Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Death, destruction, and the HSUS: Democratic Party's gift to Louisville Dems continue to wander and dabble their way towards automatic support of animal rights issues, leaving their dog and pet-owning constituents to fend for themselves as best they can. Residents of Louisville, Kentucky are getting ready to assume the position. The countdown for implementation of Louisville's gargantuan anti-pet, anti-pet owner animal control ordinance continues. In the meantime, Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the largest, richest animal rights organization in the country--the organization that basically wrote the Louisville ordinance--says he's looking forward to a banner year. In fact, he comes precious close to hijacking Democratic Party rhetoric. In an article published for him by the Denver Post, he writes-- "The Democrats have now taken control of Congress . . .[and] the 2006 election brought decisive victories for the cause of animal protection - and left the callous to lick their own wounds for a change. . . Despite the enormous financial advantages of animal-use industries and their trade groups, they don't seem to welcome open debate and direct democracy. They do best in the clubby comfort zones of back rooms and big-time lobby firms. " Daring comments, coming from an organization that outspent Exxon Mobil in lobbying during the 2006 election cycle, spreading $3.4 million to support the candidates and issues HSUS favors. But then Wayne has been taught to spin by experts. HSUS employs one of the trendiest, most adept PR firms around. And with an income of upwards of $125 million in donations offered up by the unwitting to "save animals", HSUS can afford the very best. People who live in glass houses But problems with open debate and direct democracy? Oh, my. My, my, my. The Louisville Kennel Club and the League of Kentucky Sportsmen are filing suit against the city of Louisville to halt implementation of that HSUS-driven animal control law. One of their prime grievances? "[Counsel for the Louisville Kennel Club] says the council's Democratic Caucus violated the open-meetings law twice on the day that the council passed the ordinance. Hamilton, the ordinance's sponsor, held a work session early in the day to go over changes in the ordinance, with the full caucus meeting at 4 p.m. . . .Fleischaker asks that the council acknowledge violating the open-meetings law and apologize, acknowledge the vote was illegal and call a special meeting to rescind its approval." Meanwhile, back on the farm: low expectations prevail in Louisville Everyone's heard of the Peter Principle, right? Employees rise within the bureaucracy until they hit their level of incompetence ? "Incompetence" is going to take on a whole new meaning in Louisville, when the Director of Animal Services' new police state powers kick in. Meloche's employment history: clear pattern of failure Reporter Stephen George of the Louisville Eccentric Observer summarized Meloche's professional low points: Guilty administrative plea in Canada for improper record keeping of a controlled substance (anabolic steroids) at his veterinary clinic Fired after 10 months on the job as animal control administrator for the city of Durham, NC for insubordination Resigned from a position as Director of the Tallahassee-Leon Community Animal Control Services amid accusations of veterinary malpractice, aggravating shelter over-crowding and increasing euthanasia figures, inexperience with the public sector, and more. Meloche's mama might be proud, but I really wonder what Democratic Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson saw in a job applicant with a work record like that. Who the heck put that resume on his desk, anyway? Huh? Democrat Abramson hired Meloche little more than a year ago. And Democrat Cheri Bryant Hamilton soon became his very best friend, along with Pam Rogers of the Humane Society of the United States, as the three of them cooked up an animal control ordinance widely acknowledged as the worst in the country. The Louisville animal control ordinance places near totalitarian power in the hands of Gilles Meloche. The 90 odd pages of it--and councilmembers were left scrambling to see if they had actually read it prior to considering it--passed on a clear party-line vote. Dems played follow the leader in what observer Stephen George called "a fantastic display of the dismal possibilities of partisanship in local politics." Usual suspects in Louisville: ordinary dog owners, good family dogs Disconsolate dog and pet owners in Louisville are waking up to what the Dems in the Louisville City Council did, and they're beginning to ask hard questions. Dems are feeling the noose begin to tighten, too. Selling out your constituency has its consequences. Let's just hope Democrats, both in Louisville and nationally, wake up and smell the dog. Soon.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

This blog comment is clearly misleading, you make it seem like the HSUS is trying to get rid of all dogs. Why dont you tell the truth about what this law will actually do to help dogs, and keep the community safe!! Or maybe you dont care about these little details...

