As a matter of fact, there ARE a few versions of the Animal's Bill of Rights.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Declaration of Animal Rights

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inasmuch as there is ample evidence that many animal species are capable of feeling, we condemn totally the infliction of suffering upon our fellow creatures and the curtailment of their behavioural and other needs save where this is necessary for their own individual benefit. We do not accept that a difference in species alone (any more than a difference in race) can justify wanton exploitation or oppression in the name of science or sport or for use as food for commercial profit or for other human gain.

We believe in the evolutionary and moral kinship of all animals and declare our belief that all sentient creatures have rights to life, liberty and natural enjoyment.

We therefore call for the protection of these rights.

-- Shannon at Grateful Acres Animal Sanctuary (gratacres@aol.com), April 23, 2002

Answers

A related essay:

AR Declaration Essay by Garrison Prinslow

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Mahatma Gandhi

Animals deserve inalienable rights just as Thomas Jefferson said Americans should. Our country strives for the moral high ground of compassion and assistance to other humans, both foreign and domestic. If so, why not expand our social benevolence to deserving non-humans as well? Even the document that signaled the formation of our truly new nation, written over two centuries ago, can argue for Animal Rights.

The Declaration of Independence clearly defined the new American ideals and their separation from the King of England. Among these "inalienable rights…are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Surely, we accept the concept of the inherent rights of humans now, though the world thought the concept fairly revolutionary at the time. If it is not an obstacle for thinking of humans as having rights, then it should not be an obstacle for thinking of animals as having rights. Many animals, the foremost example being primates, experience many of the same emotions and desires as humans do. If both species desire life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then both should have the right to it.

Further on in the document, the revolutionaries stated their grievances against the King of England. Select passages of these grievances illustrate the predicament of animals or animal rights activists if merely the subject is changed:

"He [humans] has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public [animal] good."

"He [humans] has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people [animals]."

Here, the laws of the government do not often protect animals from their use in harmful experimentation or from hunting, resulting in devastation of their species and often of their natural habitats (towns in the passage). Though not as proliferate here in America, fishing or hunting of unusual and diminishing species occurs with frequency in other countries, mostly because the government lacks any protection for animals. For example, Animal Rights activists especially shun the fishing policies of Japan, whose over-fishing led to the extinction of many species of fish.

The activists of both causes witnessed the same terrible aspect of the ravishment, the fact that other people were paid in reward for their destruction.

"He [humans] is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy unworthy of a civilized nation."

Hunters and fishers are the mercenaries of animals, rewarded with money for the quantity and quality of their decimation. Other people even commend these hunters for their bravery and prowess. In counterpoint, some societies that maintained respect for animals managed to exist without devastating the animal population. The Native Americans deeply respected the animal’s spirit, and because of this respect they took the life only when absolutely necessary. Also, they used every part of the animal to not waste its sacrifice. These people thrived for many centuries because of the way they respected all non-human beings.

"…When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Such was the call for the American Revolutionaries. Such is the call for all true Animal Rights activists as we enter the twenty-first century.

-- Shannon at Grateful Acres Animal Sanctuary (gratacres@aol.com), April 23, 2002.

Yet we can choose to kill our own unborn children ...

-- Sarah (sdavison@ecenet.com), April 23, 2002.

Animals can't have all the rights that humans have because they don't act on free choice - they act on instinct. What happens to the cat that wantonly and carelessly kills a mouse? The dog that kills a sheep? The coyote that kills a sheep? Do they get tried in a court of law?

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), April 23, 2002.

I absolutely respect your right to believe the above comments and accord human properties to animals and even paint their toenails pink if you want to. Go for it! However, many of us self-sufficient types do not live or believe them and it is somewhat insulting to have animals=people, therefore eating animals=murder harped at us. I don't understand why folks like you can't understand this, it seems arrogant to me (don't get insulted, I am trying to understand you here). Some animal breeds/species would be extinct if there weren't a market for them. People who abuse or mistreat their livestock aren't in business very long and where I live, other farmers turn them in to the humane society. I agree that factory farms are a nuisance and no kind of existance for any of natures creatures, which is why I grow my own and try to educate everyone I know to those conditions and the quality of that meat. People need to live and let live, there are ways of life that are anathema to me but if it doesn't impact me it's none of my business. On a related note, if it's only right that hunters pay ever increasing fees to hunt, why shouldn't snowmobilers, 4-wheelers, birdwatchers, wildlife photographers, etc. have to also. Some of these folks are getting a "free" ride on land hunting fees have paid for. What a slippery slope. "Glory be to God for dappled thi

-- J.S. (stoom2@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Shannon, I respect your rights to have your own beliefs but... you are barking up the wrong tree. You need to join groups that believe like you do not try to change the beliefs of others. Most people here believe in raising their own food, myself included. Yes there should be humane treatment of all animals but animals are not people. What the nature channel. Ther is some horific deaths from the "chain of life" I make a profit raising rabbits. Does that make me an evil person? I dont think so. My animals have free choice food and water, live in clean spacious cages. When it is their time they die quickly and humaneley. Same with all the animals we raise for food consumption. I for one want to know what goes into the animals that my family eats. I do not choice to be a vegatarian. That is my right. Instead of telling others what to think and believe focus your energy wher you can make a difference. Humane animal transport for slaughter, puppy mills, etc. Not the homesteader doing their best.

-- tracy (murfette@stargate.net), April 23, 2002.

It is clear that these animal rights issues are a religion, based on belief. I try to respect the right of people to practice their religion freely. However, as a religion, it should have no support or influence on on or with the government. The USA tries to keep a seperation of state & church. That seperation should clearly extend to animal rights groups. I do _NOT_ support the effort of Animal Rights groups to shove their religion down my throat.

I find animal rights folks to be very insulting & a bunch of 'put-down' artists with no clear values of their own that they follow. They want to apply a set of rules to _other_ people, but do not closely follow those rules themselves.

Hum, kind of like the USA House & Senate, which passes all sorts of social laws, but exempts themselves from having to follow them..... But I digress!

Anyhow, Animal Welfare is something most all people agree with and follow and wish for. It is taking care of animals humainly, and providing the basic needs for animals that humans choose to care for. It recognises that animals operate on a different plane than humans and also on a different plane than plants, and should be treated differently that either - somewhere in the middle.

Animal Rights is about a few extremists wishing to control humans, with little real thought to helping the vast numbers of animals, but raising a few individual animals to god-like status and making all humans bow to them.

Cynical? Yea, but deserved.

Do not confuse animal welfare issues with animal rights issues. The 2 are very different. Welfare is concerned about the whole class of animals, preserving habitat for wildlife to remain wildlife in it's own best fashion, and ensuring that people who choose to care for animals do so by providing for them at least as well as they were if left in nature.

Animal rights is about controling other human beings, forcing an odd extremist religion upon all humans and adoring individual animals while ignoring the well-being of all species on this planet with a system of double-speak & terrorism.

Very, very odd and 'nose-in-the-air' type of people. Always looking down upon other human beings, and expecting the rest of us to accept their beliefs as if they were facts. They will do anything to get people to join their ranks, from nude publicity stunts (Notice how Shannon used that common 'nude' theme in the other message? Very common 'shock' tactic for the animal rights crowd.) to telling folks becoming vegan is a great way to meet chicks, to outright terrorism on colledge and private property.

Animal welfare is good.

Animal rights is an extreme relgion to be warry of.

Studied this for many years. It really yanks my chain, so I'll try to leave my comments at this, and not continue endless ranting & raving in this thread - most of you know the issue already anyhow. :) Thanks for putting up with this message. I don't aim to change anyone who believes the religion of Animal Rights (they have already fallen to the Dark Side :), but I do hope to make rational people who haven't been exposed to it aware of it's pitfalls and extremism and question it's real goals.

--->Paul

-- paul (ramblerplm@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Amazing. Why would someone like this show up here?

Animals are incapable of having "Rights". With Rights comes Responsibility and that requires intellect. Rational thought. An understanding of Right and Wrong(a concept in and of itself lost on most Animal Rights Extremists). Animals, by definition, are incapable of these finer points. We are NOT all the same.

Whether you believe in Evolution or Creation the simple fact is we are top dog on the food chain and everything below us exists for our use. We owe it nothing but, perhaps, a painless death and certainly careful management. The thing there is that both of those we do for ourselves, our sense of humanity and our future welfare.

What offends me most is to see the Founders of this nation used to defend and further an idea they would have wisely abhorred. Used by people who lack even a basic understanding of those Founders or what created this nation. Lastly, why is it the same people coughing up this mindless pablum are always the same ones with no moral compunctions about baby murder? The same people who will curse a gun-owner for being Pro-Life while children supposedly get killed because of them then defend their Gun-Grabber stance "for the children" while advocating abortion on demand which ALWAYS kills.

People like you lack common sense and consistency.

-- Scott (sconklin@ncci.net), April 23, 2002.

Shannon, you also posted about you draft colt. Asked if he would still be able to do "light work" Isnt that being hypocritical? You are asking the horse to do something that he would not have done in the wild. Shouldnt his "rights" supercede yours? Would you want someone on your back or hitching you up to plow or pull a buggy? See what I am getting at??

-- tracy (murfette@stargate.net), April 23, 2002.

She's just a troll. Ignore her and she'll eventually go back into her hole.

-- bruce (niobrara55@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Shannon..while I applaud you taking in animals and giving them homes..I am offended at this stuff you have decided to post on this forum. The good Lord gave us these wonderful animals..to use and consume as we see fit. I treat my animals like part of the family..but they have a job here too. And some of their jobs are to feed us. I have worked for several large hog factories...I do not like how they are run..nor would I dream of eating anything from them. That being said..eating meat is still a necessity for most of us.

I believe you were one that gave me a tongue lashing for not building a shelter for my two cows and horse. See..give an inch take a mile mentality.

You will stop me from raising my own meat for consumption about the time that you get my guns..never. Live with it Shannon. I am all for you doing your thing..please give the rest of us the same leaway.

-- Sher (riverdobbers@webtv.net), April 23, 2002.

