Guardian?

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by Artos

I would see Animal Rights are a kind of parallel to 'human RIGHTS'...not 'welfare'.

That's what animal rights is, that animals are equal to humans and have the same rights.

However, animals are not able to understand and be responsible as people are. so they are not equal and should not have the same "rights".

Some websites for you to read:
http://animalscam.com/
http://www.pet-law.com/
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/artic...s/guardian.htm
http://purebredcatbreedrescue.org/animal_rights.htm
http://www.mofed.org/RightsOrWelfare.html

Welfare would be associated with Singapore SPCA here- they kill dogs and cats (92 per cent of those surrendered to them because they dont have a way of caring for these.

Many shelters are aligned with animal rights not animal welfare. The animal rights people don't have a problem with killing animals. To them it's better dead than caged or "owned". They think that when we own animals we have "enslaved" them.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

They are not willing to focus on options like working with the other animal concern groups which have been established since SPCA started this policy. Those groups actually find housing for the animals at great cost to themselves and are run primarily by volunteers- unlike SPCA)

Here some shelters (SPCA/Humane Societies and other shelters) won't work with rescue groups either. Some want to place the animals themselves or use them for supporting thier numbers as to how many they "have" to euthanize each year.

We need some ACTIVISTS here....to fight for just laws for animals.

Yes, maybe, but activists on the right side. Those that will work for improving the lives of doemestic animals which is Animal Welfare. Again, NOT Animal Rights.

Peggy

[Artos]

I still prefer 'animal rights' to 'welfare' (the latter sounds like a limp organisation which just puts band-aids on the situations that need more radical actions).

But never mind. We agree to disagree.
We work in different contexts and we love our animals differently.
To you - he is a dog and an animal.
To me- he is my son/daughter, my furkid. (cf 2 Samuel 12:1-10).


Perhaps the Moderator can put the alternative wordings that I suggested (GUARDIAN/OWNER[delete whichever]___________) on the page in question so that it would reflect both views.....

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Artos

I still prefer 'animal rights' to 'welfare' (the latter sounds like a limp organisation which just puts band-aids on the situations that need more radical actions).

Radical actions such as these stated?

"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just road would be ending the concept of pet ownership." Elliot Katz from In Defense of Animals

Which given some of the responses here, shows how successfully this idea has been implanted. Now we go to the next step:

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word "pet" is the first step ... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as "pets."

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles - from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it. 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

(Puts new illumination on mandatory spay/neuter legislation in that last one doesn't it? )

Two from PeTA's statement on companion animals:

"As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves."

"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme."

----------
Short version - everyone of us on this forum who has a dog, cat, gerbil, horse, fish, etc., etc. are really abusing our animals by "enslaving" via domestication and therefore are abusive and wrong.

But never mind. We agree to disagree.

It isn't a matter of agreeing to disagree. There is a very defined agenda here that the animal rights movement is pursuing and they are doing it via propaganda, brainwashing, using the educational system which makes it all that much easier to push it politically and legislatively and this has been going on since the 1980's. You either support it or you don't.

The Animal Rights Agenda

The animal rights platform sets the goals for ending the use of animals: The animal rights agenda was published in Animals' Agenda magazine in November 1987 and reprinted in The Hijacking of the Humane Movement by Rod and Patti Strand.

1. We are firmly committed to the eventual abolition by law of animal research, and call for an immediate prohibition of painful experiments and tests. The billions of dollars disbursed annually by the National Institutes of Health for animal experiments should be rechanneled into direct health care, preventive medicine, and biomedical research using non-animal tests and procedures. In addition, the government should fund projects to develop and promote non-animal technologies where they do not yet exist so that animal experiments may be rapidly phased out. In the meantime, procedural mechanisms must be established to allow for greater public scrutiny of all research using animals.

2. The use of animals for cosmetics and household product testing, tobacco and alcohol testing, psychological testing, classroom demonstrations and dissection, and in weapons development or other warfare programs must be outlawed immediately.

