|
Animal Rights a World Problem September 11, 2003
By: Lt. Col. Dennis J. Foster
The animal rights movement is bigger and stronger then ever. They are very close to getting hunting banned in England. They continue to ruse the public, distort and lie and despite exposure to the truth the media continues to give them press. Their expert manipulation of the press and use of celebrities succeeds in getting public support for their twisted cause. The 500,000-strong march on London last year, the largest political protest in the history of England did little to stop the Labor governments attack on hunting with hounds. Despite strong evidence for hunting and numerous accusations by anti hunters proven to be untrue the British Government ignores the evidence and continues its quest to ban all hunting with hounds. In the United States the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Fund for Animals, the Doris Day Animal League and others have tried to ban all hunting of fur bearing animals with hounds in California twice in five years.
Understanding the Difference between Animal "Rights" and Animal "Welfare." It is the names of these organizations that fool people and the media. They all sound so official and so much like animal welfare agencies. Some animal rights agencies use "welfare" in their name to confuse the public. Their members infiltrate animal welfare organizations to change their philosophies. The animal rights movement encourages their followers to infiltrate county and state animal agencies to influence local and state government. The confusion over "welfare" and "rights" give the animal rights groups the edge with the public. Most people don't know the difference and don’t care to find out.
While the people supporting animal rights are not all fanatics the leadership is. Animal lovers contribute not realizing that the organizations have such radical agendas. HSUS and Fund for Animals receive huge financial support from horse owners, pet owners and animal lovers who don't realize that they too are targets of an animal rights doctrine. It is a doctrine that considers pets as slaves and quoting PETA , "feeding children meat is child abuse, meat is murder, dairy is rape." The animal rights leaders consider the animal rights movement a revolution. Some even consider it a war. They are activists attempting to mold the world in their shape with little or no regard for traditions, lifestyles or the beliefs of others. It is very disturbing that so many people don't understand the differences between the animal rights movement and animal welfare movement. The majority of supporters of the animal rights organizations would be considered animal welfare supporters if they new the facts.
Animal rights is a belief. They believe animals should be treated equal to humans and that humans should not exploit animals for any reason. Their target list includes: the fur industry, trapping, hunting, field sports, companionship animals, medical research using animals, animal exhibits, clothing coming from animals and animal produced food to include milk and eggs.
Animal welfare organizations believe we as humans have a responsibility to assure animals are properly cared for and not abused or mistreated, and that man has changed the environment to such an extent that most wild and domestic animals must have human assistance if they are going to survive and co‑exist with humans. Furthermore we regard that animals contribute to the quality of human life and the use of animals is essential to both the physical and mental well being of human life.
More Than a “Sportsman’s” Problem Animal rights activism must be recognized as a threat, not only to sportsmen, but also to an entire way of life. Hunting exists in England today because the many diverse country activities were able to present a united front. Through the Countryside Alliance’s leadership, country people set aside personal differences and rallied to fight a common enemy. On a larger scale, nations must also put aside their differences to fight a global animal rights threat. England is still the front lines in this global battle against antis and urban domination. Winning there is imperative to the rest of the developed world.
Animal Rights organizations are well-funded and have been internationally coordinated for some time. The same organizations that confront the British threaten other nations. Their tactics are the same in each country. They appeal to an urban population, which constitutes the voting majority. They use celebrities to project their messages to the media. We continue to squander our assets defending individual issues like hunting with hounds or with guns, and we lose sight of the animal rights’ master plan: a petless, meatless society. It is a mission that is so radical that that the public just can’t believe it is true. How do we expose the master plan, animal rights groups bottom line? So far, we have failed miserably to convince the average citizen how much the animal rights groups will affect their lives if they succeed.
We in North America and the United Kingdom are wasting time and money because they are not learning from each other’s mistakes or capitalizing on each other’s accomplishments. Other nations, like some individual country groups not yet directly threatened, are apathetic. Some of the groups targeted by the animal rights believe that if they don’t get involved maybe the antis will leave them alone. Fast food chains like McDonalds, KFC and Burger King are major targets for animal rights groups whose stated goals are to stop eating all meat and fish. Yet despite their restaurants being vandalized or burned and management being threatened and harassed in their homes, they try to make deals with the animal rights groups. They will not join with sporting groups and other groups that are also targets of animal rights groups and they continue to make concessions to animal rights groups knowing full well the animal rights groups bottom line is to put them out of business.