This topic is so bizarre it does not deserve a response.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

I posted this because someone asked if there was such a thing as a Bill of Animal Rights. Turns out, there is. I was merely offering it up for your perusal. I didn't say it was my religion, and I certainly didn't call anyone "evil". Nor did I shove anything down anyone's throat. Geez, folks, can't you read something and disagree with it without becoming so wildly defensive & angry? Ask yourselves what the strong feelings are really all about. Personally, when someone gets a little too close to a truth that I'm not ready to look at, that's when I'm liable to get defensive & angry beyond what is warranted. If I am able to do a bit of self-reflection, I'll often find that what I'm really pissed about is having information presented in a way that I can't ignore or deny. In a word, the truth hurts, don't it??

The above notion is not directed at anyone in particular...it's just a possibility that you might want to consider in the privacy of your own mind. If you're so altogether comfortable with your choices and positions regarding animals, then why does my personal opinion make you so angry?

Hoot preaches his hard-core fundamentalist Christianity, which I don't buy, but it certainly doesn't put me in a rage either. I look at his posts and glean what I can use, file some of it away for future consideration, and ignore the rest. His opinions are harmless, as are mine. Unless of course, you are struggling with your own conscience on a particular topic, in which case reading someone else's strongly worded thoughts might push your buttons. It's human nature.

It's funny, when I posted about the hunting magazine, and then about the animal bill of rights, I was not feeling the least bit angry or self-righteous or confrontational. (Well, maybe a tiny bit confrontational. :) But, wow, I can practically see the forehead veins bulging & the spittle flying in some of the responses I've gotten! Lordy. Calm down! If it doesn't apply to you, fuggedaboutit!

Tracy, with regard to my auction colt doing light work, I hope he can do it only for his own benefit. He's only a year old, so a future as a pasture ornament might get boring after a while. I view riding horses something like taking a dog for a walk...you do it for them, really.

-- Shannon at Grateful Acres Animal Sanctuary (gratacres@aol.com), April 23, 2002.

Who's to say that animals don't have free will? For the longest time we thought we were the only ones to use tools, and we were very very wrong. Anyone who has watched a dolphin play can be sure that animals have free will. And I think we certainly act a little more on instinct than many would like to believe.

-- Elizabeth (lividia66@aol.com), April 23, 2002.

Bruce: I'm not a troll, I've been posting here for years.

Sher: I don't think it was me who lashed you. What you're describing doesn't ring a bell for me.

Paul: about the nude "theme"...that's quite a stretch, but it was good for a chuckle. When I referred to the nude hunter, I meant one without all the camo & war-paint & other trickery used to make him look like a tree instead of a human being.

-- Shannon at Grateful Acres Animal Sanctuary (gratacres@aol.com), April 23, 2002.

Shannon, This is a subject that does rifle alot of feathers. The Animal EXTREMISTS are trying to take away alot of peoples way of life, mine included. When others dictate to you, what is right and wrong that, to me, is a threat. You are posting on a forum that advocates homesteading. Well homesteading is about being as self sufficient as possible. Unless you choose vegetarianism that would also mean raising your own meat. If some one wanted to know about the animal rights issues you could have emailed them privatley. Instead you posted this. I believe you did want to ruffle feathers. I respect your efforts as a human being trying to make a difference. I believe you are young and havent realized yet that you cant save everything. As far as the pasture ornament, most horses are very content grazing and socializing with other horses. Most human owners cant justify the expense of having these expensive pasture ornaments. Riding a horse is nothing like walking a dog. As a prey animal horses do everything possible to avoid having something on their backs. In the wild that is how they would be killed. By us riding them , you are doing everything that is against their natural instinct. Am I saying we should not ride a horse? Absolutley not. I have 2 horses and love them dearly. My point is that if you really believe in animal rights then I believe it is hypocritical to pick and choose what is okay and not okay. See where I am coming from??

-- tracy (murfette@stargate.net), April 23, 2002.

Quit picking on Shannon! She has been here for a long time and doesn't shove her ideas on anyone! Is it only okay for folks to present a different idea only as long it agrees with our ideas? I am a steak eating, chicken butchering meat eater BUT I do believe in giving animals a decent life and a quick and untortured death. I think a bill of rights for them is wrong but shouldn't we have some code of ethics that big, mega factory farms have lost along the way? They should be treated better than a box in an packing line. Amy

-- Amy Richards (amysgarden2@earthlink.net), April 23, 2002.

I believe that people are getting bent out of shape on this thread because we have all had to face down society and possibly loved ones to justify WHY we dont need to keep up with the Jonses and WHY we don't want to join the rat race and WHY we choose to live in a more natural environment. We have probably ALL been insulted for trying to live in a way that seems natural to ourselves, and we are all a little sore and thin skinned about it.

That being said, I think Shannon was waxing philosophical, and not to be taken too literally. For instance, she talks about animals having the right to freedom and yet her animals are behind fences, which keeps them safe and alive (I know how long MY animals would live if I let them go-just until they met the next racoon, LOL!)

As far as her not wanting animals slaughtered for meat, I can see where she might not relate to eating meat as she does not want to herself: I personally see no benefit to eating haggis or blood pudding. Whatever. One of the benefits of homesteading is the right to eat what each one of us decides is a natural, healthy diet. I see no point in getting bent out of shape because Shannon doesn't like meat or think it is necessary, and I do. Just as I won't fuss about people eating blood pudding. Or okra.

I refuse to be offended because someone elses philosophy doesn't match mine: We were all created DIFFERENT even if we are equal, and I will enjoy my diet as Shannon will hers. She can talk the wonders of vegetarianism, as she believes it, and I will smile politely and move on, and do as I believe best.

