I know some readers are having trouble wrapping their minds around the possibility that various animal rights organizations are not only anti-breeding, but can also be anti-<place breed name here>, anti-dog, and anti-pet.

So, I’m going to try again.

1. Not all animal rights organizations are BAD and not all of their members are BAD PEOPLE!!

   Many are truly concerned about the welfare of animals, but may be not aware of some of the behind-the-scenes (and sometimes not so subtle) activities within their own organization or within organizations after which they have modeled their own group.
    

2. Typical animal rights objectives include the end of all pet ownership, after existing animals have died off without being replaced. The leaders (or former leaders) of some of the largest animals rights groups in the world have been directly quoted regarding their opinions on pet ownership.

   If you want your eyes opened quickly and harshly about their agenda, see this article.
    

3. Breed bans are a method of ending pet ownership..

   Here is an article by Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA, in support of “pit bull” bans.
    

4. Mandatory spay/neuter by breed is a method of slowly eliminating as many dogs as possible by first targeting the “media demons”, the ones that few people are going to stand up and defend.

   Here’s an example of HSUS’s support for this method.
    

5. Mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs is one of the most effective anti-dog program that animal rights groups have come up with to-date. It affects ALL dogs, not just specific breeds..

   It sounds good to the average member of the public, even dog owners, because there is a perception (sometimes accurate, often not) of massive overpopulation with strays running loose in droves.

   Spay/neuter is the solution to this overpopulation, so it supported by politicians, by the media, and by Joe Public, without careful thought as to what our pet situation will be in ten or twenty years if nobody’s breeding!
    

6. PETA and the Humane Society of the United States have assisted authorities and testified in court cases (generally as intervenors) AGAINST “pit bulls”, FOR breed bans, and FOR the destruction of existing dogs that have not demonstrated any aggression.
    
7. PETA members have been convicted in cases involving taking dogs from shelters under the premise of adopting them out elsewhere, killing them in their van in the shelter parking lot, and dumping the bodies into dumpsters in the same town.
    
8. The HSUS publicly advocated the destruction of newborn puppies from a dog breeder, puppies that had not yet had the opportunity to be affected environmentally.

   Thus, their only criteria for promoting this option must have been the breed of the dog (in this case, “pit bull” types).

   This directly contradicts their organization’s policy on dangerous dog legislation:

   “The HSUS opposes legislation aimed at eradicating or strictly regulating dogs based solely on their breed…While breed is one factor that contributes to a dog’s temperament, it alone cannot be used to predict whether a dog may pose a danger to his or her community.”

9. Mandatory microchipping and registering is a method of tracking dogs that ultimately results in tracking dog owners, along with their personal and private information, locations of residence and employment, and breed ownership.

   Once this information has been obtained, there are little or no guarantees of privacy. This information can easily become available for enforcement of future bans or spay/neuter laws.

   Read this article to understand the ramifications of mandatory microchipping.
    

10. The solution promoted by animal rights groups that is probably the most dangerous to dog owners is the gradual movement away from the concept of “ownership” towards “guardianship” in the law, under the guise of fighting animal cruelty.

    The argument is that, if pets are no longer property, then the government has more power to prosecute and prevent animal abuse.

    Read here and here to see how this can affect your ability to make decisions regarding your own pet’s health, training, and welfare.
     

11. Finally, in response to a reader’s comments that the Ontario “pit bull” ban was NOT engineered or assisted by animal rights activists, I invite you to consider two things:

    First, Attorney General Michael Bryant’s ONLY statistics during his “banned, banned” press conference came from Animal People News, an extremist anti-“pit bull”, anti-Rottweiler, animal rights magazine.

    Second, read this article for an analysis of his “Where’s the humanity in that?” presentation to the Legislative Committee. It is clearly driven by an animal rights agenda.