Another Victim of "Welfare" Organisations

The following story has been written with the same unethical rhetoric that the organisation Ban Animal Trading South Africa (BAT) employs to write most of their stories. With one difference, research was done and, despite the sensationalist slant to the story, it's not outright lies. 


 In September of this year a welfare organisation, the kind that is meant to be looking after the well-being of animals, was finally caught out in the myriad of lies they tell to get support. This time their victim, a pet shop owner (Jane, for the purposes of this article) was alerted to BAT's damning and untruthful story on their Facebook page. The organisation accused Jane of selling rabbit meat out of her shop and abusing or neglecting the animals in her care. BAT members supposedly alerted the autorities to the alleged cruelty going on. The followers of the BAT cult then lied to again and said that the inspector confiscated several defenseless and ailing rabbits, but what they failed to mention was that it was one rabbit and several mice and that the rabbit was a lactating mother who was cruelly separated from her babies. The inspector also told Jane, when she asked what to do with the babies, that she must just kill them all. Luckily Jane found all of the babies new homes with new mommies. They further dragged this reputable organisation's name through the mud by saying the following; "I just spoke my friend who is part of management at the SPCA. She confirmed that the rabbits were in a terrible condition and had to put them down. She refers to this as a bust and even said that she would have loved Carte Blanche filming the whole thing.". Now I know for a fact that this organisation would never divulge such information because they're dealing with legal issues. This is is the sort of lies that this organisation employs to get people to feel guilt and pity and to donate to their cause. There are a great many valid organisation out there who are doing real good and making a real difference. Organisations who do things to make a difference, ones who don't just shout the odds with no factual evidence. These organisation are going to suffer in the end when people start to see the true damage that BAT is doing to welfare causes across our country and even the world. We don't need to be lied to when there are real horrors out there...

Now for the truth...

The Pet shop owner does have rabbits on her premises. The ones that she keeps as stock are all for sale as pets (so your 2 year old brat can have a fwuffy widdle bunny, if they so desire). And recently she had a lot of white rabbits. None of these were hers, they belonged to an acquaintance. "As I explained to you I am involved with various commercial rabbit breeders, whom I may add are all members of The Rabbit Breeders Association. I do assist these breeders on occasion with a variety of matters. The rabbits were here on a temporary basis while their facility was being completed by the owner on an agricultural holding approved by the Rabbit Breeders Association. As I explained to you, the SPCA removed one of the does and told me to euthanize her babies. I relayed this information to the owner whom immediately removed the rabbits on Friday the 12^th September from my property. I may add at this point that certain members of the Rabbit Breeders Association are investigating the fact that the SPCA member ordered me to euthanize the kits and that another member of the SPCA board has already confirmed that this is not what they “stand” for and further more they are considering further actions against this SPCA member. Please understand that the information regarding SPCA matter is at this stage very sensitive and I would appreciate if you would treat it as such.   BAT did not ask or approach me directly to clarify any questions they may have but rather interrogated uniformed  cleaning staff members who were not privy to my arrangements with the owner. To date I still have not been contacted by anyone from BAT and it would seem they assumed that I am breeding rabbits on this property.  Again I would like to confirm I am not a commercial rabbit breeder. The rabbits that were photographed do not belong to me and I am also not a member of the Rabbit Breeders Association." BAT also pointed out several other issues. A parrot who was losing feathers, they blamed the pet shop for the parrot's "distress". What they didn't bother finding out was the fact the the Jane was looking after the parrot while the owner dealt with a death in the family and the parrot's feather plucking was his way of expressing his bereavement. This particular pet shop also has an exotic animal specialist come out often to deal with health issues of other people pets. You can make an appointment, bring your exotic animal and the vet will help you at the pet shop. Jane takes care of several rescued parrots and reptiles that were brought in to her by owners who no longer wanted the birds or couldn't look after them. She will not sell or rehome these for fear of them falling into bad circumstances yet again. This I understand all to well because we have two little dogs that we abandoned in a parking lot, rescued, and then tossed aside again because the family that took them in decided three weeks later they no longer wanted them because they were too much effort. Then someone else wanted to separate the two, which is when my husband and I said enough and homed them together.

Now that I've made my point. The truth of the matter is this. BAT has an excellent idea (to end the exploitation of animals), but their zeal and self-righteous behaviour, makes it difficult for people with open minds and open hearts to follow them. I personally abhor animal cruelty in any form and believe firmly that all puppy mills and back-yard breeders should be locked in jail for all eternity. However to condemn everything, including legitimate breeder, pet shops with ethical practices (however few those may be in number) and even Zoological gardens, who's purpose is education and preservation of many species of wildlife, is absolutely ridiculous. We spend a lot of time hurling accusations, and not enough time on education. Teach people a better way and then, if they remain unresponsive and continue with negative practices, then by all means crucify them and throw them on the nearest trash heap. All I ask is that these organisations make sure their victims deserve what they get. You don't see places like the NSPCA condemning everyone, they strive for education even in the rural areas where finances are tight. They try to be part of the solution, not just create another problem. Trying to get everything you don't like, banned, isn't the best idea. And despite all their righteous fire and bluster. They knew they had no leg to stand on, because after one letter from the pet shop owners attorney, BAT was forced to take down the story (which they didn't do completely). If their claims were legal and truthful they could have turned around and told the pet shop owner to take a flying leap.