Shannon lives her beliefs and talks her beliefs, as do we all. I just don't see the point about geting upset because we are all different, that's all.

-- Terri (hooperterri@prodigy.net), April 23, 2002.

if you kill it,, eat it,, if it doesnt taste good,, ADD MORE BBQ SAUCE

-- Stan (sopal@net-pert.com), April 23, 2002.

From what I've seen, Hoot isn't interested in taking anything away from anyone. You are, and in a hypocritical sense to boot. To compare his posts with yours and animal rights activists is way off base. Why drag him into this mess you started?

-- nevermind (nothing@nowhere.com), April 23, 2002.

"Bruce: I'm not a troll, I've been posting here for years."

Trolls can survive a long time if people actually respond to their drivel.

One can only wonder who is taking care of Shannon's army of "rescued critters," real or imagined, while she spends hours on end at this site dreaming up new drivel.

-- bruce (niobrara55@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

A very good philosoghy, Stan - that's actually how my Mom stopped us kids from hunting the birds with homemade bows and arrows. The very THOUGHT of being forced to eat oven - roasted sparrow was enough to convince us to shoot at targets, not birds! After all, my mother ALWAYS carried through on her promises......!

-- Terri (hooperterri@prodigy.net), April 23, 2002.

Bruce you're missing it. Fence in a few acres and start calling it an Animal Sanctuary. Then take some cute pictures of your livestock, build yourself a website and throw up some dire stories of needing help for those animals to survive. Then go spam your website to all the animal websites and forums and start watching the donations roll in.

-- nevermind (nobody@nowhere.com), April 23, 2002.

I found a bent and dent store that sells the big boxes of cereal for $1 each for ones with just slight damage to the box :>).

Shannon will always be the "animal sanctuary lady" and will always be true to her character. Others will "kill and grill" (I get a kick out of that slogan :>) No one will ever change anyone elses opinion. We all tend to post at one time or another, controversial or arrogant threads and responses that stroke our own egos and make us feel above the rest, a little better feeling is all we seek,yet the more polorized our attempt, the more elusive the satisfaction.Controversy does provide entertainment though. Arn't arrogance and controversy odd factors. Even when we go out of our way to control it, it still thrives deep in everyones basic makeup (hopefully , its will rest quietly though)

This garden geek (thanks for the new handle Susan) is going to nap in the hammock now . Thanks for a thread that was interesting reading.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), April 23, 2002.

Oy vey!! ------->>Am going and hide for awhile!

-- Ardie/WI (ardie54965@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Jay said "We all tend to post at one time or another, controversial or arrogant threads and responses". Sounds right to me: I know I've done that - posted things I can think back on and regret having said, and others I don't regret having said but recognise were confrontational.

I'm not quite sure why - Shannon is being confrontational at the moment. However, long-term she's as sensible as anyone with her basic ideas can be (or, I suspect, as anyone with my basic ideas can be too, although my ideas are frequently at variance with hers). I respect what she does, even if I personally don't agree with her. She is not above having an animal put down if that is what the situation requires. Let it go - it'll all be old in a week, whether you respond or not.

-- Don Armstrong (darmst@yahoo.com.au), April 23, 2002.

Yes, "human", I have a kid with problems, thanks for trying to hurt me with my own honesty. He's improving, slowly, and we're right here behind him, difficult as it is sometimes. Meanwhile, he's still a heck of a birdwatcher, naturalist, and animal lover, and I'm proud of him for that. He's only 14, and will in all likelihood be fine when he grows up. You, on the other hand, are clearly hateful, and most likely always will be. My condolences.

-- Shannon at Grateful Acres Animal Sanctuary (gratacres@aol.com), April 23, 2002.

Shannon: Let me get this straight. Because some of us object to your characterizations of hunters, hunting, meat eating and animals' place in the world, we are really unconsciously thinking that you are right in your views and are overreacting to hide our unconscious agreement with you. You certainly have covered all the bases. Even those who disagree really agree. We can't possibly really believe the way we say. Thanks for telling me how I really think...............

-- J.S. (stoom2@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

I see that Shannon doesn't subscribe to Hoot's hard-core fundamentalist beliefs, but is at her wit's end with a problem child. Hmmmm....

I know that raising your children in the church, exposing them to Christ-like values is not the magic answer to all their problems. But it has been my experience and observance that raising children with a value system and around loving friends and family will help put the odds in their favor. Fundamentalist Christians are probably the best example of this type of philosophy and lifestyle that I know of. The bible also teaches that man shall have dominion over the animals.

-- SteveD(TX) (smdann@swbell.net), April 23, 2002.

In Shannon's defense, she's been around here for longer than I have. Many of her messages on non-animal topics are quite interesting. I'm not angry with her. As others, I am quite upset with the animal rights groups and their issues, and I disagree with the animal rights movement.

Shannon, I know you said something about PETA months ago, can't remember so I won't try to put words in your mouth. But the whole PETA/ ALF/ crowd has some real problems with wanting to change the world to their way of thinking, by force if no other way.

Many of us have _quite_ a problem with that, and any time the concept of 'animal rights' comes up, one is reminded of how superior 'your side' thinks it is. It just automatically is an 'in your face' issue. If your side actually wanted to change the world, the first step would be to get rid of PETA & their ilk, so people could actually hear your message, and not their snotty attitude.

Not that I believe your message either, but I don't have a problem with _you_. I have a problem with _animal rights_, which seems just very wrong to me.

As to the nude thing, you are familiar with the many anti-fur & other programs of PETA? It really is a theme with the animal rights crowd....

You don't need my blessing to be here, but for what it's worth, I'm not against you, I'm against the message you presented in this thread.

--->Paul

-- paul (ramblerplm@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Give it up? End this thread! Thunderation, the last time I had this much fun was when I shot my first deer.

Oh well, okay, if it'll make you feel any better.

-- bruce (niobrara55@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Amazing how many more responses one will get when voicing an opinion than when asking for knowledge.

-- Abdul in FL (eat@burger.king), April 23, 2002.

Folks, just leave it alone! If you don't want a fire - don't blow on the embers.

-- Griff (griff@hangnail.com), April 23, 2002.

Gaw-lee! The way I see it is that Shannon was just continuing the topic of conversation from a previous thread. Someone else brought up the subject of an animal Bill of Rights and Shannon posted some info for our perusal. Personally, I enjoy learning about other's points-of-view and philosophy.

To re-post someone else's old posts on totally off-topic subjects is REALLY tacky.

-- Bren (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), April 23, 2002.

this is picked up from an opinion piece (a section) posted on the Fox News site today but seems appropriate to drop here. author is Wendy McElroy. (http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50920,00.html) I hope the cut and paste formatting works. make of it what you will. then I'll just mosey along and join Jay and Don.

Rights are what we are entitled to claim from other people, and all rights have corresponding duties — those behaviors that others are entitled to claim from us. The following are some of the intellectual duties, or rules of etiquette, that others have a right to expect from you.

— Never purposely embarrass anyone. Brute reason is as inexcusable as brute force.

— Give the other person time to consider your points: don't badger them. Your purpose is not to punish someone but to persuade.

— When someone has conceded a point, move on. Do not keep hammering away simply for the satisfaction of being correct over and over again.

— Freely acknowledge errors. "Sticking to your guns" makes your error the center of attention and is likely to cast doubt on every other claim you've made.

— When you are uncertain, say so. Saying "I don't know" is a sign of intellectual honesty and self-confidence, not weakness.

— Acknowledge good points made by your "opponent." Such courtesy within arguments is so rare that you will acquire a reputation for fairness based on this habit alone.

— Don't argue to display your own cleverness. This is as offensive to most people as an ostentatious display of wealth that usually causes resentment, not admiration.

-- B. Lackie - Zone3 (cwrench@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

I don't have a problem at all with your post Shannon, IF it was the PET bill of rights. I also love it when new folks come on and call old timers trolls :) We answer all of their livestock problem threads then they complain that ALL our threads are about animals :)

Sarah, isn't it wonderful that you do have the right to CHOOSE? Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Once again the really hateful people remain fake!!!! Although I was against the move to begin with, I certainly hope we move someplace where you have to post a real address in order to participate. This is disgusting!!!! It happens on thread after thread, topic after topic. I really wish we were back with Ken as moderator cause he would trace it down and post it. Not just tacky.........outright VICIOUSNESS. I fervently disagree with PETA and the whole animal rights movement, but this anonymous attack is dispicable!!!!!!!

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), April 23, 2002.

Yes, Dianne, it is despicable, and I have traced the anonymous posters. If it degenerates further, I may simply delete their posts on this subject. Funny, some of them will post with their name and write again anonymously one or two posts above or below that one.

I think Shannon is doing a wonderful job stating her opinion, and defending it from the trolls who are accusing her of being a troll. which is pretty amusing considering how long she's been hanging around here.

In addition, if anyone would bother to actually READ what shannon posted above, she isn't saying that she completely holds the beliefs stated by the Animal Bill of Rights, she is simply posting it in answer to a question on a previous post. She may or may not agree with some or all of it, but she doesn't assert that here. Don't read so much into this post.

Yes, her beliefs are also religious to a certain extent. She has every right to express them, and by doing so, isn't "forcing" her beliefs on anyone. Even if you think she's wrong, you've got to give her credit for presenting an argument that isn't simply off the cuff. She's also got a good sense of humor. I've got half a mind to get a bunch of buddies together, get out the video camera, and have someone tape us running nekkid through the woods like the last of the mohicans after some unsuspecting deer. The poor thing would probably be blinded by all the full moons, however, and how fair would that be?

Play nice,

-- Chuck (woah@mission4me.com), April 23, 2002.

I'm back! Okay...Shannon posted knowing the subject would be contriversial. There is no way to get around that. What is her motivation? I don't understand. Then, some of you go after her using false names. By doing that, you've lost your credibility. Someone brought her troubled child in the debate. What does that have to do with her post? I may or may not agree with Shannon, but I respect her right to an opinion. I just don't know why she chose to start this in the first place.

-- Ardie/WI (ardie54965@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Errr...ahem..ahh...Chuck, can I have a copy of that tape??????

-- Ardie/WI (ardie54965@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Does a hawk have the right to kill a quail for a meal? If so then why don't humans have that same right?Are we humans accorded less rights because because we have more intelligence than other animals?Am I a victium of so called mother nature?