The Threat of the Urban Majority and Disunity The animal rights movement has been able to advance because of urbanization and the inability of countryside organizations to unite. Country life cultures have become the minorities throughout industrial nations, and their lifestyles are in danger of being dictated to by urban majorities. These urban people receive their education in animals and wildlife through “Disney Land” fantasy. Huge, well-organized animal rights organizations feed the fires that pressure politicians and the media to keep anti-hunting issues in front of the public despite more important issues and minimal public concern.
Animal rights groups like the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Fund for Animals, Farm Animal Reform Movement, Doris Day Animal League and the Animal Liberation Front all coordinate their activities and work in some degree throughout Europe and North America. These organizations are bureaucracies with well-paid staffs.
The public doesn’t believe there is a conspiracy despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The key to understanding is to look at what they do not what they say. Each year over 40 animal rights organizations join together for a convention. The topics confirm their goal of a petless/meatless society. They give workshops on how to end: animal farming, pet ownership, pet shops, breeding animals, zoos, circuses, animal shows, racing, all forms of hunting and fishing, eating meat, fish or dairy products, medical research using animals and many others. They have classes on how to break the law, how to demonstrate, how to use the legal system to sue and stop legal activities, how to make it too expensive to own pets, how to infiltrate companies that are targets, how to spy (PETA alone spends 3 million dollars a year on undercover operations), how to get their messages into the schools systems, how to use Political system, they justify the use of violence to obtain their goals, lying to get media and public support, how to use emotion to obtain goals and recruit support and they make it clear animal rights organization consider this a war and the end justifies the means.
HSUS has been a main player in almost every animal rights convention, yet HSUS continues to ruse our government, the media and public that they are an animal welfare organization. Their speeches and statements are crafted to hide their hidden agendas.
In the 2002 animal rights convention, Wayne Pacelle, a senior vice president of the HSUS, stated there is a need for political organization, but warned that the necessary political work is "not something that can be done by a few lobbyists, a few key people who work on Capitol Hill. A successful political movement for animals, women's rights, young rights, whatever it may be, involves people in communities and those people must get to know the issues, know how the political process works, know their elected officials and try to influence the outcome of the process by inserting themselves into it. We (professionals) can walk the halls of Congress 15 hours a day, but without people being informed on how the process works, without a movement energized and mobilized on the issue, we will be doomed to marginal success."
Pacelle talked about Humane USA, the first major political action committee (PAC) focused on animal rights objectives, formed in 1999 by the HSUS, Fund for Animals, Farm Sanctuary, ASPCA, Doris Day Animal League, Animal Welfare Institute, The Ark Trust, Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, and other animal activist groups. Its board of directors, advisory board, and advisors are key grassroots and national animal rights leaders. Pacelle said that Humane USA will spend about $400,000 on political campaigns in 2002 alone and revealed that the Humane USA PAC is trying to get organizers within all 435 Congressional districts.
Pacelle, sent out a call to increase legislative action on behalf of animals. He claims that the biggest failure of the animal rights movement has been "the failure to enact animal protection laws." He says the only way to be successful is "if communities get to know issues…and try to influence the outcome" by voting and contacting their legislators. Pacelle mentions that the ultimate goal of the animal rights movement should be to "create a body of laws to protect animals from individuals."
Pacelle, "A political committee like Humane USA helps get good guys elected and bad guys thrown out. And when our movement has the sort of muscle like that to wield some influence to help good candidates and hurt bad candidates, they start listening to us a lot more and they are more apt to fight for our issues…Agribusiness and the animal exploiting businesses have for years been playing in this realm and have been working to keep their friends in Congress. With (Humane USA PAC) we now have a vehicle to keep our friends in Congress."
