much bad news for AV's little boy to deal with.

October 24, 2005 3:30 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Wow, 1:12. You really pissed someone off (see 3:30). You've ruined their day. And to think, they were gonna' walk in this bad weather.

3:30 -
Look, the only question that matters is:

If the election were held today, who would you vote for? And it's this answer that's BAD NEWS for NP.

October 24, 2005 3:37 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

3:37

If the election were held today?

Did I miss the vote? Damn thought I had another 2+ weeks.

October 24, 2005 3:44 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

3:44
That's right. Times runnin' out. And judging by the course of this campaign, it ain't in your favor.

October 24, 2005 4:04 PM  

Blogger dgarzila said:

my poll at http://www.centralcitye.blosgpsot.com

has NIck PAcheco ahead of Juan Jimenez and JOse Huizar.

Of course anyone in the city can vote on my poll. Just wondering why no one does.

October 24, 2005 4:17 PM  

Blogger Sahra Bogado said:

We're not all "terrorists" who want to blow up your house because you eat bird embryo omelettes...

This was raised in jest, I know, but I want to offer the following facts:

My mom has kept chickens in her backyard (on the Westside) for over 20 years. Unless the eggs are fertilized by a rooster, there are no embryos.

Sorry to nit-pick, but her hens are a pretty happy lot. And their eggs are really good.

I think that thinking too obsessively about animal cruelty might have blurred some of these people's ability to see some of the positive things that come out of humans keeping animals. I know this is going to sound strange to some of the animal rights people out there, but domesticated animals genetically benefit from being kept by humans.

In order to feed ourselves we allow captive animals to perpetuate their genes into eternity. They typically suffer a lot if they are raised in commercial farms, but it's not such an awful genetic situation when you take a look at it. I'm not trying to excuse the barbarity and cruelty involved in killing animals, but there is an upside to being a domestic animal in that your success is tied to our species' success. And I think it is fair to say that human kind is something of a badass in the animal world.

While not excusing cruelty, I think that any rationaal person can see that humans using animals is not a totally bad deal for the animals.

October 24, 2005 4:31 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Pamela, get real, what did you think? The mayor doesn't keep promises, he's the first latino mayor and he doesn't have to. He coule care less what anyone thinks, he has Vignale on his side with all his thugs...

October 24, 2005 7:39 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

A recent post to this blog talked about activists and extremists in the debate over the City's Department of Animal Services. Now it appears that the department's workers are getting involved too. They are launching an assault on the Board of Animal Services Commissioners, which has been leading the fight against the lousy management of besieged GM Guerdon Stuckey.

The hard working commission includes people originally appointed by Villaraigosa, Hahn and Riordan. In recent weeks it has received lip service from the new administration but little else. In September his staff told them to escalate their role in overseeing the department in accordance with the City Administrative Code. Since then they have hung the commissioners out to dry when Stuckey thumbed his nose at their efforts. Now word on the street is that the Mayor and his lieutenants are dishing on the commission, accusing them of being too weak to stand up to him. They couldn't be more wrong, or more stupid.

If I were the Mayor and I gave orders to a GM and got the kind of response Stuckey has offered up, I'd have him cleaning out his desk before lunch. When he isn't flaunting commission directives, he's fumbling them outright. It's painful to watch because it's such an embarrassment for Stuckey and an administration that can't get out of its own way. The arrogant Stuckey seems almost oblivious, while the commission fumes. They're caught between his indifference and Villaraigosa's spinelessness. If this is ADV's idea of "the best and the brightest," heaven help us for the rest of his tenure.

Now we have SEIU 347 blundering into the mess, something they seem to do well. They've taken on the role of apologists for an insider network of "good old boys" who run roughshod over the better employees at Animal Services. They've put out an email threatening to turn out a crowd at the next commission meeting. But to what end? Are they going to attack the commission for trying to get department management to make sure the staffers are doing their jobs correctly? Has Julie Butcher's arsenal of ideas run so dry that all she can do is defend bad city workers? She's got enough problems to deal with already without expending what little political capital she has left by confirming taxpayers' lousy opinions of public employees.

The battle over the future of LA Animal Services is escalating and the union is the latest to enter the fray. But as Villaraigosa is finding out the hard way, protecting incompetence carries with it a heavy political price. SEIU may think it's making nice with a Mayor they opposed in his campaign, but they're going to find themselves holding the bag all alone when Villaraigosa decides that price for protecting Stuckey is too high.

Blog on!

October 25, 2005 9:02 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hey,7:39: The election is over. You lost. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.....

October 26, 2005 12:51 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement