GSPCA Article Six – Legislation and You



GSPCA Article Six – Legislation and You

THE DYNAMICS OF LANGUAGE WITHIN THE PROCESS OF SOCIAL CHANGE

“There are some that only employ words for the purpose of disguising their thoughts.”

Voltaire (1694-1778)

My personal involvement in fighting the AR movement on the legislative front began in October of 2009, when I received a late night phone call from a county kennel owner who was concerned about a new proposed “Kennel Policy” scheduled for approval the following morning by our County Board of Commissioners. Inquiries were made, a commissioner faxed copies of the proposed new kennel policy to me, and I quickly found myself in front of the county board the next morning to address concerns and answer questions.

There were many reasons to be concerned about our new ACO’s proposed policy. The old kennel policy was a three-quarter page document that succinctly stated the definition of a kennel; the definition of a kennel license; the requirement of rabies vaccinations; and the definition of “Kennel Conditions and Construction” stating that 1.) The kennel facility should prevent the public or stray dogs from gaining entrance, 2.) The kennel fencing should be of good quality, and 3.) A height of six feet was required for all kennel fencing.

Now, with the recent arrival of a new Animal Control Officer, our county needed a new “Kennel Policy” and attached “Inspection Sheet.” Under the proposed new policy, kennel inspections would include the following changes and requirements: an increase in kennel and inspection fees; inspection time allotment on kennel property (previously averaging 30 minutes) would now require up to two hours for “inspection, measuring, and photographing” of kennels as well as an interview; a residence was not considered an acceptable kennel for licensing purposes; and all kennel buildings would be required to provide heating/cooling, proper ventilation, proper lighting, etc. as required for all state licensed animal control shelters and USDA commercial kennels.

The attached Inspection Sheet would also monitor waste removal, drainage mechanisms, outside drainage of kennels, the “strategic placement” of food and water receptacles, an effective pest/parasite control program, and proper disposal of “bio-hazards.” Although there were no large commercial kennels in our county, all hobby breeders, or anyone who owned more than three dogs and wanted to apply for a kennel license, would now be held to USDA standards.

Needless to say, a major battle erupted over the proposed new kennel policy and guidelines sheet. After several months of lobbying each commissioner, as well as numerous presentations in front of our county board (thank you AKC / UKC for your support), our County Board of Commissioners unanimously voted down the proposed new kennel policy. Happily, we all went home to celebrate the Christmas holidays.

One month later that same kennel policy reappeared at our county commissioner meeting with a new name. It was now called “Kennel Guidelines.” According to one county commissioner, they did not have to vote on departmental GUIDELINES, they were only required to vote on county POLICIES. In other words, the proposed “new” document could now go forward without a vote of approval from our county commissioners and without the input of licensed kennel owners throughout our county.

Interestingly, we quickly learned that the new “Kennel Guidelines” document had been submitted by our County Animal Control Advisory Board. “What Animal Control Advisory Board?” we all asked. When we requested the time and place of the next Animal Control Advisory Board meeting, we were told that their meetings were not open to the public because it really wasn’t a BOARD at all, it was “just a COMMITTEE.” Since “committee meetings were not required to be open to the public,” as stated by this same commissioner, the County Administrator refused our right to attend the Animal Control Advisory Board meetings.

These incidents were only the beginning of additional conflicts in our county (including obvious charges of violation of the Open Meetings Act), but the use of “selective language” and the manipulation of our legislative process by some county officials was a profound lesson to all of us on the use of words and legislation to further the agendas of special interests.

Those who wish to successfully implement social change understand the importance of word usage. Animal rights advocates have made it “fashionable” to promote the use of certain words and phrases, and they are also skillful at inserting words within legislation that can be used to their advantage. Our weakness, when fighting animal rights vocabulary, is allowing the implementation of these “politically correct” words without understanding or questioning how they got here in the first place. Just think about it a minute… When did farms become “factory” farms? When did breeders become “puppy mills?” What IS a puppy mill? Can you define it with a clear definition? More importantly, can we all agree on the same definition? Finally, how did this change in our language come about?

Beyond the obvious use of words such as “factory” and “mills,” which certainly reflects badly on anyone who farms or breeds animals, there are many other creative uses of language that the AR’s have promoted. It’s really quite simple…. breeders no longer keep their dogs in crates – they keep them in cages; breeders/owners of multiple dogs are now labeled hoarders; animals are nonhumans, therefore they are more closely related to humans; an owner is now a guardian; anyone who breeds more than one litter of puppies is a puppy mill; and those of us who hunt are murderers.

