I read some of the comments supporting wearing fur ( and eating animals) and it just got too boring . One minister said it was sanctioned by the Bible to wear fur and eat animals and use animals in any manner that benefits humans. Many men see nothing wrong with hunting , wearing fur, eating animals and feel morality plays no role in these decisions. I have heard these arguments too many times; I would rather expend my energies on directly helping animals than debating with insensitive people.

Posted by: Ana | September 28, 2007 12:59 PM

I'm interested. What do you do to DIRECTLY help animals? Please tell me Dr. AnaMagne, what have you done for animals this week? I know what I did to help them. Are you interested to know? I have 200 acres of native Ozark habitat that I restored over the last five years. I wish you would come see it.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 28, 2007 01:51 PM

In short then Ana, you cannot refute the truth so you'd rather hide from it.

Posted by: Mars | September 28, 2007 03:25 PM

No Mars, I am very busy and have limited time. You seem to have alot of time so go for it. Being a college professor requires lots of energy and because of my discipline I have to publish as well. Don't judge me when you know nothing of my schedule or of me. I am also a mother and they require both my attention and love. Being a widow I am both their mother and father. My four cats also require attention that is well deserved. I also am on the board of the organization, "Catholic Concern For Animals-USA" which educates about a vegan lifestyle and being compassionate toward the other animals. CCA-USA is a life-affirming organization and also requires a lot of my time. And yes, I am on the side of truth and both speak and write of it.

Posted by: Ana | September 28, 2007 05:57 PM

Hey, it's the fine redneck Doc that shoots tame birds and supports puppy mills (his nurse actually runs a puppy mill)

Ana, your comments about the minister reminded me of the puppy millers. Many of the worst, the ones that literally torture and kill the dogs, quote the Bible nonstop.

They say that the Bible says it is ok to torture dogs and sell sick puppies to people.

(and also, I guess, not pay taxes, because they are cheating their fellow man in that way too!)

Religion is sometimes used by the evil to sugarcoat their crimes.

And I'll just bet that God has a few things planned for them at the Pearly Gates;)

Posted by: kelly | September 28, 2007 06:19 PM

I think I would get too frustrated and too pissed off, but I'm willing to take a look at it.

Posted by: Lisa | September 28, 2007 06:25 PM

Cochran
I rescue homeless cats and try to find homes for the friendly cats and kittens. I spay/nueter them and the ones I cannot adopt out I practice TNR (trap/nueter/return) with. I work with a wonderful vet who gives me discounts. Daily, I feed the cats that are in "my" colony. I am on the board of "Catholic Concern for Animals-USA", which encourages a vegan lifestle and compassion for the other animals. CCA-USA publishes "The Ark", an informative journal published three times a year. CCA is originally from the UK but an effort was made to introduce it to the USA. Through a long and thorough process , where both my character and proof of my being a devout Cathoic were questioned(references were required), I was chosen to be on the board for the CCA-USA. It is an organization that I truly love and respect and is close to my heart. Also, being vegan I don't contribute to the suffering of animals daily in my life. I also donate money to a cat charity in CA that helps elderly people on fixed incomes with cats/dogs that need help to pay for cat/dog food and vet medical expenses. I also raise my (vegan) children to be compassionate human beings to human and non-human animals. As a widow I am both their father and mother and give them ample doses of both my love and attention. These are just some of the things I do for animals. (I was volunteering at my local no-kill shelter but I had to stop because being the sole parent to my children it became rather difficult when it came to managing my time).

Posted by: Ana | September 28, 2007 06:25 PM

ana, apparently many women do too.

Posted by: rojo | September 28, 2007 06:56 PM

Ana: my sentiments exactly.

cc,md: and your point is?! [yawn]

mars: and what truth is that, oh great troll?!!

ps neither need not respond on my behalf as no further attention will I afford to the little likes of you re this post. my questioning is only meant to bring to your own attention the transparancy of your pomposity in your arrogant post with the obvious intent to discredit wellmeaning others and boost your own ego. how sad. have you really nothing else better to do?!

Posted by: 007 PHD | September 28, 2007 10:52 PM

ana... please note:
re my first post here my reference was to your first post.

Posted by: 007 | September 28, 2007 11:28 PM

Yeah Ana, I have to agree with you regarding the Helium site. I just was not too impressed, and would rather spend my time focusing my leisure time (limited, like yours) sharing my thoughts and opinions with the various animal rights individuals that I have "met" on the PETA files. I find it very uplifting, and it is great to hear from so many animal lovers from all over the world, from so many different backgrounds.

I think part of the issue for me is that Jack and his friends/colleagues always have interesting, controversial and/or humorous things to share with us. Some issues can be depressing, but then it gets me more motivated to help animals. Some stories are absurd, some are unbelievable, and many are hilarious, so I always look forward to every new topic.

Posted by: Michele | September 29, 2007 12:02 AM

Michele-

"Ditto." Well said.

But I do think we need to take the debate to as wide an audience as we can, so Helium is useful in that respect. Will it bring us any new allies? We'll see.

Posted by: The Good Steve | September 29, 2007 09:16 AM

Ana, my above comment related to your first post too.

I would urge you to rethink your "return" policy on homeless cats. These feral cats are a blight upon the environment, killing birds, reptiles and small mammals. Cats are very capable hunters, so they will survive but will no longer be given treatments (such as worming tablets) and can become disease carriers/spreaders.
Don't get me wrong, I applaud your efforts to find them new homes, and particularly de-sexing, however letting them go back to the wild may not be the best outcome. Not even for the cat.

Posted by: rojo | September 29, 2007 09:26 AM

No religion is in favour of meat eating - but just their false representatives who want to stuff their belly and who don't even know their own scriptures and religion history - very important!!!

Posted by: Old Spiderwoman | September 29, 2007 10:15 AM

Ana: I also completely agree with you about the Helium site. There is a veganfreak forum that gave me total verbal hell when I asked if just one of several hundred of them would do a quick imdb.com post supporting former actress Pam Ferdin so as to build up a short database to defend her present activism. My point is that there are vegans out their whose primary goal is to be part of a Vegan social clique with real activism being very low in priority. As Vegan Outreach aptly states "we want a vegan world not a vegan club".

Posted by: Gerry Ardigliano | September 29, 2007 10:37 AM

Christopher,

You made a comment a while back that you do as much for animals as 100 of the animal rights activists here. You also accused PETA members of being "over-emotional" and not fact-based.