Excuse me… but why don’t we get it? Is it because animal rights groups go around the issues when asked direct questions. Doesn’t the fact… they support each other’s goals, meet together to discuss tactics, train together with the same end objectives and form political alliances to change laws and criminalize activities tell us more about who they are, what they represent and how far their willing to go to achieve this. Is it because HSUS doesn’t publicly state they are against eating meat, owning pets or using animals for anything yet they condone and form alliances with more publicly radical groups like PETA, Fund for Animals or Farm Animal Reform Movement? How much clearer can it be?
It is way past the time to expand our thought processes and our base of support. Industrial nations targeted by animal rights groups need to join together. In every country if sporting groups, sporting retailers, animal clubs and groups, the meat and fish industries, fast food, medical research, animal feed companies, clothing manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies came together and fought the animal rights groups together they would have the power and finances necessary to beat the animal rights agenda. The problem is we don’t get it because we can’t seem to put aside our own differences. Medical research and fast food industries are classical examples, neither industry want to be associated with the hunters yet both are just as important a target to animal rights.
Tracking the Funds
Just as who they affiliate with, the subjects they choose and how they train together separates facts from fiction so does following the money trail. What they spend their money on exposes their real priorities. The International Fund for Animals financial support of the Blair Government to ban hunting. The huge amounts spent on public advertising. PETA’s financial support for the Animal Liberation Movement, considered a terrorist organization by the FBI. The Animal Liberation Movement’s connections with the Earth Liberation Front another major terrorist group in the United States. Take a look at the number and kind of law suites the major animal rights organizations like HSUS which often join together to sue, stop or overturn legal activities. (XXXXXXXX)
We might well be less concerned over the individual politician’s attempt to pass laws criminalizing our activities and more concerned about exposing that politicians motivation for supporting animal rights. Tracking the money trail to campaign finances is a way. We need to identify the organizations contributing to his political campaign and expose them to the public. At the same time we must expose what that animal rights organization really represents. Animal rights success is predicated on our inability to expose them for who they are and what they stand for.
AR capitalizes on public confusion. Their names confuse the public. We are not really sure what each of the organizations really stands for. Many people believe the Humane Society of the United States, HSUS, is a federal organization or supports the local humane societies, yet it has nothing to do with either. Most of the public believes they are humane organizations because they do not understand the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Animal Rights are political organizations. Their funds and efforts focus on changing the laws to suit their beliefs. True humane organizations concentrate on preventing animal suffering and abuse. Most of us support humane organizations. However, many of us unwittingly support AR financially because of AR’s clever use of names and their ability to capitalize on humane issues. AR groups sometimes take humane issues to the public to obtain funding, but the funding does not necessarily go to the humane issue. It more often funds rights (political) issues.
The “Domino Effect” AR doctrine believes that animals have the same rights as humans. The ultimate goal of animal rights is a petless, meatless society. Understanding that bottom line is paramount in understanding the movement. Animal rights strategy is to target individual activities one by one. By so doing they are able to continue to draw financial support from like activities that don’t realize they are also AR targets. I call this the “Domino Effect.” First they attack those activities that appeal most to the public’s sense of outrage, i.e. trapping. (Never mind the fact that trapping is a vital tool to the wildlife manager in preserving all the species. Never mind the fact that there are more laws to regulate and assure humane treatment to animals that are culled than any other method available to us.) The majority of the public doesn’t support trapping so it is an easy target. The public doesn’t think that trapping include catching mice, rats or any nuance animal that need to be culled they can only picture the steel jaws around an animal trapped for fur. Animal rights philosophy is to attack those activities with the least public support or the most public ignorance. The groups targeted are unable to muster the resources to fight back. Take each activity down one at a time. One at a time go after horse racing, horse shows, eventing, endurance riding, and dressage. Stop dog racing then dog shows. Go after hunting with hounds, then hunting with guns then fishing. Stop medical research using animals, fur farming, factory farming, ban eating certain eating types of meat, then ban another until you can’t eat any.
They take a little at a time, any concession is a winner but one by one they all are targets to go. The brilliance of the Domino Affect is they are able to maintain financial support from the activities further down their target list. These groups are on the list but not as high a priority. These groups don’t want to rock the boat. They think if they keep a low profile they’ll leave them alone or forget them. Often time their memberships are contributing to the very animal rights organizations that want them abolished because the head of these groups are afraid to speak out.