I pulled another quote from the same article you used, I prefer this message:

Opposition to animal cruelty is, after all, a universal value, and the goal of animal advocates is to hold this compassionate country to its own professed standards. In the coming congressional session, we will urge lawmakers to make staged animal fighting a federal felony; to outlaw the slaughter of 100,000 healthy American horses as delicacies for foreign restaurants; to crack down on the abuse of dogs in puppy mills; and to ban the trade in primates and other exotic animals for the pet trade. Who would wish to continue such cruelties except the people who profit by them?

The politics of animal protection are sometimes complex, but the principles are always simple: Cruelty to animals is wrong and inexcusable. Laws protecting animals from cruelty make us a better country. Politicians across America share this conviction, and they can be certain that voters stand ready to support them. We have always known that the prevention of cruelty is a worthy cause. Now we know that it is a winning cause as well.


Read it yourself:
The Ordinance!


WLKY-32 breakdown
http://www.wlky.com/news/10681450/detail.html?subid=10101262

BlueDogState said...

"you make it seem like the HSUS is trying to get rid of all dogs"

I make it seem like HSUS is trying to get rid of all dogs?

Wayne Pacelle makes it seem like HSUS is trying to get rid of all dogs. And cats. Hamsters, horses, goldfish, cattle, canaries, goats, Easter bunnies. . .You name it, Wayne and HSUS consider it an abomination:

"One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, now CEO, HSUS

or, alternatively

"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." J.P. Goodwin, now Director of Grassroots Outreach with HSUS. Formerly with the Animal Liberation Front.

Shall I continue?

Barb said...

Prevention of cruelty is - as "anonymous" (how brave of you!!) quoted - a universal value. But the HSUS/PETA have no real interest in preventing animal suffering so much as they're interested in preventing human-animal interaction. See how they blatantly REFUSED to help provide feed or water to cattle or even wildlife stranded by the Colorado blizzard in the past few weeks and you'll see what I mean.

I - like most Americans - love animals but I know the truth, that HSUS/PETA would like to see to it that the only animals I ever see are wild ones, at a distance.

Suzanne said...

This is a great post. Thank you for bringing attention to this worthy issue and pointing out that so-called progressives are often very unprogressive when it comes to pet laws. In a parallel vein, many so-called progressives are decidedly unprogressive when it comes to health freedom issues, as well.

Check out these two posts:
http://www.honesthuman.com/?p=219
http://www.honesthuman.com/?p=293

Geraldine said...

Being a Democrat with impeccable Democratic credentials (great granddaughter of a Democratic Senator, got a cousin (distant but he's still a cousin) who's a current liberal Dem Senator, another cousin, my virtual sister, who is totally connected to CA Dem politics, etc.), my New Year's resolution is to do my best to enlighten the Democratic Party that animal welfare does not equate to "animal rights".

I was infuriated at the Louisville vote and then, discovering that it was absolutely along "party lines", was devastated! I can't fathom why members of the Democratic Party could think that the "animal rights" agenda is liberal. It is fascist! I assume that it is just because they have fallen for all the effective HSUS/PETA propaganda. (Mea culpa! but, in my younger days, I fell for it, too, and contributed to both HSUS and PETA before I figured out what they were really about.)

So to expiate those adolescent errors, I will be doing my best to get the "AR vs AW" debate into whatever Democratic venue I can find. Any suggestions as to places where this might be effective would be greatly appreciated.

G.

glendarra said...

THANK YOU!! As a Kentuckian, a breeder of purebred dogs, and a Democrat, I can assure you I'm very aware of the Louisville Ordinance. That the target was Louisville for this agenda was unfortunate, but think about its significance. Where else could you hit harder than the home of The Kentucky Derby and the home base for a centuries long love affair with hunting and dogs? It was a very appropriate target for PETA and HSUS; I just didn't think that our legislators would be so naive to fall for it though.

That "this" law will "help" dogs is laughable! If you think "helping" dogs is phasing them out, maybe so. This law was "supposed" to protect the public. Ha ha. How?? By targeting law-abiding citizens? Let's face it! The only ones buying licenses are the ones who already obey the laws. Those stray dogs, the ones who attack people--guess what--their owners don't pay for shots, licenses, etc. THEY WON'T BE AFFECTED by this law!! So, how pray tell are we protecting the public from "dangerous" dogs? We need to protect the public from "dangerous" owners...those who don't put their dogs on leash, don't pay for shots, don't pay for licenses. If Louisville would have enforced the laws it had, there wouldn't be the outcry for a "new ordinance" at all. NO, it's not about that at all--it's about MONEY and POWER. Mr. Meloche wants power--and guess what, we just handed it to him.