Okay, provide evidence for your spurious and emotional claim that you do as much as 100 activists here. Please present your facts.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | September 29, 2007 12:16 PM

Hi, Ana! : )
I am addressing you with my comments (not with anything that you are not aware of already) because you have consistently proven yourself to be intelligent on this blog site, and it is a waste of time for me to address the anti's.
To begin: we, as a/r's activists, humbly prefer not to boast about ourselves as being self-less people - since obviously we definitely do not seek praises or recognition because none is to be had for our freely-given efforts. We know a/r's activism is one of the most thank-less positions to be involved in, et al, the focus of our cause, the animals, who are not capable of thanking us. Nevertheless, please allow me to "thank you," Ana, for all that you do for the animals and society because it is always refreshing to learn of good vs. evil in this vicious world, especially from a humble person.
I realize that Cochran and his posse co-erced you to into telling them about your extensive personal contributions and hurdles, which are remarkable indeed. Obviously, however, no one has ever co-erced Cochran to tell of his contributions(?), so he feels it is necessary to self-glorify himself about his positive activities ad nauseum with "I." "I" do this, "I" do that, and "I" have this...(redundantly) - and I might add, is highly questionable due to his contrary comments ever since he made his first grand announcement to present himself on this blog site. The anti's, perhaps too humble, never present to us their contributions to society, yet they enjoy attempting to knock our contributions.
Little, if at all, do these types of people realize how much of they are telling us about their inner self. Cochran in particular, obviously has an ego/insecurity problem. He and his posse are telling us that they lack compassion for innocent beings, and I will enumerate more with the following, which reflects their comments:
1. they constantly fail to admit or realize that a/r's activists - due to a willingness to learn - have a broader view of the human/animal/societal/economic relationship, which affects and effects all of us.
2. they fail to admit or realize that a lot of a/r's activists are highly educated and/or highly productive/active people in other areas of life.
3. they pathetically enjoy attempting to negate the fact that exploitation, torture, and killing animals is wrong, along with "control" of an animal species - which is parallel to the ideations of infamous historic dictators - who actually did not differentiate, ie, had encouraged the same evils to be inflicted upon humans and animals.
Thank you, Ana, for allowing me to express my impressions to you about "we" as a/r's activists, and "they" who choose not to learn.
(I will not address any comments from the anti's simply because I choose not to waste my time.)

Posted by: Ariel | September 29, 2007 01:54 PM

rojo
If you think the "wild" is my backyard and my frontyard, well good for you. Australians have a very distinct dislike of cats, enough said. They hang cats on trees, how civilized!!! They also eat them and they have recipes on how to cook cats. Do you know that human animals hunt and kill other human animals, pedophiles rape little girls and boys, men rape women, people torture other people for fun, mothers kill their own children, human animals hunt and torture the other animals, and the list goes on. What should we do about the human animals that are a "blight" on the environment and all living beings? And yes, rojo, many women are just as violent as men are towards animals and they are no better. The sound of a purring, content, loving cat is priceless.

kelly, Michele, OO7 PHD, Mike Quinoa, Gerry Ardigliano

Thank you all for your continued support of me and I greatly appreciate your comments. What Mars and Cochran seem to forget is that this is an ANIMAL RIGHTS BLOG/FORUM where animal advocates can share their concerns and ideas on how to help animals. Vegan Outreach does wonderful work and I applaud them and also got involved in their leafletting. I admire all of you and what you do for animals; I also appreciate any info you make available on this site that will contribute to the well-being of all animals. Why animal/killers/haters feel that we have to justify veganism, compassion and non-violence is ludicrous. They support their killing activities and eating animals defensively in any manner even including God as part of their justification. Yes, kelly, God will certainly be waiting for their appearance!! None of us should have to defend our love for animals nor our being vegan. Their insults have become moot and tedious and we really should concentrate on how we are winning the battle against the oppression of all animals. What these animal/hating killers do not understand is that we are not members of a fringe lunatic group. Our moral fiber is incomprehensible to them so they resort to insults and sarcasm and writing in great deal who they kill and how much they enjoy eating the animals that are herbivores. Peace everyone!!! Keep fighting the good fight.

Posted by: Ana | September 29, 2007 02:41 PM

"What Mars and Cochran seem to forget is that this is an ANIMAL RIGHTS BLOG/FORUM "

Dang, and I thought this was the KFC appreciation blog.

Posted by: Mars | September 29, 2007 05:38 PM

ana, in your country there is the death penalty. Need i say more.
Prison keeps some of the other scum of the streets, yet you feel the need to put killers back on the streets, that's clever.

You're right that Australians don't like feral cats, most of our native mammals/marsupials are small and, prior to the arrival of cats, had few predators. They had no instinctive protection and many species have been endangered.(foxes helped).
PS the cats are dead when hung up, unlike your football heros dogs.

Posted by: rojo | September 29, 2007 08:26 PM

Hello everyone, I would like to share with you some of the arguments I make to the Christian Community. Important biblical verses: ECCLESIASTES 3:19 "For that which befalls the sons of men also befalls beasts; even in the end one thing befalls them both. As the one dies so dies the other. YES, THEY ALL HAVE ONE BREATH AND SPIRIT SO THAT MAN HAS NO PREEMINENCE OVER A BEAST for all is vanity." This verse clearly states that we have no right whatsoever to excert our dominion over animals in cruel and inhumane ways. And if we are wise we will treat them with the utmost regards. PROVERBS 12:10 "A righteous man regards the life of his beast, but even the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." If you are a Christian, righteous is what you want and wicked is what you don't want. MATHEW 5:7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they will obtain mercy." Can any reasonable person argue that factory farming is not cruel or merciless? What about Mark Laudenslager's ludicrous & inhumane alcohol experiments on Monkey's at the University of Colorado, funded by the National Institute of Health? There are 2 billion Christians worldwide. What an impact it would be if they were all to go veg. There is, I promise you, a valid biblical argument to be made for animals and it is beginning to take shape. Thank God! Joel Osteen, a teleevangelist, (one of my favorites) told an entire colliseum full of people not to eat pork because it is unbiblical. He also told them to go freerange, not only because of hormones and antibiotics but because of the small cages. I'm telling you we need to get these people on our side. I know many people are afraid if they go around quoting the Bible they will open themselves up to judgment and critism (which in itself is unbiblical), but darlings, if that does occur all you have to do is quote that very famous biblical verse LOVE COVERS A MULTITUDE OF SINS.

Posted by: Kimberly | September 29, 2007 09:21 PM

Hi, again, Ana! : )
Once again I must applaud you for your compassionate, realistic, and highly educated comments. I also applaud and admire kerry, Michele, Mike, Gerry, and 007 "PHD", that was cute (funny) : )
I would only like to add a little something concerning the Catholic faith, plus, that is derived from your last comments. (of course again, most likely nothing that you are not aware of already - not preaching to you or anyone - just simply expressing my thoughts.)
Catholics/Christians are given a less "defined" concept about the Heavenly bliss in comparison to the horrors of Hell - there is a reason for that - and of course, Heaven and Hell are opposite states of spirituality. Since Heaven is a state of eternal, total Love and peace, undeniably there cannot be any atrocities conducted - therefore, there cannot be any tears, pain, infliction of pain, killing, torturing, slaughtering, exploitation, etc. Since Heaven is a spiritual home for souls - including animals' souls - there cannot be any physical matter, for some examples, rifles, slaughterhouses, cages, etc.
It is sometimes said (and believed) that people begin their spiritual journey on earth, which will lead them to either Heaven or Hell by their choice due to having free will. (however, as we know, Catholics believe in Purgatory)
I gather that whether it be the Christian faith, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Moslem, or any other similar religion, the consistent theme that is taught is love, peace, and respect for life.
(Just to interject: I know of some atheists who practice respect and dignity for life; and I personally know atheists (very profession people), who dedicate a great amount of their free time to an animal shelter.
Bringing my comments around, focusing them on the animals - which is not an insinuation for you or any other a/r's activist - those who believe in the afterlife, yet torture and/or kill innocent beings - I think, are going to be mighty surprised when they meet their "Higher Power, to discover that their arguments/debates, which they "joyfully" defend any of their beliefs about torturing, killing, slaughtering, trapping, etc., are finally going to be proven totally non-credible and definitely not feasible in the spiritual realm of eternal Love, peace, and harmony.
(note: of course I am not accounting for all religious beliefs)

Posted by: Ariel | September 30, 2007 01:25 PM

rojo

The death penalty is legal, as of now, in 37 states. Also, many of these states do NOT use the option to utilize the death penalty. There also exists MANY anti-death penalty organizations in the USA. Again, this is politics and not necessarily the voice of the people. The death penalty is given to murderers in extreme cases and not all of them even when they do get a death sentence ever have it carried out. The rest of your comments make no sense. Your native marsupials, for example the kangaroo, also suffer extensively brutal deaths at the hands of cruel Australians. You even stomp to death the joeys, lovely . And the kangaroo is the creature that represents/symbolizes Australia. I know, you will say, well there are just too many kangaroos. I guess you don't show a film on your airlines' flights showing how Australians brutally extirminate the kangaroos. Might not make for pleasant flights. Thankfuly, Californians voted against kangaroo leather being exported into the USA. Made your government rather irate with that decision. The cats were brought there and are innocent; they act on instinct and for survival. Welcome to the 21st century and initiate spay/neuter efforts and instill compassion in your population. I will admit there are some compassionate people trying very hard to help these cats but killing them in such a horrible fashion isn't the solution. Your koalas also are suffering depleted numbers in populations. Speaking of prisoners, as you mentioned, Australia was founded as a penal colony. England emptied its prisons and sent them to your country.

Posted by: Ana | September 30, 2007 03:49 PM

Hello lovely Ariel:

Thank you for your kind words and praise which I accept with the utmost humility. You and the other wonderful people on this blog who do wondeful things for animals have earned my respect and admiration.
I, like you, am tired of the specious arguments the animal-haters/killers present to us who love and defend the billions of helpless and friendless animals. There exists absolutely no need to defend what is good, that is, compassion for the other creatures.
In reference to Christianity, Catholic Concern for Aniamls is trying very hard to change the attitude of Christians towards the other animals/creatures. If Christians would really practice Christian charity we would actually create a Garden of Eden where all of us, along with the other wonderful animals, would live in absolute harmony. I take the Catholic church to task for not addressing this. And as popular as John Paul II was, to me, he did not do anything for animals and therefore
I do not consider him great. Nonetheless, as a Catholic I keep trying to educate Christians about the true meaning of mercy. Asking God for mercy while wearing the skins and eating the flesh of animals that were subjected to misery, violence , cruelty and barbaric deaths is both hypocritical and non-Christian. Peace to you!

Posted by: Ana | September 30, 2007 04:12 PM

I agree that is very disheartening to go against somebody who doesn't want to know of any reason why it is wrong to eat or torture animals. In the beginning when I started to do something for the animals on-line like Peta suggested I went on IM on Myspace and they blasted me up on account I wanted to start a conversation about animal rights. But I think that one has to be sharp and ready for the counter-attack because in reality that's a good way to get people talking about and perhaps changing some minds eventually.

Posted by: Margarita | September 30, 2007 04:53 PM

ana, hate to disappoint you but the kangaroo bill in california didn't rate a mention here.

Kangaroo species that are allowed to be culled are not endangered. Maybe because they are not cat prey.
yes some joey's are killed, they won't survive if they are too young. Their heads are fragile and a stomp is a fast and painless exit.

All very well to say cats are innocent, if you want to end up a nation with a heap of cats and not much else. I'm not sure to which horrible fashion cats are dispatched you are refering, most are shot.

Australians are quite proud of their convict past, alas I had no such ancestors.

Posted by: rojo | September 30, 2007 08:27 PM

Mike, the number of animals I have helped to restore is immeasurable. From spiders to redtailed hawk, foxes, roadrunners, quail, deer, turkey, rabbits, coyotes, numbers are all up. Biodiversity in the flora is amazing. It has gone from being an near monoculture of nonnative fescue to countless seed producing forbes with terrestrial diversity offering numerous different habitats in only 200 acres. I can't imagine how many plants and animals have benefited. I can't see how you could count. Much more that four rescued cats times 100. I am seeing bugs and snakes and birds I haven't seen for years. The fact that I hunt some of these animals for wildlife management purposes discounts me into the enemy category. I don't shoot tame birds, except on training a bird dog. And my bird dog was not from a puppy mill. My nurse doesn't have a puppy mill. So, I believe I do more directly for animals than any one hundred of you. I am not bragging. My point is that your "enemy" has many of the same goals as you, it's just that I focus on wildlife. I don't shoot anything I don't intend to eat (crows and groundhogs in my garden are the exception). I don't shoot predators or raptors or songbirds, because they aren't good to eat. I just drove in from Little Rock tonight and counted over one hundred deer standing on the side of the road. Road kills are not my idea of a good non hunting control of the population. How do you propose we fix the blossoming deer population without hunting?

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | October 1, 2007 01:06 AM

Hi, Ana! : )
On 9-26, probably just like you did, I received an email from PeTA that described the purpose of the blog site: "...features exclusive insider info about animal-friendly celebs, breaking campaigns, victories for animals, and a unique insight into the world of animals from the point of view of a PeTA emp." When I first discovered this blog site months ago, I was beyond thrilled to know that I would be in touch with fellow activists. I know that singing WITH the choir is not getting our message out there, and I knew anti-views were to be expected. Well, I definitely was not disappointed with reading comments from fellow (REAL) activists and the blog site info, thanks to Jack, but apparently I gave the anti's too much credit, hoping at least that they would have open minds.

Instead, the majority of the anti's only use this forum to vent their hate or other nonsense. (no further explanation needed) Anyway, I couldn't agree with you more that doing good should not have to be defended. Therefore, it doesn't make any sense to me that doing good is perceived by the anti's as being debatable, especially with them (supposedly) reading and knowing the horrendous facts about animal abuse on this blog site.
I have a very low tolerance for nonsense anymore, so I find it useless to address them directly - because all they really seem to want is attention and to be argumentative. I feel that I can only have a sensible "conversation" with another activist. However, I tremendously admire all the activists who perservere in addressing and negating them - and very easily at that - but the same anti's foolishly keep coming back. (yet the seeds of good have been planted) They can't seem to comprehend that this is a no-win issue for them - because good ALWAYS wins over evil. (definitely NOT implying that they are evil)
I totally agree with all your comments concerning the religious issues. And, Ana, you cannot even imagine how many times I have thought about the "Garden of Eden," exactly how you described your thoughts. I really believe that is what deepens our a/r's beliefs even more. Plus, I absolutely love the beliefs of St. Francis of Assisi. Wishing you the best always!

Posted by: Ariel | October 1, 2007 11:47 AM

ANIMALS DESERVE TO LIVE.. today in class my professor was talking about the holocaust and it just made me so MAD. He goes " They actually killed living people for NO reason, they deserved to live and did nothing wrong but they killed them anyway " i thought sooo? we do that to BILLIONS of animals everyday.. noone makes that a big deal, how can noone feel bad for them? im just SO upset that people can actually not care about animals being killed.

Posted by: sadCONFUSED | October 1, 2007 11:49 AM

Christopher,

What was your little nirvana like before man appeared on the scene? I'm sure Mother Nature had no problem whatsoever taking care of biodiversity without your assistance.

My point was that your comment was nonsensical. How can you maintain you do more than 100 activists when you have absolutely no idea what they, in fact, are doing?

I was under the impression that many animals themselves controlled their reproductive rates based on the carrying capacity of their environment. Any biologists out there?

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 1, 2007 11:53 AM

Mike Quinoa,
I don't know about you, but I didn't see any evidence provided that you requested from the "harvestologist."
I did read, however, a lot of unproven "facts" and the ambiguity was a "nice" touch.

And darn those over-whelming amounts of vicious deer! Those monsters have a lot of nerve thinking they have a right to aggravate some people by populating!

Posted by: Ariel | October 1, 2007 12:52 PM

So true Ariel. The noive! (say with Manhattan accent :) )

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 1, 2007 03:47 PM

Rojo

Yes, the bill did, obviously you missed it. Your government is very angry with that decision. I read papers from your country.

How noble of Australians stomping on babies' heads!! Does it make you feel good? "Culled", oh, yes, the word used by cowards.the accurate word is killed, be honest with what your misdeeds accomplish. No my nation is not a "heap of cats", just a powerful one and one that has many groups practising TNR and with spay/neuter programs to go about helping animals in a civilized manner. Shooting cats is another fun time for barbaric adventure. Whew, what a scary bunch. It is the 21st century, have you grasped that?
No, this is not KFC and your sarcasm is absurd. Making insipid remarks says more about you than anything else.

Posted by: Ana | October 1, 2007 04:07 PM

Hi Ariel!!! :)

The animal/haters/killers just write ad nauseum the same absurd nonsense. No one could be converted by such innacurate and ridiculous comments. The best thing for me is to see the intelligent and compassionate remarks made by animal advocates on this blog. To know they are out there helping so many animals is just sheer happiness for me.

Reading these caustic and hateful comments about animals only serves to strengthen my fortitude. But I must say it does nothing to elevate the status of the human animal.

Keep fighting the good fight!

Peace and blessings!

Posted by: Ana | October 1, 2007 04:15 PM

Mike, Before man arrived some ten or so thousand years ago, I can only dream about what a beautiful place my farm must have been. Likely a rolling savanna type ecosystem with many large herbivores with concomitant predators to maintain balance. That was ten thousand or so years ago. The last two-hundred have been the most devastating. With the introduction of non-native plants and animals and the displacement of predators and the over hunting of commercial hunters the landscape has changed tremendously. Hunters like myself have worked with local game and fish agencies to try to restore as closely as we can that natural balance, but so much has changed since before man, to leave it alone is actually quite harmful. Deer would absolutely control their rates by food restrictions. (in other words, they would starve). They don't choose not to breed because of low food. They would eat every green thing they could find including your rose bushes and
soybean fields and then they would begin to die of starvation. If they were, "lucky" they might get some massive disease like blue tongue that would wipe them out quicker. I have oversimplified here, of course, but we have seen instances of deer overpopulation in the 21st century. It isn't pretty. If you rescue four cats and a pound puppy, good for you. If you don't eat meat, good for you. All I'm saying is that some of those who you refer to as having a high cruelty quotient are actually doing more for animals than you are.
I have no way of counting the hundreds of thousand of plants and animals that would not be on my farm if not for my efforts. You will not, however, find a feral cat on my farm, rest assured, as they displace native predators and devastate native populations of pretty much anything smaller than they are. Man has made a disaster of many things (as rojo about toads and rabbits), but the more we learn, by doing, the better we are able to set things right. Preservationism doesn't work because their is nothing left to preserve.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | October 1, 2007 04:19 PM

" I'm sure Mother Nature had no problem whatsoever taking care of biodiversity without your assistance."