AR Organizations Are Team Players There is an order or ranking among individual AR organizations. The degree of radicalism in each is designed to appeal to a different segment of society. The larger, more successful AR organizations concentrate on softer less radical issues more popular with the public. At the same time the more radical AR groups concentrate on more radical issues, forging new frontiers with the public. For example, the majority of the animal rights organizations will support an anti-hunting campaign (IFAW, HSUS, Fund for Animals) while the more radical organizations like PETA concentrate on generating publicity against fishing. PETA’s mission is to get the public thinking that maybe fishing is wrong too. By outlandish publicity stunts they get media attention. After a period of time some the public starts thinking what the difference between hooking a fish or shooting a bird and public opinion, oh so slowly starts to change. If ones bad so must the other be.
The more radical AR groups continue to take on new projects such as eliminating zoos or animal parks. An example, in England AR groups intentionally stayed away from the fishing issues. Fishing is just too popular, and after all, the bill’s sponsor, MP Foster, was a fisherman. They weren’t necessarily looking for the fishing community’s support; they just didn’t want them to support the hunting community. While this was happening in England, some of those same AR groups were actively attempting to ban fishing in North America. The "Domino Effect."
Emotion Versus Logic To stop animal rights we must address issues that have been used by AR most successfully. Their most effective weapon has been emotion. The countryside movement will never gain majority support by appealing to fact or logic alone. It’s no contest; emotion wins every time. If the public considers the activities “cruel” or “inhumane” or believe “stress” is wrong for animals, then we lose. But it is a definition we are dealing with and not a quantifiable term. Words such as stress, cruel, or inhumane mean different things to each of us. Humane feelings are defined individually depending on past experiences and their consequent perspectives. Few of us would agree to the same definition.
We must re-define these words in a way that make sense to the public. An example: AR has had success getting the media to show films of dead animals being torn apart by hounds. To most people this would appear to be cruel or inhumane. But put in the proper context, while it still may be offensive, it can be understood as a natural process. A dead animal being torn apart is just a different means of consumption and, obviously, dead animals don't feel pain. Is that scene very different from father carving the Christmas turkey while the kids gnaw at the drumsticks? These types of analogies are necessary if we hope to at least gain public tolerance. We must use examples the common urban dweller understands.
Animal Rights Targets (The “ Precedent” Theory, Similar Activities Deserve Equal Consideration) To argue which particular country activity should be abolished falls into the Animal Rights Doctrine master plan. If we put all the animal rights’ targets into four categories it is easier to understand. The principle or rationales in each of these categories or groups of activities are the same. If you believe one of them should be abolished, you set the stage (the justification) for all of them to be abolished:
I. Trapping, Hunting, Fishing
–All essential tools of wildlife management --All legal activities --All etched in our history and heritage --All necessary to the health and development of human life as we know it today --All contribute funds to the perpetuation of wildlife and habitat
II. Horse Shows, Racing, Rodeo, Polo, Eventing, Carriage Events, Endurance Riding, Show Jumping, Dressage, Dog and Cat Shows and Shooting. --All types of competition or are types of exploitation according to AR doctrine -- Animal rights interpret all these activities as stressful --Animal rights consider all “stress” a form of animal abuse
III. Circuses, Zoos, Aquariums, Nature Parks, Pets
-- Animal rights consider these as forms of confinement and exploitation. -- Animal rights consider pets as slaves.
IV. Fur Industry, Medical Research (using animals), Animal/Fish Farming, Eating Meat or Fish
--Considered by animal rights as murder and barbaric practices --The “precedent” (principle and rationale) is the same for all of these activities. Animals are sometimes killed for sake of human health and comfort.
Our Strategy To prevail against animal rights our focus must be the same. We don't have to like all these activities. We don't have to agree with each other what is right or wrong. We simply have to (1) learn to tolerate each other’s legal activities, (2) take the leads ourselves in formulating reasonable and acceptable guidelines for the conduct of our activities and (3) do our best to educate the public.
