|
Editor: the
following was sent to The Dog Press by mistake. It was meant for
Dog News but because he makes some valid points, and due to subsequent
correspondence with Mr. Kimes, I made the decision to publish it as a
Letter to this editor. See my comments at the end…
HSUS Defense:
For many
years I operated under the misconception that my values, ethics and
morals were fairly representative of most people. I’ve learned how
extraordinarily wrong I was when I began listening to the views of
people in the media and became more socially and politically aware.
Unfortunately, I do believe you are operating under a similar
assumption. While not exclusive to this magazine, I do feel you have
taken a very polarized view of our current world, of everyone who has
views on animals and the human privileges and responsibilities
associated with them. Your unrelenting attack on the HSUS is a perfect
example. Over time I developed a strong sense that what you consider
“information” was feeling a heck of a lot more like propaganda. As a
critical thinker, it is always very important for me to understand the
difference between facts and opinions. To do so, I took the step of
subscribing to Wayne Pacelle’s blog to get a little better insight for
myself of this organization.
I have publicly criticized the American Kennel Club for courting puppy
mills because to me money does not trump morality. John Mandeville’s
argument for seeking the registration fees for commercially bred puppies
based on the logic that the AKC bears the burden of purebred dog welfare
might be slightly more compelling if it were based on fact. Dog rescue
is funded through kennel clubs and breed clubs and they do not benefit
from AKC registration fees. I mean isn’t it true that most of the dog
fancy could care less about enslaving dogs in small cages, living their
lives with no love and minimal care and who receive their retirement
“gold watch” by being shot in the head and dumped into a trench? Mr.
Mandeville is right, whoever in the AKC who let this monetary
opportunity slip by ought to be fired.
But the proverbial last straw came in your latest edition where you made
the off the cuff remark that thank goodness the HSUS supported
legislation to outlaw videos depicting animal cruelty didn’t pass
because, gosh, next they will be outlawing debarking. Then I read the
letter by David Mastio who clearly thinks the HSUS’s criticism of the
egg industry is little more than a personal bias by that pansy, Wayne
Pacelle, who after all is vegan for god’s sake. I mean are we going to
kowtow to people who don't realize the Internet broadcast of crush
videos where women in stiletto heels stamp to death helpless kittens and
birds for the sexual titillation of seriously disturbed people is just
part of the free speech we super duper Americans are so proud to
support? I mean, only a vegan would care that hundreds of thousands of
chickens are incarcerated in cages so small they can’t turn around or
live their horrific lives with their feet or wings impaled in wire, or
have rats crawling over them, or live amongst dead and dying birds.
Certainly, wouldn’t you agree all of us in the dog fancy are completely
callous to the thought that these birds single wish can only be to die?
Oh please, do you want eggs or don't you? Let's talk about something
meaningful.
You make flippant statements about animal welfare as though this is all
a philosophical debate. Your comment that outlawing animal cruelty
videos is the next step to outlawing debarking are not the words of
strength. They are the words of cowardice. To forgo humanity because
you are afraid you will give up too much is not leadership. I can
defend debarking, I’ve had debarked dogs for over twenty years, but it
certainly doesn’t give me a second’s pause to wanting strong legal
ramifications for cruel people. It’s not a slippery slope at all. You
are on the slippery slope and, at least for me, it’s not a becoming
posture.
It's unfortunate but true that animals depend completely on the goodness
and grace of humanity. I am glad animals do not depend upon the
journalists in the dog fancy to dictate their future. What I have
learned in the last 10 years that knowing right from wrong instinctively
is no longer generally shared across the population of Americans. So
let me be crystal clear: you do not represent my values, my ethics or my
morals. Jon Kimes
jonkimes@gmail.com Pluperfect Kennel, Reg. Kansas City, MO
http://jonkimes.com
Sorry, I actually sent that to Dog News, not your office, as a letter to
the editor. I forwarded it to part of my email listing which is how you
got it. But as a publisher, I think there has to be responsibility not
to wallow as the least common denominator. You are right, people won't
get it. I had a very "active" response from someone who considers
herself some kind of activist. She couldn't care less what the HSUS
does - her world revolves around her only interest which I assume is
(that she) wants to be able to keep her dogs without interference. She
doesn't care about seals or chickens or puppy milled dogs. I find these
people who are so offended by such groups as HSUS are the same people
who can't be bothered to pick up dog stools at the hotels they stay at
for dogs shows...god only knows what they do to their motel rooms. They
are the ones who are offended that someone would limit their right to
have dogs and yet show absolutely no social responsibility.
The whole point of my letter was that denigrating everything the HSUS
does because you decided you disagree with one aspect doesn't negate the
good they do. I certainly don't see anyone standing up and dealing with
all the animal cruelty in the world. And without an alternative, no I'm
not going to gun for their demise. The AKC wants to appeal to puppy
millers and the dog fancy both. I don't know yet what the HSUS attitude
is toward the hobby breeder ... that I'm still trying to discern. But
any controls (over) puppy mills and commercial breeders is going to be
contested by AKC because those are its constituents as well. So we the
dog lovers and animal lovers are caught in this confusing cross-fire.
I can say one of the red-flags for me is seeing these anti-animal
welfare folks quoting a statement made by Wayne Pacelle many years ago,
before he worked for HSUS, which had to do with a specific variety of
livestock, it had nothing to do with dogs or anything else. But they
take this comment out of context and quote it as supporting their
argument the HSUS is anti-dog breeder. To my mind, if you can't stick
to facts and misrepresent things you obviously either don't do any
research or you don't have a valid position. It makes me wonder....
I think the very sad state of affairs is that most of us dog fanciers
are not going to involve ourselves in this fray. And thanks to the
ferocious attitude by the so called "activists" against the HSUS we
won't take any opportunity to work with them to help them gain a better
understanding of the difference of dog fanciers and commercial
breeders. And the HSUS, with a budget of $100M and growing, is probably
going to eventually define rights.
The Dog Press shapes people's perspectives because most people can't be
bothered to research anything for themselves. And the dog press is doing
a piss-poor job of intelligently leading the way. Thanks,
Jon Kimes
jonkimes@gmail.com
Editor: I
have exchanged a couple of emails with Jon and asked him to expand on
the valid points he made re HSUS, Animal Rights, and Breeders. We
understand each other better and I hope he will agree to do a guest
column.
We may not always agree with
other viewpoints but unless we consider them, we're doomed by animal
"rights." |
Letters
To The Editor