Author Kathleen Marquardt, (Animal Scam; The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights), writes about her daughter Montana coming home from school and stating to her, “’Mommy, she said you’re a murderer.’ The ‘she,’ [Marquardt] learned, was a representative from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).” Marquardt goes on to say that, “For three days, she [PETA] had lectured my daughter and her seventh-grade classmates about ‘animal rights.’ One of the lessons was that all hunters are murderers…. What in the world was animal rights? I wondered…” (Marquardt, Introduction: “Why I Wrote This Book”) Labeling hunters as murderers is as ludicrous as saying, “When you run through the drive-thru at McDonalds, please order me a ‘murdered bovine with brutally massacred swine strips’ on a bun!’” (Reference to Mills, 2003, “Caught between sexism, anti-sexism and political correctness, Discourse and Society)

While such extremes in language seem unrealistic, this biased usage of words is far more common than we would like to believe. In the book, Animal Equality: Language and Liberation, by Joan Dunayer, the road map is clearly laid out as to how to use language to change our belief systems in the pursuit of animal liberation. Ms. Dunayer, (who lives in Washington D.C., with her husband, “four cats, and fourteen rat friends”), clearly states that, “Nonhuman emancipation requires legal redefinition and other linguistic change.” (pg 176) Referred to as “verbal hygiene” by some, the politics of language has been effectively used to fight racist and sexist language, and is now being used to fight “Speciesism” (discrimination based on species). Ms. Dunayer helpfully includes a “Thesaurus: Alternatives to Speciesist Terms within her book to aid those who wish to promote animal liberation through the use of language.” (page 187-201) On these pages she lists terms to avoid and their alternatives. Here are a few examples…

Avoid Use

domestic animal ( ( ( ( ( enslaved nonhuman

racehorse ( ( ( ( ( ( exploited horse

venison or beef ( ( ( ( ( deer or beef flesh

wildlife conservation ( ( ( ( manipulating nonhuman population

whelp ( ( ( ( ( ( ( give birth

game animals ( ( ( ( ( targeted non-humans

game farm ( ( ( ( ( ( animal shooting operation

over-hunting ( ( ( ( ( ( genocide by hunting

sportsman ( ( ( ( ( ( non human animal killer animal research ( ( ( ( ( vivisection

agricultural or farm animal ( ( ( animal enslaved for food

dairy farmer ( ( ( ( ( ( cow enslaver

egg farm ( ( ( ( ( ( ( hen enslavement facility

Examining this list gives us insight into how our language has been successfully hijacked by the animal rights movement. “As I ponder the power of words to incite and divide, to calm and connect, or to create and effect change, I am ever more cautious in what I say and how I listen to the words around me.” (Susan Smalley, PhD, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA) The use of words to promote social change will only work if we allow it to be used as a tool against us. Maybe it is time for us to not only refuse to use or acknowledge these negative words regarding breeders, owners, hunters, etc., but to also assert our right to implement ideological words and phrases that will protect our rights to own and use animals.

Take for instance, the following word usages suggested by Marty Greer, DVM/JD, and Julian Prager, JD on the topic of “Animal Law; Legal and Legislative Challenges to Purebred Dogs,” who were featured speakers at the recent National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) Annual Conference held in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Both Ms. Greer and Mr. Prager discussed “how strategic activism poses legal and legislative challenges to the continuation of purebred dogs” and within this discussion, they listed examples of words and phrases that could be used to dispute the “Language [of] Animal Rights Moral Equivalents.” Here are their recommended examples…

mandatory spay/neuter ( ( ( ( forced sterilization

overpopulation ( ( ( ( ( retention or distribution issue

no kill ( ( ( ( ( ( ( limited admission shelters

breed specific laws ( ( ( ( ( racism/discrimination/bans

humane relocation ( ( ( ( ( stray dog importation

small breeder ( ( ( ( ( ( artisan breeder

puppy mill ( ( ( ( ( ( substandard breeder

animal companion/fur kids ( ( ( pet

liberating animals ( ( ( ( ( anarchy or theft

ownership of/confining animals ( ( protecting and caring

As we quickly learned in our county government experiences, it’s all about the words, either in our selection of word usage, or in the writing and implementation of legislation. Not only must we guard and choose our words carefully, we must also pay attention to the words of those who speak in support of the animal rights movement, including Wayne Pacelle (President, HSUS) who has stated, “every responsible breeder is a puppy miller, every family farmer is a factory farmer, and every responsible hunter is a poacher.” It is now our turn to dictate words of choice in the fight to protect our rights as animal owners/breeders. As for me, I intend to loudly proclaim wherever I go that I am a proud breeder of purebred dogs and the heck with social and political correctness. Maybe I’ll even put it on a bumper sticker….

Connie James

GSPCA Legislation Chairman

GSP Journal, Jan / Feb, 2012 Issue

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download