In England they did not focus on exposing the motivation and hidden agendas of the animal rights groups. They attacked the individual politician but didn’t expose his motivation for doing so. They defended their right to hunt sighting: history, traditions, proven wildlife management practices but didn’t address the emotional issues affecting the public. They did a good job dispelling the myths animal rights groups projected to the pubic by exposing the flaws in the ?????? report and the findings confirming many of the values of hunting in the Burns report only to have the facts ignored by the government that commissioned the study and told the real issue was only cruelty. They fought for freedom and liberty only to be told they were an insignificant minority that would have to change for the good of the majority. While hunters are fighting survive the animal rights groups sat back insulated from the public and the media. They have nothing to defend and everything to gain by attacking. To paraphrase an animal rights leader “we make money on controversy, are opponents lose money”.
We must convince our governments that country minorities have the right to live their lifestyles and follow their traditions and heritages just as any other minority group deserves special consideration. We must demand minority and country life considerations from our governments. Without minority consideration we cannot expect to win. Every time animal rights groups take an issue to the polls we are in grave danger of losing just because of sheer numbers.
Urban voters educated on Disney fantasy don’t understand conservation, wildlife and country life issues. Rural communities shouldn’t be governed by urban ignorance. With all the controversy on the American presidential election between Bush and Gore there are some interesting facts. Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University of Law, St. Paul, MN provides the following 2000 election facts for consideration.
Population of counties won by Gore 127 million, won by Bush 143 million
Sq. miles of country won by Gore 580,000, won by Bush 2,427,000
States won by Gore 19, by Bush 29
Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won By Gore 13.2 by Bush 2.1 (not a typo)
Professor Olson adds, "And may I add that the map of the Territory Bush won was (mostly) the land owned by the people Of this great country. Not the citizens living in cities owned by The government and living off the government....
The fact that rural America overwhelming supported Bush was attributed to country life styles not political parties. The Democratic Party overwhelmingly took the urban vote. The Democratic party’s negative stand on guns, hunting and their support for animal right groups and radical green groups was made clear under the Clinton administration. Bush’s support against the same issues was also clear. The same thing is true in England. Blair support is the urban vote the countryside is his opposition.
Hunting groups have done a poor job communicating with children. The animal rights groups are masters of the use of emotion to mask reality and gain public support. Nowhere is that more apparent than with children. If we can’t do a better job addressing emotional issues with children, educating them on the realities of nature and introducing them to the joy and benefits of hunting, hunting will end. Part of the difficulty is the definitions of words that solicit emotional response. Words like mean, cruel, inhumane and stress are some examples. We need to look at different perspectives when explaining or defining these words. We need to realize that the meanings and subsequent emotional response solicited from these words depend on education, family and environment.
Animal rights groups use fear in their messages… The posters and videos of animals suffering or being torn apart frighten children and bring out feelings of hate, anger and compassion. The use of video games and videos that depict violence and hunters as deviants, slobs or stupid create a hate message and contribute to the negative factor. Most of these messages and pictures are taken out of context, doctored or are blatantly untrue; they are very effective because they appeal to human emotion. Animal rights groups use fear constantly in their tactics. Their use of fear tactics must be exposed with examples of their behavior. We must expose: AR groups who support violence as a legitimate means to their goals; the fact they have a bottom line of a Petless/Meatless society; their use of gory posters and movies showing animals abused, hurt or dead and the continued use of them even after they have been exposed as doctored or fraudulent; they burn and vandalize fast food restaurants like McDonalds and Burger King; they use scare tactics such as PETA people dressed in animal (pig, cow) costumes chasing the Oscar Meyer Weiner trucks screaming at the children and parents for eating hotdogs; their numerous terrorist acts of arson, bombings, destruction of medical research faculties, farms and businesses that use animals. When animal rights organizations are asked to explain their philosophies such as: why animals should have the same rights as humans, why we all must be vegetarians, and why animals should not be pets or used by humans in any manner, they justify their answers with fear and hate messages with examples such as: the holocaust, wife and child abusers, murderers, the women’s movement, the civil rights movement and racism. They attempt to equate their actions and their movement to other legitimate gross injustices in history in order to rationalize their behavior.