You would be wrong. See any dinosaurs around? Nature killed off more animal species then humans can even comprehend.

Posted by: Mars | October 1, 2007 05:41 PM

sadCONFUSED,
You seem like a very compassionate and broad-minded person who has a special sensitivity for innocent beings, the animals, who cannot speak for themselves. I think that would make you a very special person - practically rare - in today's world.
I can only go by what you wrote, so this is what I would like to mention: actually, we - or at least I - don't know what the professor thinks about the holocaust of animals. So perhaps you might want to ask the professor privately about his/her opinion - and if he/she is agreeable with you and co-operative, then perhaps you can suggest to the professor to make a comparison in class. (if the professor is not open to it, don't be surprised)

You certainly have expressed that you care about the animals, so it's not fair to you to include yourself with those people who do not care about animals being killed every day.
Yes, it is very, very, very upsetting that so many people actually do not care about animals being killed (tortured, exploited, etc.) - so that's where us countless millions of a/r's activists come in, around the world.
Speaking for the animals, your caring is wholeheartedly appreciated!

Posted by: Ariel | October 1, 2007 07:30 PM

sadCONFUSED, I share your thoughts on The Holocaust. What a pointless waste of life for no sane reason. It's unbelievable to think so many of Hitlers underlings followed so blindly and commited such attrocities, few sought to question or think for themselves.
In regard to animals they provide a living to 1.3 billion people and supply 1/3 of the worlds protein for humans. Of course not all animals have to die. Some provide eggs, milk and wool. Of those that are slaughterd for consumption little is wasted, meat is eaten, leather is used, the fat for bio-fuels and the rest for fertiliser.
I would urge you to buy free range products and don't buy fur coats. I don't think we get much other use out of fur animals, and their deaths are thus pointless.

Posted by: rojo | October 1, 2007 07:50 PM

Rojo,

I love the way you speak for all us Australians. Please everyone this man with a farming background does not speak for all Australians. He quotes all the usual things that the farmers tell us about kangaroos and wildlife.

He may not have heard anything about the Californian bill but that could be because he doesn't mix with people that give a dam about the wildlife in this country.I personally heard a lot about it.

Kangaroos are being killed in the millions over here. It has got to the point that the red kangaroo population has diminished so much that they are shooting them before they even get to 2 years old. The gene pool is eroding and in the future these animals will be weak and not survive. In the past a male kangaroo wouldn't have even had a chance to mate until he was around 7 years old and he would have to fight his way to the top, now we have weak males mating. This is not good for the species. There are shooters now complaining that there aren't enough roos to kill to fill their quotas so they are having to do other things to make a living.

The in pouch joey is stomped on or smashed against the tyre of a car. The joey at foot is left to fend for itself and starves to death, a long slow death unless taken by a fox.

"yes some joey's are killed"

I think the word "some" kind of trivialises it don't you, there are millions of joeys killed each year for what!!!!

Kangaroos and all wildlife in Australia do have preditors, it is humans. Humans are destroying the habitat and then quote that there are too many animals in the tiny bit left to them. The Australian government are giving incentives to get people to have more children when our natural resources are diminishing at a huge rate. That's ok though we will just kill every other species so we can have the water and land that they need.

Posted by: SB | October 1, 2007 11:00 PM

mike, kangaroos can adjust their offspring to seasonal conditions. Even though the joey has already been concieved it's development is put into a sort of suspended animation until conditions improve. Emus egg numbers vary too. A good season will see the father(he hatches and raises the brood) parading around with 6 chicks, a poor season 3.
Unfortunately not much can be done with the number of adults when food runs short.

Posted by: rojo | October 2, 2007 02:03 AM

SB

So glad to hear from a caring Australian or "Aussie". You have various animal rights groups working hard to help the beautiful native creatures (and other animals)in Australia that are being killed with no compunction. And as I mentioned before there are so many people trying to help the homeles or feral cats in a humane manner. The number of roos being killed is just horrible and excessive. So sad that your native species are being slaughtered at such an excessive rate. The USA killed off the bison and wolves in the most violent manner and almost wiped out completely their respective populations. Only about sixty (60) Florida panthers exist in the wild; the cowardly hunters managed to decimate their numbers. They took photos -proudly- next to the piles of many cats they had hunted and killed. It was the Florida panther that is the natural predator for the deer that these very same cowardly hunters justify in killing because of their "high" numbers. It is their "concern" for the deer "starving" that leads to killing them. Wow, that's compassion! Humans, the ultimate and most dangerous predator!!!
You are a welcome and refreshing "voice".

Posted by: Ana | October 2, 2007 01:03 PM

The animals that provide eggs, milk and wool all die once they are physically spent. These poor creatures provide flesh and leather for animal/haters/killers. They don't disappear or die of old age. Get your facts straight. Typical nonsense defending acts of violence and cruelty.

Posted by: Ana | October 2, 2007 01:17 PM

Mars,

I said biodiversity, NOT extinction. I've been through the Canadian Rockies several times. There is great biodiversity there without any "help" from man whatsoever.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 2, 2007 01:53 PM

Ana,

Do you get angered when your parish marches for "Pro-Life" and does not include ALL forms of life...??

I sure do...

I don't even want to get into the abortion debate but to me "pro-life" means all life.

I had a guy yell that at me at a circus protest I was at--"why don't you march to save babies lives"? I replied "Pro-life means all life"

Not much he could say to that.

Posted by: Tamara | October 2, 2007 02:59 PM

Mike,

I don't live in the Canadian Rockies, but I would say there is a great deal of influence by "man" there. The provincial conservation departments would likely agree. Certainly less needs to be done in remote places, but ongoing monitoring and good management practices are vital to maintaining healthy ecosystems.

Ana,

I assure you that if you lived, you would not want high numbers of panthers in your neighborhood. For the record, though, I do not hunt predators as they are not good table fare, in general. You really should gain more expertise before you comment so definitely on wildlife issues. Your opinions on hunting and wildlife management are dogmatic and ignorant.

All the Best.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | October 2, 2007 03:16 PM

Going back to the comment about dinosaurs having become extinct: I recall from watching a documentary, that archeologists/scientists have proven more than their theory that at least some dinosaurs - by adapting - have evolved into species of animals that we identify today. For example, they concluded that birds evolved from certain types of dinosaurs, basing it on similar characteristics found in fossils. Since dinosaurs were on earth long before mankind, that clearly proves Mother Nature allows species of the animal kingdom to either adapt or to become extinct - without any help from mankind.
Enter mankind: (referring to the present) Mankind has greatly imposed upon animals' natural habitats unnecessarily, kills wild animals for "sport," imports wild animals for canned hunts, circuses, kills them for furs, poaching, poisons species just to clear the way for a parking lot, and a variety of other reasons just because some of mankind does not like this or that. The animal kingdom then becomes imbalanced, sometimes to the point of extinction. The botanic nature also becomes imbalanced. Despite their early warnings of near extinction, REAL preservationists, conservationists, and other related fields, then must undertake the delicate task of increasing the animal population and maintain botanical growth.
Enter the "hunters!" with their "bagging," "culling," "harvesting" who were partly responsible for the extinction or near extinction in the first place! But they refuse to admit that because they use the lame excuse that they have to control the animal population in order to balance nature. If "hunters," and greedy, insensitive, vane people would not interfere with animals and their habitats, Mother Nature would do just fine. After all, she had millions of years of experience before destructive mankind arrived!

SB, yes, you truly are refreshing on this forum, and thank you for your honest contribution!

Posted by: Ariel | October 2, 2007 05:07 PM

SB, I wasn't actually speaking for all australians, ana made some sweeping genralizations and I responded in like tone.

If there is a joey in the pouch, then the one at foot is capable of survival, it's when they are small they are vulnerable. Like you say these small ones will die, so isn't it best to do it quickly and painlessly?

Yes roo numbers are short for hunters as the govt only issues a certain amount of quota.

ana, I didn't say their lives weren't shortened, but a lot longer than other uses.

I agree, we have to many humans on the planet.

Posted by: rojo | October 2, 2007 05:28 PM

Mike! Ana!
Help! We need to do something fast! I fear the wild animals are going to take over the world soon if they are not put in their place! I'm sure their goal is to over-populate so they can force mankind to become extinct!

Millions of people have been attacked and killed by those unconscienable deer! (what noive!)
With all that "influence" of urban development going on throughout the Canadian Rockies - shopping malls, highrises, major highways, well, it would be worth a visit for me to get away from all the panthers in my neighborhood that out-number people 10:1.

Anyway, I propose that we give all those uncivilized, ignorant beasts (the animals) lessons on birth control and courses on managing wildlife - before we become their dinners, or have our heads mounted on their walls, or they think our skins are appropriate for apparel. Yes, they definitely need to be controlled before they cause mankind's total demise!

Posted by: Ariel | October 2, 2007 06:17 PM

Christopher,

If Man disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, it wouldn't make much difference to the majority of the animals here. Most animals are complete and self-equipped to lead their natural life (and all without electricity, Blackberrys, indoor plumbing and weapons of war).

We apparently need animals far more than they need us. Man's stewardship of the planet leaves a lot to be desired, unless you call reckless deforestation and degradation of the oceans into sanitary sewers good management.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 2, 2007 07:53 PM

Just perusing the posts on this thread, seeing the "what have you done to DIRECTLY help animals" comments.

Last I checked, animal rights people do not keep a scoreboard - they do not compete with each other to see who handed out the most leaflets or who adopted the most shelter pets or who convinced the most people to go veg or give up wearing leather. Some animal rights individuals are not comfortable handing out leaflets or debating the issues directly with friends and family members. Does that mean I am better than them because I have no problem doing those things? NO. We all have our strengths, and we all have individual lives to lead, with some of us having more time to devote to animal rights activities than others. Again, this does not make one type better than another. We are all doing our part, small, medium or large, to help animals, and judging by the comments I have read on the PETA files over the past many months, there are a lot of wonderful people involved in a whole range of activities, who can share their concerns with intelligence and clarity. It is uplifting, and I feel honoured to be a part of this group of people. Every single animal rights advocate should feel proud of their accomplishments in the fight against animal cruelty.

Posted by: Michele | October 2, 2007 11:07 PM

Mike,
I completely agree with your assessment. We (all of us) have made a big mess. We, of course, are not leaving the planet any time soon, and I can assure you that to abandon the natural environment would in the long, long run lead to some sort of balancing out, but I can not imagine what a disaster for man and beast it would be over all. Animals certainly didn't need us, but now many of them do in order to regain or maintain populations. I don't believe that hunting is the only wildlife management tool. Rather it is a small, but necessary piece of a complex science. The largest or most important issue has to be habitat restoration.

Ariel,

I question your expertise and ability to make educated comments regarding wildlife management, as your comments are somewhat naive. I, as politely as possible, ask for your credentials as you do not seem to have a very good understanding of the issues regarding the very complex science of wildlife management.
Deer, as one example, do not overpopulate only because of hunters (as PETA claims) or lack of predators. They overpopulate due to a massive changing of their habitat. They have adapted very well to the non-native grassification (not a real word I realize) of their original habitat. They do very well on fescue yards and fields, and rose bushes. No wolf or bear or panther is ever going to live as proximal to humans as deer do. If you abolish hunting, their only forms of control will be automobiles, disease and starvation. Your state and federal game and fish departments do much more than sell hunting licenses and catch poachers.
Humbly Offered.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | October 3, 2007 12:18 PM

I have never in my life ever claimed or implied to be an expert on anything, and I have never played an expert on this blog site. (that would be dangerous and ludicrous)
Among my "credentials" are: my gift of compassion, being open to others who have compassion (especially those who have sincere knowledge), having common sense, and a desire to learn from REAL experts, which my common sense allows me to discern.
Life has taught me that anyone who has a degree or a number of degrees, does not make him/her an expert if he/she lacks common sense, compassion (when applicable), and a contiunous desire to learn indisputable facts. When REAL experts relay facts, they do not include their own interpretation, supported by ego or presented with the intent of self-glorification. Any expert who accepts financial pay-offs for the purpose of making conclusions to the contrary of facts, is not credible. People who are employed in authoritative positions does not automatically make them experts, admirabe leaders, virtuous, trustworthy, or honest. Therefore, with having vast personal experiences with such types of people, I learned that too many people - highly educated or not - are in positions of authority - calling themselves "experts," for the sake of the almighty dollar, while they enjoy having their egos inflated. For example, state and federal game/fish commissioners. (typical of the govt.)

I rely on my beliefs that all life should be respected, and no one has the right to torture, abuse, enslave, or kill another living being, be they human animal or non-human animal. Neither does anyone have the right to control any living beings by genocide, which is not different from controlling the animal population. My beliefs are extra supported by having reasons to be empathetic. I believe that nature is more powerful than all of mankind collectively, which does not require anyone to have a science degree when they can clearly see the destruction of hurricanes, etc. Nature -with the rain, wind, sun, crops - provides not only for us, but for the animals. Nevertheless, according to the law of nature: survival of the fittest.
So while we human animals kill each other off and destroy the earth, we still maintain an unhealthy pride and arrogance by thinking we have the right and the power to control the earth and all living creatures.
I do not get paid a cent for my beliefs, nor do I have an authoritative status - and honestly, neither do I desire to get paid or achieve status.

Posted by: Ariel | October 3, 2007 08:40 PM

Sorry I have to disagree with you on the joey at foot will survive. A kangaroo supplies two seperate milks, one for the joey in the pouch and one for the one at foot. That joey at foot will need that milk for quite a while after the other joey is in the pouch.

"Yes roo numbers are short for hunters as the govt only issues a certain amount of quota."

That is not what I was saying at all. The quotas are huge, there just aren't enough roos to fill the quotas.

Mike,

Diapause is what rojo is trying to describe about kangaroos stopping a joey developing before it goes in to the pouch until there is more food etc. Not all kangaroos do this Greys will let the joey die in the pouch and then throw it out in extreme conditions.

Posted by: SB | October 4, 2007 05:37 AM

SB, there are heaps eating my wheat(I don't try and stop them) and no one has come around desperate to fill quota.
Some people choose to keep the very young joeys as pets, so they don't all fail without milk. Although my only close contact with joeys is if their mother runs into my car, I figure if they can outrun me they'll survive on their own.

Posted by: rojo | October 4, 2007 11:05 AM

Ariel,

So what your saying is you really don't know much at all about wildlife management. I am not bragging when I say I am an expert at medicine, my patients take that for granted.
I am not an expert in wildlife management as I have not had the extensive amount of training as say someone like my mother, who is extremely well educated in such matters, but I do claim to know a lot more than you do regarding these issues. I do, as you might imagine, confer with experts frequently in wildlife matters and they universally agree what a wonderful job I have done. Once again, not bragging, just pointing out that feeling a certain way about something doesn't mean you can make an educated comment. For you to make such sweeping generalizations of the scientists who are experts in wildlife (even if they are government employees) is irresponsible and shows that you are deflecting and grasping at straws. For you to make any sort of opinion regarding the complex science of wildlife and it's interactions with environments is akin to a African bushman trying to be a stock broker.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | October 4, 2007 04:40 PM

Well rojo, in that case what I'm saying must be wrong if no-one has contacted YOU, one wheat farmer in Australia.

Again you generalize like when you say in another post that Australians agree there are too many kangaroos and agree with culling them. Although of course you aren't talking for all us Australians you are just generalizing again.

The quotas don't even include the hobby farmers that shoot out all the roos as soon as they get their small patch of land, or the orange growers who complain they eat their little trees, although they haven't made any attempt to protect them from the roos or the rabbits. Just shoot them all, that is the solution, lets not pay out for a fence. It is so easy to get a licence, in a lot of areas you don't even need one.

Kangaroos should not be pets, they are wild animals and deserve to have the life of a wild animal, not an unnatural domesticated life. They may adapt but why should they. Aren't there enough domesticated animals being neglected and abused in this world without adding more to the pile.

How can these people shoot a kangaroo and then keep the joey as a pet, knowing you have killed it's mother, what wonderful caring people they are. NOT!!

Posted by: SB | October 4, 2007 10:58 PM

Thanks for the info, SB!

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 5, 2007 10:49 AM

To: any animal rights' activist

It appears that "Cocky" (just a short, friendly nickname), has a reading comprehension disorder. So I am wondering if any a/r's activists can convey my following comments to him at a simpler level that he will clearly understand. (on 10-4-07, at 4:40 pm, he responded to my comments posted on 10-03-07 at 8:40 pm.)

Please convey to him clearly:

1. I do not believe that wildlife needs or has to be managed. Nature takes care of wildlife without the need for "assistance" from destructive mankind - who does not have the right to kill or destroy wildlife anyway. Therefore, I do not have a need to "learn" about wildlife mgt. since it is nothing more than mankind's egotistical interference, an attempt to control nature, and the need to "prove" superiority over "lesser" beings, most likely stemming from being insecure. Therefore...
2. Cocky is "deflecting" from the truth by supporting mankind's irresponsibilty caused by hunters/killers, poachers, etc. - as well as placing wildlife "experts" on a pedestal for the same.
3. If there was one thing Cocky learned from wildlife mgt., obviously it is: how to (try to) cover his tracks. Each egotistical/self-glorifying statement includes "not bragging."
4. He mentioned that I made "sweeping statements," but I guess he could never be accused of that, even though prior to mentioning that, he claims: "they (experts) UNIVERSALLY agree what a wonderful job I have done." (I suppose bloodlust minds would think alike).
5. Next, but never last, Cocky has often accused a/r's activists of either being bigots, or he has profoundly alluded to them being bigots - without him having any basis for his blatant accusations. Yet, in his last sentence to me, Cocky attempted to undermine the intelligence of African bushmen who, by far, have more experience - life-long experience - with wildlife and its interaction upon the enviroment then all of the (scientists) wildlife "experts" combined. (That is, unless any one of them were born and raised in the African bush country. So I question Cocky's perception: would an Af. bushman be less intelligent than a stock broker? My thought is: both have the necessary intelligence to survive within their own respective atmospheres.
An interjection (true): a psychologist wanted to do a study about homeless people, but he figured the only accurate way to study them, is to become one, live among them, and live exactly as they do. So he did so for 3 years. After 3 years, he ended his study and arrived at his conclusion: he really didn't fully know about homeless people because he realized, that at the end of his study, he would be able to return to his normal lifestyle. Therefore, he concluded, he wasn't able to absorb the true feeling of being totally destitute. Point: REAL experts - like the psychologist - make every effort possible to base their conclusions by obtaining well-rounded knowledge.

Anyway, typical of Cocky, his last sentence - an undercurrent - was just another fruitless attempt to insult me - as he likewise attempts to insult and make false accusations to other a/r's activists at any given and not given opportunity.

And please pass on to him to finally get four things through his "educated" head:
1. a/r's activism is not about being on an ego trip, therefore, we do not get offended with attempted insults towards us.
2. he would be wise if he realized that we are not stupid people.
3. for him to stop wasting his time "grasping at straws" by expecting glorified attention from us.
4. and for the sake of the animals, we do not back down.

Posted by: Ariel | October 5, 2007 04:07 PM

dear Ariel

"IT'S NO SIMPLE TASK TO WIN THE HEARTS AND MINDS
OF THE HEARTLESS AND MINDLESS." selah

people do and say what they are
"consider the source" then dismiss it for the troll(s) with an evil agenda that it is

Posted by: 007 | October 5, 2007 08:48 PM

Anyone remember watching the Charlie Brown cartoon shows on tv once in awhile? If so, you will definitely remember how the adults (that we never see) sound when they "talk" - mwamp, mwamp, mwamp (I am sure that that's not quite how to phonetically spell the sound that the adults make, but if you've seen the show, I think you get my drift). Anyway, that's all I "hear" now when I see any posts by the "usual suspects" such as the Faux doctor, and the "planet" vegetable :)

Ariel, as always, you eloquently state the facts without getting emotional. Your words are wasted on the truly arrogant readers. I think we should just respond to those who seem to really want to listen, who are here to learn and not just trying to provoke people with their lame-ass comments.

We are not backing down, just sparing our energy for challenges in other areas. Some of my personal affirmations are: "I will not accept criticism for helping animals", "I am speaking up for those without a voice", and "Every victory, no matter how small, is a step in the right direction".

Posted by: Michele | October 6, 2007 09:23 AM

Michele and Ariel: Excellent comments again; I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts and the posts of other animal defenders (like Mike Q, Ana, etc.). I won't have a lot of time to blog for a while, but I will definitely make as much time as I can to read the posts. It's motiviating to know that the animals, who so often endure unbelievable pain and torment, have such intelligent and eloquent voices defending them. And, as always, the animals would thank you if they could.

Cheers

Posted by: Doug | October 6, 2007 06:43 PM

Hi, 007 "PHD"!
I still think that title was cute (funny)! : )
Your quote and comment are SO true all the way!

In an earlier post, Michele said she was going away for a while, so I know she won't be reading this, but anyway, yes, 007, I definitely agree with you and her because I think - only my opinion - we should maintain a more constructive, positive direction for the sake of the animals.
Thanks for responding. I appreciate it. : )

Posted by: Ariel | October 6, 2007 08:23 PM

Ariel,

My three year old still believes in Santa Claus but that doesn't make him any more real. African bushman are generally unqualified to be stock brokers. Unlike you though, they could be trained. I hope everyone else understood that I have How does it feel to have lost your ability for independent thought? Line up like a PETA sheep. Maybe you and sheep are equal? I hadn't thought of that.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | October 7, 2007 02:24 PM

SB, shock/horror, I am but one graingrower in Australia, and don't recall implying anything but. Are you speaking for all Australians when you say they don't agree with culling?

Posted by: rojo | October 12, 2007 08:43 AM

http://act.greens.org.au/1048 an unashamedly environmental group.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/an-industry-thats-under-the-gun/2007/09/25/1190486311919.html

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0851-0900/sb_880_bill_20070907_enrolled.pdf

Posted by: rojo | October 15, 2007 07:37 AM

Rojo,

You obviously don't understand sarcasm as in my first sentence.

I actually didn't say I don't agree with culling, I don't but didn't say that in my post. It was you that was speaking for Australians not me about culling. I'm not the one saying Australians this, Australians that, this seems to be your favourite term.

Here is another website for anyone interested in the plight of the kangaroo in Australia.

http://www.awpc.org.au/kangaroos/cruelty.htm

Posted by: SB | October 21, 2007 11:18 PM

then you didn't read my post properly as to why I was generalising. I made two "australian" comments
1, Australians are proud of their convict past", not meant to be anything other than a generalisation, but through observation one i believe to be true.
2, "Australians don't like feral cats". It is quite possible some do, though they'd be a strange bunch.

I notice you didn't take offence when ana said australians eat cats, but were that I said "some" joeys are killed. I didn't say none, and definately not all, so what else is there.

While it may have been sarcasm it was a valid point and I addressed it as such.

Posted by: rojo | October 26, 2007 07:08 PM

then you didn't read my post properly as to why I was generalising. I made two "australian" comments
1, Australians are proud of their convict past", not meant to be anything other than a generalisation, but through observation one i believe to be true.
2, "Australians don't like feral cats". It is quite possible some do, though they'd be a strange bunch.

I notice you didn't take offence when ana said australians eat cats, but were that I said "some" joeys are killed. I didn't say none, and definately not all, so what else is there.

While it may have been sarcasm it was a valid point and I addressed it as such.

Posted by: rojo | October 30, 2007 05:31 AM

Let's not forget this one

"The Australian people would prefer that some are culled and the resource used"

Ana wasn't talking for me!!

I won't be coming back to this blog so no need to reply.

Posted by: SB | October 30, 2007 10:18 PM

reading thru all these comments i agree the religous community has used the bible to long sugarcoating thier cruelty that suits them agaisit animals being a christian myself i say why did good and loving god give animals the ablity to suffer love fear and hve soulish feelings too although not as complex then we shoud just totally ignore it like they were mere objects it doest make sense to me these same people used the bible to justify slvery as well as child labor mabey someday more christians will see all gods creatures deserve respect for thier life as i do their are other bible believers starting to see the light but unfortunatley not enough since thier main agenda is saving souls as aheard one teacher of christiantysay animals are considered souls to and will be part of gods heavenly kingdom i wish more would take this view and show compassion to lowly creatures of animal kingdom i personally believe god loves his creatues just ignorant people dont see it because it doest suit thier agenda the blind shall lead the blind in some christian circles i believe my deep convictions for all live are his is becase god gave to me after all dosnt the bible say we are made in his image

Posted by: carol | January 22, 2008 09:57 PM