-- Gary (burnett_gary@msn.com), April 23, 2002.

Ardie, you crack me up, again! :)

Chuck, you are a wise man. You explained me better than I explained me!

Know what's ironic about all this?? The fact that I agree with so much of what has been said here. 'Course, I'dve been more civil in my attempt to rip apart the philosophy, since it's one of "our own" who posted it, not some trouble-maker. But anyhow. You're absolutely right, the philosophy is pie in the sky. Couldn't possibly ever be implemented. Animals can't demand any rights, nor fight for them, so they'll never get any, no matter how many nude models march on Washington.

The way some of you went off on me, you'd think I'd just informed you that the AR philosophy was becoming law tomorrow. Get real! None of you have anything to worry about. It'll be a cold day in hell before the Meat Police show up at your homestead. As I've said repeatedly: if you are comfortable with the role that animals play in your life, and you feel right about treating God's creatures however it is that you treat them, then go on about your business. No one is forcing a philosophy on you by merely presenting it to your eyes.

I am still puzzled by the hysteria. I'll admit to being a shameless agitator, but whoa! I consider you folks my friends, and I wouldn't seek to confront and agitate my friends to quite this extent. The topic is always controversial, but I really was surprised that it blew up this much. That was NOT my intention. I am in agreement with those who said that this forum is actually not the place for seriously controversial topics, and you can rest assured I'll not bring up the issue of animal rights again. (Not cuz I'm a wuss, mind you. I'll refrain out of respect for my forum pals who want so much for everyone to just play nice.)

-- Shannon at Grateful Acres Animal Sanctuary (gratacres@aol.com), April 23, 2002.

Some people need to lighten up a bit. Shannon stated in her clarification that she was answering a question. Whether you feel the same way about animal rights or not, why not give her the benefit of the doubt and accept that she was answering a question. Shannon has been posting here for a long time now and has given us all some valuable information. For example, wasn't it you Shannon who told us about packing a wound with sugar? That came in very handy for me just a short time later. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. If Shannon's opinion is different from yours that doesn't make her a bad person, just different.

To the people who respond with a fake e-mail: IF YOU'RE GOING TO INSULT SOMEONE, HAVE THE GUTS TO USE A REAL E-MAIL. Chuck, thanks for looking into that. Something should be done about that knid of childish behavior.

-- Murray in ME (lkdmfarm@megalink.net), April 23, 2002.

Well, God bless you Shannon, for your kind heart. The world would be a better place if everyone put an equal effort into some kind of service. :)

-- witness (kaitomas@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

sheesh Shannon! People can get awfully nasty when anyone asks them to think outside of their comfort zones, can't they?

just so you know, I think your statement was nice and I am in your corner. :)

-- Najia (najia274@yahoo.com), April 23, 2002.

"for food for commercial profit" seems a far stretch from homesteading. And why is it so hard to conceive of having it both ways? What a bunch of defensive folks on this board! There's a lot of bitching about how people don't accept your lifestyle viewpoint, but put the shoe on the other foot and look out!

-- Sue (sulandherb@aol.com), April 23, 2002.

Shannon, you have handled the controversy on this thread with enviable dignity. Touche'

-- Judy (JMcFerrin@aol.com), April 23, 2002.

Gee, I had no idea I'd stir up this storm just mentioning "bill of Animal rights" on that other thread" (yes, I was the one who mentioned those words....).

I didn't even think of seeing anything like what Shannon posted either, in this thread. I was thinking more along the lines of "if you aren't eating it, don't kill it", and leaving it at that. And to mention that animals do not kill just for sport, they kill to survive. I think the majority of hunters fall into the "kill for sport" category.

I'm truly sorry, Shannon, that you got dumped on for this.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 23, 2002.

re: nospam

"there you go again" -- Ronald Reagan

-- B. Lackie - Zone3 (cwrench@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Uhh..... Shredded Wheat, the big ones- not those litle things they try to pass of on us and not the one with frosting on one side either.

-- tom (not@thistime.com), April 23, 2002.

Shannon is one of our regulars and has been on this forum for a couple of years[ how long have you been here bruce?].Shannon is a good person and for some coward who dosnt even have the guts to use there real email address to attack her using her family is DESPICABLE! Chuck I would delete any referance to her family, it has no baring here.Shannon I am sorry that people treated you that way, sure not like it was two years ago when people could disagree with each other and still stay civil.

-- kathy h (ckhart55@earthlink.net), April 23, 2002.

B. Finished...How can I finish when you don't complete the trio....where's my BOO-BERRY????? (Boo-hoo) ;^}~

-- gilly (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), April 23, 2002.

Ahhh, that's better.

B. good, B.

-- gilly (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), April 23, 2002.

Chuck, can I please NOT have a copy of that tape. It wouldn't interest me, but there are people I know whom it would interest, and they'd pay money, and I don't need the temptation. Thank you in advance.

-- Don Armstrong (darmst@yahoo.com.au), April 23, 2002.

I'm hanging on for the "cereal therapy". :>)

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), April 23, 2002.

People who support animal rights are a bunch of crackpots! If you were three inches tall, that cut little tabby setting on your couch would eat you and not think twice about it.