Most of the time, it is not what the animal rights group says that exposes their hidden agendas; it is where they spend their money and whom they associate with. The Humane Society of the United States, HSUS (the largest animal rights groups in America) publicly denounces violent acts but at the same time participates in conferences, seminars and meetings with other AR organizations that condone or even participate in these violent acts. PETA states it is non-violent but contributes to organizations listed by our FBI as terrorist organizations. PETA has paid lawyers fees of convicted AR terrorists and contributed money to animal rights terrorist groups.
Animal rights often use terrorism and intimidation to get their hate message across. There are numerous examples of hate mail, threats, intimidation, violent demonstrations and attacks on people and property. The unsympathetic American media seldom give animal rights violence national coverage. The media sometimes describes it as “pie in the face” behavior to rationalize their lack of coverage.
Disney movies and the humanization of animals in the media have contributed to children’s and adult’s confusion on the issues. How children are affected by these movies also depends on experience and background. Children raised in a country environment where farm animals and hunting are normal don’t necessarily get the “anti” message. The movie “Bambi” which is the classical anti hunting movie has two other messages that may have a larger influence on a child; mother/child separation and dealing with death.
The real issue with children may be death, not cruelty. Another consideration may be fear of loss or separation from their parents. This is an important observation with young children. We need to focus on why young children respond emotionally and how we can alleviate that fear.
“Love vs. Fear”; it is suggested the way to counter fear is through love. Our relationship with animals is a loving relationship. Our publicity campaigns should expose the public to animal rights use of fear in their messages and counter it with our relationship with animals based on love. Fear is often based on misinformation and solicits an emotional response. Our love for animals comes from concerns about animal welfare, not to be confused with animal rights. We have an obligation to care for and stop animal abuse whenever possible. Animals are good for us mentally and physically. Love solicits comfortable, happy feelings; fear solicits unhappy and threatening feelings. The theme of love could obtain excellent results without having to go into facts and details. We love animals, we live with them, we are their caretakers, and we do things with our dogs, cats, horses that are fun. With children we should focus on pet ownership and the differences between wild and domestic animals. Focusing on love is the answer. Counter the emotions derived from fear with emotions derived from love.
How children deal with the death of a pet or farm animal may be a method of countering or addressing the fear of death. This may be an important means of explaining the realities of nature and how to explain the cycle of life and death in wildlife. Animals eat and kill each other. An Animal killing another animal is not considered cruel, it is necessary for wild animals to prosper and survive. In understanding the food chain and how hunting fits into the circle of life, it has been substantiated that the use of animals and hunters to cull overpopulations of some species is more humane than the alternatives such as: gassing, snares, trapping or starvation. An animal killing another animal is natural and the perception of pain associated with this process is exaggerated because endorphins normally kick in and block feelings. The recent report in England by British Veterinarians supports the fact that hounds are a far more humane method of culling the fox and causes the animal less pain of a shorter duration. Endorphins kick in when a catastrophic physical event occurs that might cause pain. Children need to know that there is a “circle of life”. Encouraging the use of movies like the “Lion King” shows animals’ need to kill other species to survive. It is addressed in the popular song in the movie called “The Circle of Life” which entertains while educating children.
An effective means of communicating with children is to think of ways to be interactive with children through play. Our messages need to be presented to children in play. Playing games and entertaining children makes it fun to learn. We must develop computer games (fox and hound games that stress reality and are fun), stories, coloring books, comic books and films that expose children to the truth while at the same time making it fun. The game “Hide and Seek” is popular in all countries. Does it go back to the beginning of our hunting instincts in humans? Probably so. The game mimics a hunting situation. It teaches children to hunt and elude capture. Like hunting it can be physically demanding, exciting, and in a child’s mind, can have an element of danger with the thought of being caught. Making use of popular children’s shows (like Barney, Sesame Street, Animal Planet or magazines like Ranger Rick) would speed up delivery of our message.
