Skip to content

On How the World Sees Animal Rights

I used to believe that whether you belonged to PETA or were a true abolitionist, at least you were going in the right direction by advocating vegetarianism. Part of me wanted to avoid the whole "extreme" thing, even though anyone can handily dispense with the "extreme" label with a moment of attention to logic (i.e., abolition is simply the absence of hypocrisy, and an intention to align one’s behavior with one’s beliefs).

But the more I become accustomed to what the mainstream world thinks about animal rights and animal rights activists, the more I realize that abolition is absent from it, and the picture of an animal rights advocate is entirely different from, well, me. And not in a different-is-good kind of way.

A friend directed me to Truth From RDOWS (Responsible Dogs Owners of the Western States), which today states that pet overpopulation is a myth, and yesterday addressed the same topic but also stated:

So in the minds of many environmentalists and animal rights activists, since you can’t set domestic animals free (after all, they are, according to them, unnatural human creations), you must necessarily “humanely” euthanize them.

Now, we abolitionists are animal rights activists and don’t believe in killing. Furthermore, I don’t think PETA and HSUS want to kill cats and dogs because they are "unnatural human creations." But I could be wrong about that. The bloggers at this site seem pretty certain about their theory.

Furthermore, this particular blogger (Elizabeth Pensgard, the Illinois Director of Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States) writes:

I wonder if the majority of those donating to the HSUS know that, as Pacelle stated, the HSUS has “…no problem with the extinction of domestic animals” (Animal People, May, 1993). I wonder if the majority of those donating to PETA know that Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of PETA, thinks “…it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether” (Newsday, 2/21/88). I bet not.

That’s "old news." I thought everyone knew that. But that’s me.

What’s most helpful about RDOWS is that they call out animal rights for hypocrisy. Though I think if I called my blog: "Truth From Mary Martin," people would go ballistic, I will definitely say that although this is an anti-animal rights blog, I do agree with some of it. The tone is annoying, but mostly because I identify with its sarcasm and it reminds me of how annoying I am. I think the folks at RDOWS are more venomous, though, as you’ll see.

RDOWS are obviously in favor of Dogs as Property, but at least they’re against Breed Specific Legislation, which is comforting.  And they’re against the type of animal rights most common in America, but I’ve never heard of their reasoning before and it makes no sense to me:

No how, no way does logic fit into the equation of animal rights. The animal rights most devious imitation is their pretence (sic) of compassion for animals. Under the guise of compassion their ultimate goal is the abolition of all animal ownership, and use. Compassion does not have an agenda of annihilation. Real compassion for animals does not exploit them as the animal rights movement is so prone to do. Real compassion is caring, nurturing, and preserving. Real compassion is calm, steady, loving, educational, and generous. Real compassion is not confrontational, filled with lies, and geared toward destruction. Real compassion does not steal from the rightful owner.

The above is from Animal Rights: Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Abhorrence, which includes:

Have you ever noticed that the animal rights movement wants to sell us all on imitations? They claim that meat is murder, fish is poison, fur is cruel, leather is something terrible, hunting, and fishing are torture, and want us to replace all of these ancient traditions with fake stuff that looks, smells, and supposedly tastes like the real thing. Is this truly abhorrence, or is it flattery? In my delicate sensibilities, I find fecal matter most abhorrent. I do not make things that look like, smell like, or taste like fecal matter.

Although I find that gravely obnoxious, and no one wants to replace hunting and fishing with anything, so it’s also incorrect, and tradition is simply what we did yesterday, the tiny grain of truth in all that is that if something is so abhorrent to you, why would you want to replace it with an imitation? (And I think most abolitionists wouldn’t.)

There is much to disagree with and be offended by, not the least of which is the word "Truth" in the title, however this blog is useful because it lets us know how much work we have to do to educate people about what we believe, and to separate ourselves from PETA and HSUS (among others) on very important issues. I have a very busy day ahead of me (a golf tournament-fundraiser for Turtle Nest Village, of which I’m on the board), but if you’d like to comment on RDOWS (no one has, thus far), please do, and in light of recent exchanges on sites that disagree with our beliefs, I recommend being so nice that you think you sound ridiculous, pointing out anything you agree with, refraining from the impulse to return abuse, and using complete sentences without undue capitalization.

There’s something rotten in the State of the Internet. Let’s not make it worse.

18 Comments Post a comment
  1. Ellie #

    I think it's very important to distinguish animal rights from activism that has co-opted the term, which is hypocrisy of itself. That's not an easy thing to get across because groups which convey a false image of animal rights are good at getting publicity, and thus get the most media attention. It's no wonder RDOWS and the public are confused.

    I was surprised by the quote attributed to Wayne Pacelle above, as HSUS is not an animal rights organization. I haven't found the full interview from Animal People 1993, but what I did find seems to relate to agricultural livestock, not pets:

    "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. … One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."

    This quote is also incomplete, but it again shows Pacelle is quoted selectively. In fact, HSUS promotes "responsible" dog breeding.

    October 12, 2007
  2. Deb #

    Ellie, Wayne Pacelle was appointed CEO of HSUS in 2004, and I don't know his history (other than hearing stories about when he worked at PETA, but that's just gossip) before that. It probably does explain the quote, compared to what we'd expect to hear from HSUS. We've seen a lot of rather significant outlook changes by some people in the movement. Like Paul Shapiro, who co-started COK before being hired by HSUS. Quotes before and after hardly sound like they're from the same person!

    Thanks for blogging about this Mary. Maybe I'll manage to make a comment there…

    October 12, 2007
  3. Becci #

    Why would anybody over the age of about 8 consider comparing the idea of fake meat with that of fake feces? Do they really think animal rights activists have an issue with meat itself, rather than where it comes from and what it entails? I don't think anybody is out there advocating the end of meat consumption on the basis that meat tastes terrible or looks gross. It's hard to believe that these people can't understand the concept of enjoying the taste or appearance of something while at the same time finding its origins disgusting and morally inexcusable.

    I eat very little fake meat/cheese/etc because of allergies to soy, but I used to love non-vegan foods and very occasionally get a craving for them–not because they came from a suffering animal but because they TASTE good or represent something pleasant from my past. And since I can get the same experience from plant-based foods, why shouldn't I?

    October 13, 2007
  4. Ellie #

    Thanks, Deb. I've read gossip about Pacelle too, and who knows what's true? I'm not familiar with the background of HSUS. It may have been just as bad as the ASPCA, which at one time put homeless dogs in a crate and drowned them in the East River– but some years back (around 2001), HSUS did advocate vegetarianism. It was right there on their home page. Not any more.

    By coincidence, I was just discussing COK on another board. I could never accept their idea that killing animals could be done humanely.

    October 13, 2007
  5. Ellie #

    I agree, Becci, these people can't grasp the animal rights ethic. It's an angry article spawned from anger and ignorance.

    For another example, in trying to downgrade meat substitutes, the author (Cherie Graves) asks: "Are they going to plug a super volcano, or catch a stray asteroid with this stuff?"

    Futher she writes: "We are just one super volcano eruption, or one major asteroid strike from being tossed out of technology back into self sufficiency. It behooves us to cherish our traditions, and to hone our skills. Any time in history that there have been conflicts there have been food shortages. "

    Either she thinks the tradition of animal use will save us from impending disaster, or she's just using doomsday to create an emergency affect– but the reality is most animals would quickly become extinct if we were hit by an asteroid, or other catastrophe. Surviving humans could not afford to feed farm animals in a real food shortage. They would need all available grains and vegetables for themselves. I wish her luck if she thinks everyone can just go hunting.

    October 13, 2007
  6. Roger Yates #

    Hi Mary. V. interesting blog entry. This "truth" rubbish is part of what I regard as an organised countermovement to "animal rights" in North America. I wtote about it here:

    The National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) has been influencial, but they all appear to follow the pattern you outline. Ironically, such organisations have been much more on the mark in identifying the philosophical differences between animal welfare and animal rights than the animal movement has. However, we must understand that anything NOT traditional welfarism of the most orthodox type is characterised by them as 'animal rights'. Therefore, they insist that Peter Singer is AR and so on. The NAIA have run a "no contact" scare for years, suggesting that what they call animal rights means that no human will ever have contact with a nonhuman animal (not sure if they think we stand for leaving Planet Earth, since that's the only way to that as far as I can see). In truth, if we are going to use that, what they object to is rights theories that envision no human ~control~ of nonhuman animal lives.

    The PeTA quotes they endlessly reproduce are quite old. It certainly is not clear whether the respective authors would still adhere to the views they articulated when their organisation was relatively small and poor. An understanding of social movement theory – particularly Resource Mobilisation Theory – helps in explaining the present-day PeTA. The theory says that SM organisations tend to moderate when they grow large and rich. In this sense, then, I'm not certain if PeTA would assert an anti-pet agenda in the here and now. They do, after all, sell books about how to get pets to love humans.

    Thanks for posting.


    October 15, 2007
  7. Ellie #

    I debated an employee of the NAIA, and didn't think she was very bright. She used doubtful statistics and proclaimed them as facts, and generally had a despicably selfish view of animals. When discussing invasive research, I recall her saying that "dogs should always be available".

    Anyone who credits Singer with animal rights doesn't understand the theory. As they say, "All that glitters is not gold".

    October 15, 2007
  8. Roger Yates #

    Yes – I think many misunderstand theory – but many actively set out to mislead. Pro-use groups seem to believe they can discredit animal rights theory by associating it with Singer since Singer is a controversial philosopher in relation to a number of issues.

    Some are so desparate to maintain the myth that Singer is an animal rights theorist that, even when they are shown evidence that HE himself declares that rights have no fundamental part of his thought and he just uses the word rhetorically ('as a poliical shorthand'), they still will not accept it.

    One person actually said: "So…Peter Singer says he's not an ARA so that means he's not?" This was accompanied by suggestions that just because Singer denies he is a rightist that does not mean he isn't one!


    October 15, 2007
  9. Elizabeth Pensgard #

    It is unfortunate that you read a snarky tone in the post I wrote which you have cited above. I had not meant to come across snide or obnoxious. If anything I was just angry. If you do not advocate the mass slaughter of domestic pets then that post was not directed at you. In fact, I think I was pretty clear about which organizations to whom my criticisms were directed.

    And though those quotes are "old news" as you say, their intent is not. The reason those quotes are older is because Pacelle and Newkirk, after being apparently too liberal in letting their agenda slip, wisely decided to shut up after their words started coming back to them and their agenda was exposed. You can explain that away all you want but I have run into the HSUS and PETA and their involvement in too many municipal and state laws that either called for breed-specific legislation or some other unconstitutional legislation to believe their words or their agenda is "old news."

    You have accused us of only seeing your movement on the whole, but I think it could be said you are also guilty of painting all of us with the same brush. The first mistake many AR activists make is thinking we are simply trying to protect our monetary interests. Do you know how many times I have gotten hate mail from animal rights activists who have called me a greedy breeder, dog fighter, backyard breeder, or puppy miller? I am none of those things. In fact, my dogs are all rescues and I come from a shelter background. But I understand the importance of quality breeders whose job it is to put out quality specimens of their breeds. These are the people I know and hang out with as well as people with a shelter background. We understand that we need each other. And the breeders I know don't do it for money. In fact, many of them lose money but they continue to put out quality specimens because of their love for their breeds. The ability to shut down so-called "puppy mills" has always been there and you must ask yourself why instead of going after true animal abusers in states like Pennsylvania, legislators instead go after hobby breeders (i.e. quality breeders).

    And it's not just about animals. In fact, I think if you asked anyone in our group why we do what we do day in and day out it's to protect our constitutional rights. Perhaps you don't see the bigger picture of negating property rights to pets, but it's just one step away from them being taken away. If you look at property ownership as a whole in this country, ownership of property, any kind of property, is under attack. To prove that point simply look up all the abuses of eminent domain that have been going on in the last few years thanks to Kelo v. New London, CT. Breed bans in particular are part of this wholesale negation of our constitutional right across the board. And THAT is what we fight for every day.

    If you care about pets, which it sounds like you do, I would strongly urge you to research PETA and the HSUS more extensively. PETA has called for outright bans on "pit bulls"; bans which have seen tens of thousands of American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers, their mixes, and other dogs unfortunate enough to be mistaken for "pit bulls," being slaughtered. And though you may not know it, the HSUS has called for breed-specific legislation in at least one municipality that I know of. If you don't know that about these organizations it's because they've done a good job of hiding it. Still the info on them is out there if you really want to find it. Also, did you know that PETA and the HSUS both advocated for the euthanization of all of Michael Vick's dogs while we have been writing letter after letter behind the scenes in a desperate attempt to save them? Now who is really "ethical" and "humane"?