-- Ken In Texas (palooza98@ev1.net), April 24, 2002.

I LOVE LIFE- could eat a whole box of it!

-- Gayle in KY (gayleannesmith@yahoo.com), April 24, 2002.

I don't exactly agree with all of Shannon's views but she isn't part of the extremist animal rights group. I've been lurking or posting on this forum almost since it's inception, and can't recall a single instance where Shannon was guilty of dishing out the rude treatment she has received from some. Shannon may be controversial but she has a right to express her views. At least she has the courage to take the heat for stating her opinions. While there are legitimate reasons for anonymity on the internet, hiding behind a false name simply to bash someone is despicable and cowardly.

My own views fall in the animal welfare category. I believe God has given us the right to keep/use/consume animals, along with the responsibility to provide our charges with basic necessities and humane treatement.

As for anyone who who mistakenly believes animals kill only out of necessity, you've obviously never seen one animal rip another to shreds for fun. I love animals and most likely have taken in far more rescues than Shannon. But I am the first to admit animals can be even more vicious and wasteful than humans. That is a fact, not an opinion. I have friends who lost over 100 chickens in one night to a cougar who simply killed and left them lay. Another friend lost an average of 30 chickens a night for most of a week to a coon who killed them and never ate a one. I lost a considerable number of ducks to an owl who killed nightly & ever ate one. My cats play with and torment rodents and birds before killing them, they have no need or interest in killing for food. We have horses who will try to literally kill or maim each other over who gets the best shade tree. I've seen wild stallions brutally beat and savage mares who disturbed the pecking order, or even for interrupting the stallion's nap. I've seen entire flocks of sheep and goats grossly mutilated, throats slashed, entrails ripped out by dogs "for fun". My neighbors's dog killed one of our geese "for fun", ripped my daughter's rabbit to shreds "for fun", and attempted to kill my ducks and goats.

My Animals' Bill of Rights -

"Inasmuch as there is ample evidence my pets and livestock are capable of feeling, I condemn totally the infliction of suffering on my fellow creatures. I believe my defenseless animals have as much right to life as the neighbor's dogs, a marauding cougar, skulking coyote or other exploitative creature and will curtail (with my 410) any behavior which infringes on my animals' rights." (Sorry, Shannon, I am NOT making fun of you, just stating my position.)

And therein lies the quandry...where do one animal's rights begin and another's end? I've spent much of my life caring for domestic animals and observing animals in the wild. I know animals by nature are peaceful, loving, amicable, etc., they are also needlessly cruel and wasteful. Take man out of the picture entirely and animals are still going to die - for food, entertainment, from fighting and some because they are incapable of surviving without human intervention. WHO decides who lives, who dies? Who has the authority to say one animal's right to live is more important than another's right to act instinctively, even if that instinct means killing another for fun? Carnivores can't live on lentils and soybeans, so which animals die to feed the lions? Is a zebra less important than an lion? Do rodents have less right to life than a snake? (You may think so, but the rats would disagree.) Is man less important than a cow?

If man's right to kill for food for himself is admitted, then the argument against killing for profit is lost. If someone is keeping and killing animals "for profit", he is providing food for others in return for goods/services. Whether one person or many do the killing, don't the same number of people need to eat? These are questions which I'd like to see the animals rights people provide rational answers to. In my experience, the vast majority of them know nothing of animals' needs or habits. IMHO, there is only one answer, and that is from the ultimate Authority, who has provided animals as our food, our livelihood, for our pleasure, companionship and responsibility.

-- Lenette (kigervixen@nospam.com), April 24, 2002.

Great comments Lennette

-- Gary (burnett_gary@msn.com), April 24, 2002.

Oh please, We didn't claw our way to the top of the food chain, to eat veggies! Excuse me I think my steaks are done.

-- jACK C (iNJACK1@AOL.COM), April 24, 2002.

I have read all the posts and then thought awhile about the responses. I usually am not quick to jump in on either side of animal rights, as I eat meat, love animals and used to take in rescues of the four hooved variety.

First off - Shannon has shown exemplary behavior in replying to a previous post and is NOT as one would put it, been a troll. Shannon - we might disagree on a few things, but I would be the first to defend your taking in animals that no one wants.

Secondly - if we are God's Stewards of animals - then the majority of the people here are good stewards of their animals. They neither want, nor need, abuse or malnutrition, in their livestock. Whether raising animals for profit (and by the way, when did that become a dirty word???) or for self consumption, the majority of homesteaders and small farmers would not, in any way, do harm to the very animals that provide them with substinance.

Thirdly - having been there and done that, in the way of providing a safe haven for four legged, hooved critters, namely horses - let me clue you guys who slammed Shannon in on a little something - 1. The majority of you who slammed Shannon - would you take in a starving horse that no one else wanted, and receive NO COMPENSATION? I did exactly that for a little over ten years. We have a humane society here, as long as it applies to dogs and cats, and maybe a rabbit or gerbil. So when a horse owner ties his horse to a tree in the summer and doesn't feed or water it, and the horse is covered with whelps and sores, and the chain starts growing into his neck, are you guys going to tell the cops to bring the starved horse to your barn??? I did and received NO COMPENSATION from the Humane Society or anyone else. The point is: unless you are willing to do something to end animal suffering, then don't slam the people who do. I am NOT an activist of any sort. I raise beef, chickens, and rabbits and have no qualms about killing and eating any of them. But I do have compassion which is what Shannon has demonstrated in her efforts to save animals that no one else would give a flip about. She isn't trying to shove anything down anyone's throat, just answering a previous post.

Those who take in animals without any regard to their own compensation for doing so - are to be thanked, not ragged out. Some of you have been very mean to Shannon and she has been nothing, if not gracious, in her responses.

There are people in this world who will do unspeakable things to animals and who is there to try to protect the animals? Case in point, man buys horses, man moves and leaves six horses in a one acre paddock with no running stream, neighbors bring horses water, but no food. Four horses starve to death, one is put to sleep, guess where the other one came? My barn, so badly starved that she laid down for two weeks and was on IV feedings. Turned out that the mare was a TWH owned previously by a farrier friend of mine and said mare was a very good child safe horse. Mare took nine months to recover, and was placed with a little girl and her family who loved her to the end. So Happy Ending for horse, kid, and me. But that was the end of my rescues. I just got burned out, so now there is no one I know of in my county that takes in starving horses, mules, ponies or donkeys. Either the State has to step in and rescue or the animals die.

Those who posted using a fake address - crawl back in the hole you came out of. We have no need of you here. People here openly disagree and don't use fake addresses. We know each other like family, and like family, we agree to disagree on occasion.

Those who slammed Shannon because she responded to another post - lighten up! You all know that she believes that animals should reside in posh resorts with a/c and hot running water (I'm kidding with you Shannon!). Although by the Bible man is given dominion over the animals, there is nothing in the Book that I can find that states man may abuse, starve, or mistreat animals. Shannon may not believe that we should eat a hamburger, but I'll bet my Ass (Jessie, my Donkey, that is)that she is more concerned with those who think "dominion" = abuse, than worrying about whether you're eating a steak or not. I hope those that were mean to Shannon and went out of your way to slap her down will think about what you've done, and how mean it sounds to the rest of the world out here. As my Mom would say, ain't you ashamed?

-- Cindy (sidepasser@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

yeah! what she said! lol.....nice post, Cindy. :)

-- Najia (najia274@yahoo.com), April 24, 2002.

I'd just like to add that if everyone took care of their animals as homesteaders do, there would be no need for animal santuaries. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I have my beliefs and won't try to force them on you, and conceed that you have a right to your beliefs as long as you don't try to force them on me.

We all get so touchy about subjects like this because the powers that be can be bought and some would like to take away our way of life. Thanks to the one that told about why we have such thin skins, I thought I was the only one put down because I want to raise my own and not buy from the store. Makes me feel good to know I'm not the only CRAZY one around.

-- Robin Downing (Southpawrobin1@aol.com), April 24, 2002.

Hay everybody! Howdey! I finally gave in and read most of this thread , I do feel there is a differance between pets and food animals and wild life, and each should be treated without abuse.

Something I have thought about and wondered is why the animal rights people don't push for laws to protect dogs from death, that are defending homes from intruders and children from abuction and murder?

Every time I hear of a child kidnaped, I think THAT is why we have a dog that will bite!!!!! At the very least the dogs will give warning and give me time to get the gun loaded !!!!

Just a few days ago here in OKC a toddler walked out of his home, and was lost for several hours, the family dogs went with him, one even bit the police officer that found the boy, the dog is now in the pound, I haven't heard if it will be killed or not. But I far as I am conserned that dog is a hero, OKC has had many children stolen from their beds, or taken off the street, would it have happened if they had been with a dog? {and I don't mean a little one or a friends with anybody one)

I just think the animal rights people would be on much better terms with the rest of us, if they would support the needs of people who have animals in conjunction with the need to treat animals well.

I really believe some animals like having people take care of them and feed them and doing work toegether, I believe animals have the ablity to care about people, in some cases beyond a meal ticket, and I believe that some animals know on some basic level that they are meant to be food for others, that is the order of things and trying to humanize animals is a kind of abuse, frankly, it's lying to them.

-- Thumper/inOKC (slrldr@yahoo.com), April 25, 2002.

Shannon, thank you for posting the request. Thank you for giving many of us a moment of pause to go through our own inventory of how we treat those who come into our life on a daily basis...two legged or four.

Thank you for all you do for the animals. Thank those of you on this thread that do all you can for children who are without homes either as a foster parent or an adoptive parent.

Those that put their hand down to help are too busy to have their hand up for hand outs.

-- BC (katnip364@aol.com), April 25, 2002.

ms. thumper, there are plenty of animal rights people like you describe out there.

we just don't make the headlines like the under educated ones that let free the male & female minks at a fur ranchers' spread! [minks are not pack creatures, they are also not real tolerent of anybody, there was wholesale carnage as a result.]

you know that common decency and moderation do not make for saleable news. very little to none space was given to mr. m.l. kings' speeches while he was alive, but mr. malcom x threats, promises,& who he visited that day were covered by all media sources as 'news- worthy'.

if i was working at that pound the 'jailed' dog would be quietly hand delivered back to that child , whether it bit me or not on the way, let me tell you!

-- bj pepper ,in central MS. (pepper.pepper@excite.com), April 25, 2002.