3. We encourage vegetarianism for ethical, ecological, and health reasons. As conversion of plant protein to animal flesh for human consumption is an energetically inefficient means of food production, a vegetarian diet allows for wiser use of the world's limited food resources. Livestock production is a major source of environmental degradation. Furthermore, a shift in human diet from animal foods to plant food would result in a lower incidence of heart diseases and cancer and better health generally. Vegetarian meals should be made available to all public institutions including primary and secondary schools. Nutritional education programs currently administered by the Department of Agriculture should be handled by an agency charged with promoting public health rather than promoting the interest of agribusiness.

4. Steps should be taken to begin phasing out intensive confinement systems of livestock production, also called factory farming, which causes severe physical and psychological suffering for the animals kept in overcrowded and unnatural conditions. As animal agriculture depletes and pollutes water and soil resources, and destroys forests and other ecosystems, we call for the eventual elimination of animal agriculture. In the meantime, the exportation of live farm animals for overseas slaughter must be regulated to ensure humane treatment. Livestock grazing on US public lands should be immediately prohibited. Internationally, the US should assist poorer countries in the development of locally-based, self-reliant agricultural systems.

5. The use of herbicides, pesticides, and other toxic agricultural chemicals should be phased out. Predator control on public lands should be immediately outlawed and steps should be taken to introduce native predators to areas from which they have been eradicated in order to restore the balance of nature.

6. Responsibility for enforcement of animal welfare legislation must be transferred from the Department of Agriculture to an agency created for the purpose of protecting animals and the environment.

7. Commercial trapping and fur ranching should be eliminated. We call for an end to the use of furs while recognizing Western society's responsibility to support alternative livelihood for native peoples who now rely on trapping because of the colonial European and North American fur industries.

8. Hunting, trapping, and fishing for sport should be prohibited. State and federal agencies should focus on preserving and re-establishing habitat for wild animals instead of practicing game species management for maximum sustainable yield. Where possible, native species, including predators, should be reintroduced to areas from which they have been eradicated. Protection of native animals and plants in their natural surroundings must be given priority over economic development plans. Further, drainage of wetlands and development of shore areas must be stopped immediately.

9. Internationally, steps should be taken by the US government to prevent further destruction of rain forests. Additionally, we call on the US government to act aggressively to end international trade in wildlife and goods produced from exotic an/or endangered fauna or flora.

10. We strongly discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or purebred dogs and cats. Spay and neuter clinics should be subsidized by state and municipal governments. Commerce in domestic and exotic animals for the pet trade should be abolished.

11. We call for an end to the use of animals in entertainment and sports such as dog racing, dog and cock fighting, fox hunting, hare coursing, rodeos, circuses, and other spectacles and a critical reappraisal of the use of animals in quasi-educational institutions such as zoos and aquariums. These institutions, guided not by humane concerns but by market imperatives, often cruelly treat animals and act as agents of destruction for wild animals. In general, we believe that animals should be left in their appropriate environments in the wild, not showcased for entertainment purposes. Any animals held captive must have their psychological, behavioral, and social needs satisfied.

12. Advances in biotechnology are posing a threat to the integrity of species, which may ultimately reduce all living beings to the level of patentable commodities. Genetic manipulation of species to produce transgenic animals must be prohibited.

We work in different contexts and we love our animals differently.
To you - he is a dog and an animal.
To me- he is my son/daughter, my furkid. (cf 2 Samuel 12:1-10).

One of the positives of Cesar Millan is that he stresses dogs are not children or little humans in fur suits. Many of the behavioral issues and problems, including those you've experienced with your two, are the results of anthromorphosizing them and treating them as such. However, I suppose you agree with this statement from Dr. Michael Fox with HSUS: "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration." or "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA founder

What everyone needs to realize about the animal rights movement is that it isn't necessarily about even liking animals, the guru of the movement has been quoted as such, they just dislike humans.

"If you haven't given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival of millions, if not billions of Earth-dwelling species ... Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. Les U. Knight (pseudonym)

This movement is international in base and yes it is in Asia as well. HSUS, NSAL, PeTA - all have Asian involvement.

I doubt if I love my dogs any differently than you do and there are two things one better not mess with: 1) my kids (meaning my nieces and nephews) and 2) my dogs. Guardianship language messes with my dogs.

Debbie

[Artos]

I have never seen or heard Caesar Millan(except his name being mentioned on this thread) and I have no connections with any of those animal activists before so whatever I say has nothing to do with the groups you have problems with.

Please dont impose what you know of the propaganda of these groups on me or others like me as if we hold their beliefs. We dont have them in our country. They are not active in most of our neighbouring countries. In their publicity they might claim that they are doing this or that here and there. Given the largeness of Asia and diversity of nations and cultures- their actions in one part may not be known by anyone in another part of the continent. We are not a nation like USA. We are more like Europe.

If they come into some countries in Asia, they would get kicked out immediately or ignored by most of the people. We do not have much protection for animals at all.Most dont think its important.....so why would most people bother to hear 'extreme' views re: animals?

Radical to us means -very basic (in human terms- it would be called ' human rights') issues that need to be addressed/redressed :eg

1 stop the culling of stray dogs and kicking the stray cats by the govt or SPCA/ general population.
2 stop the eating of sharks fin in our restaurants (very popular now since it is Chinese New Year)
3 stop the sale of bile from captive live bears in some countries in Asia
4 Stop the barbaric eating of brains of live monkeys in places like Hong kong
5 stop the slicing of fish while they are alive - for sushi bars in Japan etc.
Horrific life and death stuff.
These would be what I call 'animal rights' issues.

We fight different battles.
Your enemy might not be the one I am facing- please dont impose your enemy's identity on me.

You might want to see your neices and nephews as your kids.
Fine for you.
I dont have these.
My dogs ARE my kids.

The key word is RESPECT.
Respect others' space as you would want them to respect yours.
This is an international forum site. Not a USA site.
OWNER/GUARDIAN is a fair compromise.

[glencorgi]

Please dont impose what you know of the propaganda of these groups on me or others like me as if we hold their beliefs. We dont have them in our country. They are not active in most of our neighbouring countries. In their publicity they might claim that they are doing this or that here and there. Given the largeness of Asia and diversity of nations and cultures- their actions in one part may not be known by anyone in another part of the continent. We are not a nation like USA. We are more like Europe.

And the momentum and some of the more radical successes of the animal rights movement have their roots and beginnings in Europe. The movement IS international in basis - both western and eastern and they are, whether you realize it or not, in Asia.

If they come into some countries in Asia, they would get kicked out immediately or ignored by most of the people. We do not have much protection for animals at all.Most dont think its important.....so why would most people bother to hear 'extreme' views re: animals?

And as Peggy tried to explain, what you are concerned with is animal WELFARE, not animal rights.

Radical to us means -very basic (in human terms- it would be called ' human rights') issues that need to be addressed/redressed :eg

1 stop the culling of stray dogs and kicking the stray cats by the govt or SPCA/ general population.
2 stop the eating of sharks fin in our restaurants (very popular now since it is Chinese New Year)
3 stop the sale of bile from captive live bears in some countries in Asia
4 Stop the barbaric eating of brains of live monkeys in places like Hong kong
5 stop the slicing of fish while they are alive - for sushi bars in Japan etc.
Horrific life and death stuff.
These would be what I call 'animal rights' issues.

No those, again, are animal WELFARE issues not animal rights.

We fight different battles.
Your enemy might not be the one I am facing- please dont impose your enemy's identity on me.

I am not imposing my enemy's identity on you. Country after country, continent after continent, their message and intentions are the same. They've been active in China, so don't tell me they don't have a foot hold in Asia. Furthermore, should Michael's vision of an United Nations animal regulatory "division" ever take off, then it would be animal rights based.

You might want to see your neices and nephews as your kids.
Fine for you.
I dont have these.
My dogs ARE my kids.

To a degree, my dogs are my "kids" as well. I just never lose the distinction that they are animals and they are dogs. It isn't fair or being responsible to them.

The key word is RESPECT.
Respect others' space as you would want them to respect yours.
This is an international forum site. Not a USA site.

There was nothing disrespectful in what I wrote, it was fact and letting the individuals in the movement words speak for themselves. This battle is an INTERNATIONAL fight, nothing ethnocentric about anything I wrote. The guru of the movement is an Aussie.

OWNER/GUARDIAN is a fair compromise.

I don't compromise with AR's or terminology from them. The results are never in the best interest of animals.

Debbie

[Artos]

Please note that China is not Asia.
It may be more dominant and loud but it isnt the rest of Asia.
It is like saying- "Some groups are active in England, dont tell me they dont have a foothold in Europe". The French and the Swedes would be horrified. They might not even like the English! We are different countries with different languages, cultures and political ideologies. We cannot be painted with the same brush.

Australia is a 'wierd' part of Asia- it has more loyalties and links to America and England than to Asia. So if the guy is an Aussie- I think he will find more support in the West than here. Colour and culture- very different.

I recognise that the words 'guardian' and 'animal rights' have different meanings for you where you are. Words like "owner' and 'welfare' are better for you. 'Guardian' word takes away your right to your pet. 'Animal Rights' speak of aggressive attacks on human dignity and rights.

From where I am- with the strong emphasis on 'animals are strictly property and we can abuse them' - the word 'owner' allows that abuse to be justified. The word 'guardian' speaks more of responsibility for animals. A kinder word in our context. 'Welfare' sounds like ' social welfare- care for them only if you have extras to spare...and usually you wont have because there are ALWAYS other priorities...'. Hence too weak a term. Because we have had our human rights trampled- we know what it means when we talk about ' animal rights'. Not taking over human rights but a lesser yet important equivalent of it, appealing to the human sense of correct morality and justice re the issue.

We speak to different contexts and the difference should be respected.

[Stephen]

I am not an animal rights activist. I would not create a dog forum which encourages corgi ownership if this were so. Please everyone, let's think rationally.

Guardian was chosen because it seemed more universal than owner.

[Michael Romanos]

I am a late comer to this thread so I'll just take up the last point made by Stephen.
Guardian for owner, I hope not. But is this the kind of jargon that is overtaking us. A lot of us on Go Corgi are our Corgis 'mums' and 'dads.' This sits well with me and I have even talked my wife into using the phrase on occasions.
In Britain they are deleting or are about to delete all official references to parent/s of children as mums and dads, mothers and fathers and the word parents itself. It is now or going to be caregivers and a few other choices (could even be guardians). It is all about gay people and gay relationships including gay 'marriages ' and the fact that gay couples do not consist of one man and one woman.
I hope New Zealand doesn't go down this path, I am too Catholic in my outlook to this kind of thing, but I expect we will sooner rather than later.

[Chip's Mom]

Michael

That is so sad - it just proves my point that people need to speak out before it is too late and we lose all of our rights. I am also too Christian for this kind of thing. I am glad that Stephen posted to this thread and I hope he takes the positive approach and changes guardian to owner just to make a statement to the world that Go Corgi is not pro animal rights. If more people would speak out against these issues, the less issues there would be. We are unfortunately losing our rights to our own belief because of the activists.

[glencorgi]

Thank you Michael for illustrating so well the point of our concern with an equally disturbing example of how words get hijacked, meanings get distorted and the legal implications and ramifications endanger us.

Debbie

[dcole]

Hmmm, so this didn't post the last time I tried; try again...

Originally Posted by Chip's Mom

That is so sad - it just proves my point that people need to speak out before it is too late and we lose all of our rights. I am also too Christian for this kind of thing.

Well geez, guys, so sorry (not!) that my being somehow infringes on your rights. ( To quote the title of Melissa Etheridge's coming out album - "Yes, I Am") . And I had no idea how disturbing and endangering I was. Whatever.

Oh well, I will continue to cheer when Taylor does well in competition, or feel badly the next time that Chip or Dale has a dental problem. Why, because I am not a HATER.

Now, let's get back to what's important, talking about our corgis, shall we?

-Debi

[Chip's Mom]

Debi:

I apologize if I offended you - it is none of my business what your preferences are or anybody elses for that matter but what concerns me is the people who try to push their own beliefs onto other people and force us to change our words or actions that we have used for centuries simply because it offends them and it is the same with our corgis. I own my dog - he is bought and paid for and I will make my own decisions for them and nobody will tell me how to do that. We have rights to and I see them being widdled away. Do you think it is right to delete all references to Mom and Dad and for parents to be called caregivers? Do you think it is right for the Ten Commandments to be taken out of public buildings and Jesus to be removed from Christmas? For prayer to be removed from schools? Since we are expected to respect people with different beliefs then people with different beliefs should respect our right also and not keep taking our rights away from us. Some stores do not even allow their employees to say "Merry Christmas" That offends me also and where is my rights.

[glencorgi]

Debi,

<IMHO> IF you should adopt a child, then you should be "parent." Not caregiver or guardian or any other politically correct mumbo jumbo someone decides to come up with. To be anything else leaves legal cracks for you to be able to make the decisions on raising your child in the manner you think best and most responsible. That is my objection to the hijacking of words whether it be guardian for owner or caretaker for parent.

Debbie

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Artos

Please note that China is not Asia.
It may be more dominant and loud but it isnt the rest of Asia.
It is like saying- "Some groups are active in England, dont tell me they dont have a foothold in Europe". The French and the Swedes would be horrified.

Animal rightists are definitely active in France. Sweden and the Scandanavian countries are the first countries where they won the first anti-docking bans.

They might not even like the English! We are different countries with different languages, cultures and political ideologies. We cannot be painted with the same brush.

But the animal rights agenda can be painted with the same brush. It has the same goals no matter what country.

From where I am- with the strong emphasis on 'animals are strictly property and we can abuse them' - the word 'owner' allows that abuse to be justified.

Again those are animal welfare issues - issues against animal cruelty and abuse.

[quote= The word 'guardian' speaks more of responsibility for animals. A kinder word in our context.[/QUOTE]

Being a legally defined guardian of one's pet does not make one anymore responsible than when they were an owner. There are places where guardianship language exists and abuse and cruelty still occur.

'Welfare' sounds like ' social welfare- care for them only if you have extras to spare...and usually you wont have because there are ALWAYS other priorities...'. Hence too weak a term.

Not if sound, realistic and most importantly - enforceable laws are put into effect.

Because we have had our human rights trampled- we know what it means when we talk about ' animal rights'. Not taking over human rights but a lesser yet important equivalent of it, appealing to the human sense of correct morality and justice re the issue.

And words are not going to change that, as I said what is needed are sound, realistic and most importantly - enforceable laws against animal neglect, cruelty and abuse.

We speak to different contexts and the difference should be respected.

I have been following animal rights activists' involvement for many years now at local, state, national and international levels. I've seen what they have attempted to do and sometimes have succeeded in the wealthiest to the poorest of nations.

Debbie

[ZdogZ]

Bonnie ~ Will have to agree with you. People wonder why crime is up, look at how our society has become! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Put prayer and discipline back in school and see how things would get better. As a teacher, I strongly feel that if parents would start being held accountable for their kids behavior, the kids would start behaving better and learning a lot more.