    You insinuate that we are unreasonable and unwilling to engage you in a dialogue, and at least for myself, as you can see, that is not true. I am here to educate you about PETA and the HSUS because it doesn't sound like you know what they're really all about. And if we are hesitant to talk to you or engage you it's because a lot of animal rights activists have threatened our lives, our dogs' lives, or the lives of our families. I have literally received death threats against myself, my dogs, and my family; I have been harassed via e-mails and blog posts; and my family and I have been harassed by phone. At one point I even had to contact the FBI because it was so bad. Yet never have I been unwilling to engage any of you if you are non-threatening and want to have a calm, rational discussion, because I think you could learn a little something about the factions of the animal rights movement who are not only doing harm to animals, but harm to our Constitution. So far, however, I have never been able to carry on a rational discussion with any animal rights activist, though I have allowed AR activists to post on my blog and have not censored them (save for outright threats or meanness). Usually by the time they get to my blog they've already been whipped up into a venomous frenzy by people like Judy Mancuso (of AB1634 fame) who was responsible for A LOT of death threats coming my way this year. There's a reason the FBI has put several animal rights groups on the domestic terrorist watch list. I know my family and I have certainly been terrorized by several animal rights activists. And for as much as you may not like us, I don't think anyone from our group has ever threatened your life or the lives of your families and pets.

    October 19, 2007
  10. Deb #

    I thought I'd respond because I used to be a breeder, and I'm now an AR activist who greatly appreciates people like yourself who are involved in rescue. I am an activist who knows the truth of what you say about a large number of breeders being in it for love and not money, and yet I still have no doubt in my mind that treating animals as property is one way to ensure that they can be abused and killed with no consequences.

    10 million or more cats, dogs, and other pets are killed every year by shelters for a lack of a home. This is not an exaggeration, this is a real problem, and it is one that we are fighting to stop. I never wanted to admit this when I was a breeder, and probably not for 10 years after that, but the truth is that the dogs we bred were certainly no better and no more worthy of life than any of the 10 million who are killed every year. They are all equally deserving of our love. The people who buy breed dogs could be just as happy with a non-pedigree dog if they understood what they were looking for and how to find it. It is a fallacy that people who buy pedigree dogs wouldn't rescue. And so the more dogs that are bred on purpose, the less shelter dogs are saved.

    To say that there is not an overpopulation problem when this gigantic number of animals are killed every year is amazing to me. What is it, if not overpopulation.

    As for the constitution, no one is trying to take away your rights. Animal Rights activists have had enormous pressure put on them, and our constitutional rights more or less ignored, and so we are extremely sensitive to this issue.

    As for whether we are terrorists, I will personally reserve that term to people who have the intention of killing people in an attempt to overthrow or damage a government and take action that attempts and possible succeeds in that aim. The U.N.s definition is fairly close to this ("On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." says Wiki) Animal rights activist do not fall into this scenario, far from it. The terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" are so overused and with so many conflicting definitions, it is becoming meaningless. Illegal does not automatically mean terrorist, or it should not even though that is starting to happen. I've never heard of animal rights activists sending death threats, and I'm very sorry you've suffered that. There are a lot of insane people in the world, and there are many people who will pose as animal rights activists when they are not. (There was a pet store owner who burned down his own store, and spray painted ALF on the walls to try to avoid insurance fraud charges, for example. There are many similar examples, if you would like more.)

    PETA and HSUS are organizations we are well aware of. Newkirk's statements are easily misunderstood. I don't agree with her statements on pitbulls, but when she says she dreams of a day when there are no "pets" she does not mean that she is advocating the extermination of all pets. No one here supports BSL, at least I don't imagine anyone does.

    Property status means that if someone kills your dogs, they are not seen as individuals with personality and whose lives had meaning. They are a dollar value, and you can sue the person who killed them and be awarded a refund, essentially, for their cost. This is ludicrous, as their value to us is (or should be) a lot more than that. In fact, money is not the point. If someone killed your human loved one, it would be an insult to be given a check for the amount of money for, let's say, the hospital bills of their birth, since we can't own people anymore, and therefore haven't bought them.