You see, at the end of the day the problem isn't entirely pet shops, and it's not legitimate breeders or the like. The problem is people. Average folks like you and me. They refuse to educate themselves as to what they're getting into when they purchase or even adopt an animal. Not all animals are the same. And even with species, not all breeds are the same. There was a collie that was handed over to the SPCA. She was a lovely dog, and displayed no real behavioural issues. However, because the previous owner hand no clue what they were doing, she was branded as "dog aggressive" and her chances of getting rehomed became slim. I suspect she was eventually euthanised. I will say this though, I believe a good course of action for pet shops would be to do what professional breeders and rescue groups do, that is to do a home inspection and then maybe advise organisation like the NSPCA to do follow up inspections. Or maybe BAT should start being part of the solution and work with the authorities doing home inspections themselves. 

And please remember that an animal's physical needs aren't the only ones that need to be met. Far too often we anthropomorphise animals and forget that despite the fact that they are part of our family, they are not a human member and their psychological needs aren't the same as our own. Also, there isn't exploitation around every corner. If you go by the BAT standard of exploitation then even so much as owning a pet could be construed as people exploiting animals.

I leave you with a quote by Thomas Paine ~ "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” 

Which is why I will not argue with them. Nor will I have dealings with or support them. Remember this when you think your answer is the only correct answer to be given.

I'm Just Sayin' 

Here are some photos from inside of the pet shop.

Shop stock primarily animal foods, accessories and pet care products

Parrot "sunning" area

Some of the pets for sale

Food for the various animals who call the pet shop, home

 

Some of the animals who live at the pet shop

 

What An Idiot!

WOW. Ok, so I just watched a youtube clip on the legalisation of marijuana in South Africa and I'm struggling to find the right words to express how this makes me feel. Things like, "what the serious f**k are you on" and "go get a real education" keep spinning round in my brain. You should probably read the article and watch the clip (or at least watch the clip) before reading the following rant.

http://www.belowthelion.co.za/the-face-of-dagga-prohibition-gets-slapped/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmR-6Ygvn0

First off, let me start by saying, I have tried dagga a few times and even went overboard and got myself a genuine case of "greenies". But I'm not for, nor am I against the use of marijuana for whatever reason. I'm still in possession of my faculties and and my IQ and am a functioning member of society (dagga didn't make me odd, I've always been this way). Sufficed to say I lost the taste for it very quickly and have not touched the stuff since and probably never will again. However I will not frown upon or glare at you if you decide to light up your joint in my company, provided you don't blow your smoke in my face.

There is a lot of pros and cons surrounding the use of any substance (in my opinion), that people from both sides of the fence tend to forget in their vigour and zeal. And every plant-based "drug" has a history of use. Take, for example, the coca leaf (the base ingredient in cocaine). The Andean tribes used it while climbing mountains like Machu Pichu. They would consume the leaves so that they could reach the top with little food, water or sleep because, when you chew the leaves they act as a stimulant, appetite and thirst suppressant, and it also suppresses pain and fatigue. The leaves can also be used to treat a multitude of other ailments. Anything from headaches to rheumatism, even nosebleeds and asthma. But tell anyone that coca leaves form the basis for cocaine and everyone looses their minds.

Marijuana is the same. It's a plant that has been used for hundreds if not thousands of years for medicinal purposes. However, along comes modern man and the BS they bring with them and all of a sudden things like medical marijuana (which can me ingested as a tea or tincture, it doesn't have to be smoked at all), get the boot and "phat pharma" monopolises the "what medicine you must take" market and dilutes and dissolves the herbal/homeopathic medication, crams it into a pill and sells it back to you for 10 times the price. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-allopathy, I pop my adcodols when I feel that headache coming on. But the more you look at "modern-medicine" the more you will come to understand that most of it comes from plant/natural sources. They simply extract only the chemical they want or they synthesize said chemical. What people fail to understand is this. Mother-nature knows best, and all those side effects you feel from the chemically-charged meds you're on, is because all the other stuff in the plant, the stuff that "phat pharma" took out, because it was "unnecessary", was actually very necessary to offset those nasty "side-effects" which no one tells you about and no one ever bothers to read about.

But I digress. Listen to this woman argue. She obviously didn't take part in her school's debate team. Otherwise she would know that screaming and repeating yourself doesn't make for a good intellectual debate. Her facts are spotty at best, and if she were to repeat the word "dagga" one more time I would have been forced to find a bankie and cram it down her throat. She has all the fire and passion of a religious zealot and the same amount of logic. Ok fine, lady, we get it dagga is bad, as far as you're concerned. But I would have thought, because you work at a "youth center" you would have learned the difference between "I'm a troubled teen lashing out because my mommy didn't give me enough beat..(I mean hugs), as a child" and "Pickachu made me do it".

The other guy, he has a point. He even says Marijuana isn't a "magic silver bullet". And I agree, It might not work for everyone. But it sure is working wonders for other people (do a google search for Charlotte Figi).
And it's not only helping cancer patients.

The point I'm making here is, we can't ban a useful plant and, effectively punish people suffering from diseases just because some people cannot raise their delinquents properly, and they do dumb stuff and then blame it on the drugs or Satan or Pikachu or whoever, because mommy and daddy stuck them in front of the TV and let Hanna Montana and MTV raise their kids.


I'm Just Sayin'