“What nobler profession than to touch the next generation--to see children hold your understanding in their eyes, your hope in their lives, your world in their hands. In their success, you find your own and so to them you give your all.” --Unknown (The Essence of Teaching)
How do we make our point in Education (This is foxhunting specific and could be revised for any hunting discipline): Look at the positive aspects of what hunting with hounds offers and compare it with other good results. The opportunity to get out with nature and see wild and domestic animals in their natural setting. The thrill of riding to hounds over beautiful country. The perpetuation of wildlife habitat to encourage healthy fox populations for not only the fox but also other animals in the food chain. The preservation of large areas of land that is used not only by foxhunters but also by other hunters/fisherman and nature lovers. The use of hounds to humanely cull the sick or injured fox to maintain healthy fox populations. Present to children the benefits of hunting and how it contributes to conservation of habitat and species. Emphasize the need for wildlife management and conservation based on scientific facts. Emphasize that man has responsibility for the stewardship of the natural environment through good land management and point out what happens negatively when he ignores that responsibility. Man has caused imbalances in habitat and population by over harvesting, development and importation of foreign species, all of which should be corrected. Invite school children to kennels to dispel the erroneous notion that hounds are vicious. Take the opportunity during the kennel visit to teach about genetics using hounds and their pedigrees. Develop colorful flow charts (children love color) where foxes and coyotes fit into the food chain. Educate children on the natural selection process and survival of the fittest. Develop programs that could be used in schools, at state and national parks and at urban summer camps. Make use of movies with no language and better use of music with videos. Make use of the information and films from other outdoor organizations that have addressed issues dealing with children
Summary: This is a pro-active long-range strategy/plan that addresses the issues of cruelty and emotion. If hunting is to survive we have to address these issues to the publics satisfaction. If we can reach the children we will reach adults. It makes no difference that “right” is on our side. In the long run the facts are not enough. Even issues that obviously support our cause like: the history of our hunting culture, heritage, issues, scientific proof on what is best for wild life, sound wildlife and conservation practices and facts that support hunting and the violations of liberty and freedom aren’t enough to win public opinion. It should be painfully clear if we look at what has happened in England. After years of fighting the Countryside Alliance (through the Burns Report) proved that factually, scientifically and in actuality hunting is good for the country and animal welfare, Mr. Blair ignored all the information. The Blair government paid no attention to the results of the Burns study or any information that did not support their goal to end hunting. The truth is the “facts/truth” didn’t have much of an affect on the British public either. The antis finally had to acknowledge they couldn’t win with their outlandish claims and misinformation about hunting because there now is proof they were wrong. So they regrouped and digressed to one issue… one question… “Is hunting with hounds cruel”. To answer that question you must satisfy the emotional response expected from the public. The majority of the public will vote with their hearts not their heads. We have to stop defending hunting per se and deal with the bigger issues of liberty and freedom. We must address the emotional backlash. The only way to do that is through education. A well planned public relations program that exposes animal rights use of fear/hate tactics and counters it with positive messages showing how country people love, live and work with animals will win out in an emotional battle for the public’s vote. At the same time we must begin incorporating forms of play and games to teach children the realities of nature and life and make it fun. The end results will reap rewards in years to come.
What else can we do: • Identify the animal rights organizations behind these attacks and their hidden agendas. • Identify the politicians manipulated by AR and expose their motivation by identifying their lobbyists and campaign supporters. • Deal with the issues of precedent and try not to defend our favorite issue while ignoring others. • Draw major industries, pet owners and meat eaters into the battle -- any group that is an eventual target of animal rights doctrine. • Police our own organizations and institute appropriate guidelines of behavior before government or AR-oriented bureaucrats intervene. • Counter the emotional ploys used by animal rights organizations exposing their deceptive practices and how they capitalize on subjective terms and words. • Address their use of inflammatory words such as “cruel, inhumane and stress” with objective definitions that make sense to the general public. • Make a clear distinction between animal rights organizations and humane organizations. • Avoid attempts to be politically correct, and concentrate on being politically sensitive. • Obtain minority considerations from our governments to give us time to educate the urban majority before they make us all criminals. • Identify teachers who are teaching AR propaganda to our school children. • Continue to educate the public using scientific facts and proven wildlife management principles. • Hold our educational institutions, the media, and our politicians accountable to the truth. • Educate the public to the distinctions between fantasy and prejudice.
|