    Property status means that if you rescue a dog from someone's yard who is clearly abusing that dog, you could be arrested, even though they are endangering that dog's life. Property status means that Greyhounds, legislatively determined to not be dogs in Kansas, can be killed and abused with no regard to their value as individuals, as beings worthy of life and love.

    Eradicating property status does not mean we want to run around killing all the cats and dogs. That's so far from the truth that it is a statement we have a hard time taking seriously.

    We do think that breeders should stop breeding, that's absolutely true. The dogs have no choice in the matter – whether or when they get pregnant, whether or when they show, or do any number of things. It is hard to see why that is something we would be against when you're in the middle of it (I know, I've been there), especially when you know you are not treating the dogs badly. However, what we need to consider is why exactly we believe we have the right to so completely control every aspect of the lives of these dogs we "own".

    If there were no more pets, there would still be cats and dogs. Of that, there is no doubt.

    October 20, 2007
  11. Ellie #


    I'm happy to talk with you, but first I think it's important to clarify the meaning of animal rights. You refer to PeTA and HSUS as "animal rights organizations", but in fact they are not. They have only co-opted the label, and an uninformed media has made that easy.

    Animal rights is based on holistic respect of non-human animals– holistic in the sense that we respect their whole being. We recognize them as persons in their own right, who have personal interests in living and in not being exploited. We reject their designation as objects of property, or specimens, or things.

    That's only a brief definition, and there's much more that can be explained by other bloggers and myself. But for now, it's important to understand that PeTA and HSUS do not respect non-human animals. They only attempt to reduce the suffering of animals as commodities.

    Any group that kills or condones killing healthy or treatable animals is not an animal rights group. Any group that attemps to modify animal husbandry is not an animal rights group.

    I doubt either group is on a mission to kill all pets, but both have certainly condoned killing. I'm sure you're familiar with PeTA employees killing homeless dogs and cats, which they falsely termed "euthanasia"– yet another label that has been co-opted for convenience.

    HSUS also condones so-called "euthanasia" of healthy or treatable animals, which again is not euthaniasia at all.
    Both groups signed the Asilomar Accords. If you're interested, you can read about it here:

    Recognizing the personhood of non-human animals, as opposed to their status of property, does not violate the Constitution. The Constitution grants the right to hold property, but not that animals must be property.

    October 20, 2007
  12. Elizabeth,
    I don't have much to add to Ellie and Deb other than to emphasize that Animal Rights is about objecting to commodifying nonhuman animals. I was struck by your use of the word "specimen," which tells me that the life of the individual isn't what's important. Instead, the "value" or "purity" of the "specimen" is the focus.

    It is humans who have put a value on the purity of breeds and have decided that they for some reason need to be reproduced/manufactured. Like a flawless diamond–a perfect specimen–the dogs are no more or less intrinsically valuable than a feral dog (or a piece of coal for the diamond analogy). But we have, through marketing and taking advantage of some auspicious historical notes (such as greyhounds being mentioned in the bible), assigned worth to them and treat that assigned worth as a fact.

    We have upped the perceived value of the dogs just like any other product we manufacture, through marketing and advertising. This is commodification. This is what we object to. Dogs exist, purebred or not, to live their own lives, not to be accessories for people.

    October 20, 2007
  13. Elizabeth Pensgard #

    I don't have much to add either except a few points. The rest we're simply going to have to agree to disagree on which should come as no surprise to anyone. But I certainly do not intend to engage anyone in a flame war, nor was that my intent in coming here (actually this site pinged me or I would never have known about it).

    Regarding terrorism. Notice I said "domestic terrorist" not just "terrorist." The dictionary defines terrorism as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes" and that is exactly what these animal rights activists did to my family and me. Instead of trying to engage me in a semantic argument about the definition of terrorism perhaps your energies would be better spent reining in the factions of the animal rights movement that everyone knows are threatening people.

    Also, since the post of mine, which Ms. Martin cited above, was about Nathan Winograd's book, which dissects the pet overpopulation myth, I highly recommend that all of you read that book. There is no reason why every shelter in America can't adopt a 'No Kill' policy and you have to ask yourself why they haven't.

    And animal legislation HAS negated constitutional rights. If you are opposed to BSL then you should know that breed-specific legislation negates 14th amendment property, due process, and equal protection rights and is often an ex post facto violation. And large damage awards absolutely have been given to people who have lost their pets due to veterinarian malpractice, just as an example, without people having to lose their property rights.

    And lastly, I used the word "specimen" to mean "a part or an individual taken as exemplifying a whole mass or number; a typical animal, plant, mineral, part, etc." It has nothing to do with how I feel about dogs or their value. The life of the individual dog absolutely is important to me which is precisely why quality breeding must continue so that dogs of poor temperament do not have to be euthanized. Again, I am not a breeder, but I recognize the importance of quality breeding. Too many dogs of questionable temperament have been adopted out of shelters lately (or imported, along with their diseases, from other countries). Perhaps that's because there are fewer quality breeders thanks to bad animal legislation which targets hobby breeders instead of those truly abusing animals.

    October 22, 2007
  14. Ellie #


    The number of militants in animal activism– and please note I didn't say animal rights advocacy– is miniscule. Everyone I know is opposed to militance, and we have no idea who these people are.

    I recommend you read "Capers in the Churchyard: Animal Rights Advocacy in the Age of Terror", by Lee Hall, which addresses militance and explains why it is not part of animal rights advocacy.

    That large awards are given to owners who sue veterinarians for malpractice doesn't make me happy. We're talking about animal rights here. While the status quo has been challenged, these settlements are based on the monetary value of the pet, which does nothing for animals who are not deemed valuable.

    The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to secure rights for former slaves, and define citizenship. I'm opposed to breed specific laws, as I think they're a form of discrimination. But the 14th Amendment actually restricted the rights of property owners, so I don't see how breed laws would violate it?

    If you care about individual dogs, please don't minimize responsibility for killing them by refering to it as "euthanasia". "Dogs of poor temperament" do not have to be killed.

    October 22, 2007
  15. For Elizabeth Pengard: I realize this is an old post, but I was up late doing research and came across this and I certainly hope this reason for contacting the FBI in 2007 was not due to the fact that a DDB volunteer had a picture of a half-starved Bully breed dog on a petfinder site asking if anyone could foster or adopt the dog because he was left chained outside after a drug bust. (IL Law states that people with felonies cannot own this breed of dog). The post was a request from the Police Dept and Animal Control so that they would not have to euthanize this poor dog if I could find a decent home for it.

    Then Elizabeth Pengard, you stereo-typed me like so many people do Pit Bulls because I volunteered for an organization where the founder took a dying chained dog to the vet and was arrested for it and you called the police dept and informed them that I was a "band of dog-nappers". Fortunately I was assistant to the Mayor at the time and the Police Chief came to me and said, "There's some lunatic calling here, can you handle her?" So I called you, and emailed you both (because I was embarrassed that the Chief had to get involved with this) and apologized in the nicest manner and said, "Please don't worry, I am working with the police and ACO on this dog…" and then for some paranoid reason Elizabeth Pengard, you continued to harass the Police Dept until the Chief said, "If you call here again I'm getting the City Attorney and suing you for harassment." So then from his account of this you had contacted the FBI who basically told you to get a life. Right? Well, if this is the situation you speak of, I am not Animal Rights or anything else. I am a mom and a wife and a caring person. The last run in I had with you, you started on some crazy rant and I said, "Lady, I'm not dealing with you, you have serious mental issues and I left." So I guess this post is for anyone else, not you, because it seems to me you are spreading more of your lies telling people that you were threatened when everyone involved knows it's not true. Honey, you are not as important as you think you are.

    March 12, 2009
  16. Elizabeth #


    You are confusing me with someone else. You and I have never spoken on the phone, I have never e-mailed you, and I never called anyone.

    In the future, please do me the courtesy of leaving me to the obscurity you feel I so richly deserve.

    November 17, 2009
  17. Dawn #

    My apologies. Thank you for the correction.

    February 26, 2010
  18. peace #

    Re: Pacelle's quote.
    Visit this link for the facts behind industry smears of the HSUS.
    This website is run by a group of people tired of industry attacks on the HSUS, not by the group itself.

    October 26, 2011

Leave a Reply

You may use basic HTML in your comments. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS