avatar_Oval 5

Laßt Euch nicht verarschen! Tierschutz <-> Tieraktivismus

Begonnen von Oval 5, 25.09.2020, 13h19

vorheriges - nächstes

Oval 5

Im "Tierschutz" unter dessen Deckmantel sich ein ungeheuerlicher Sumpf aus "Tierrecht"s-Aktivisten gegen jede rechtliche Grundlage für ihre eigenen Ziele um Ihr Geld bemühen und um Ihre Stimmen in oft sehr fragwürdigen Unterschriftenaktionen bitten, gibt es weit verbreitet die Unsitte, Fotos "unbekannter" Herkunft zu verfälschen und sinnentstellt zu manipulativen Zwecken zu missbrauchen.

Hier mal ein paar Beispiele, an geeigneter Stelle, auch den einen oder anderen echte Tierschützer zu erreichen, dem es tatsächlich - wie mir selber - um den Schutz der Tiere, speziell der Greyhounds geht.

Zitat von: Greyhound Chronicles - The Truth About Grey2K ://youtu.be/CyMsHxxExUIMasters at Deception Meister der Täuschung/des Betrugs

Wir werden belogen nach Strich und Faden von Menschen, die so tun, als ginge es ihnen um unsre Ziele, die aber in Wirklichkeit ganz andere Vorstellungen haben. Haustiere soll es nach deren Vorstellungen gar nicht geben dürfen - natürlich zum Schutz der Tiere ... oder des Klimas ..........  rolleys.gif

Laßt Euch nicht verarschen!

Oval 5

Die roten Hervorhebungen im zitierten Text habe ich hier vorgenommen - die finanziellen Summen sind unvorstellbar und ein Schlag in's Gesicht jedes Tierschutzvereins, der mit immer knappen Mitteln und immensem Zeitaufwand versucht, Tieren zu helfen, ein neues Zuhause zu finden, gesund zu werden etc.!

Zitat von: Greyhound Chronicles - The Truth About Grey2K, fb, 5.9.2020

Greyhound Chronicles - The Truth About Grey2K
5. September

If you only knew about the real Humane Society of the US (HSUS), the real Grey2K USA Worldwide (Grey2K), the real American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), and the real People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), my guess is you would not have donated over $2,000,000,000 to these organizations within the last five years.

Where is your $2,000,000,000 in donations going? The biggest part of your donations goes to support a very lavish lifestyle for these management people. Over $667,000,000 of your donations goes towards salary and other compensation. That is 33 cents of every dollar that you donate goes directly into the pockets of select members of these four organizations. The remaining dollars go towards fundraising, legal fees, accounting, lobbying, advertising, office expenses, occupancy, travel, and conferences. If you only knew.

When you see the heart-wrenching commercials asking for just $19.00 a month to save these poor animals, who wouldn't donate? The problem is some of the animals you see in the commercials and on the internet do need help, but waiting for help from the HSUS, Grey2K, the ASPCA and PETA is like waiting for paint to dry. Grey2K and the HSUS donate only 1% of their donations towards helping animals, and they run no shelters, so where can they take these animals for help? They can take your donations to help themselves, but your donations don't really help the animals you intended it to. The ASPCA at least does run some shelters and does help to some degree. Now PETA is in a league of its own. PETA runs one shelter that is a killing machine. In 2019, PETA killed 65.20% of the dogs and cats they took in. If you are alarmed by this, you shouldn't be because this is really good for PETA as this is the lowest percentage since at least 1998. Between 1998 and 2018, PETA averaged killing 83.5% of the dogs and cats they took in, with the high being 97.4% in 2006. Is this how you thought your donations were being used? If you only knew.

With regard to those heart-wrenching commercials asking for just $19.00 a month, Wayne Pacelle, a past CEO of HSUS, is quoted saying in a Senate Hearing "Those ads say that we are not giving that money to animal shelters...there is language that says this is not going to local animal shelters." Have you seen that statement in those ads? If you only knew.

In 2014, the HSUS agreed to pay Ringling Brothers, owned by Feld Entertainment, over $15,000,000 as part of a lawsuit filed against them. Two years before that, the ASPCA paid $9,300,000 to Feld Entertainment as part of the same lawsuit. Those dollars came from the donations intended to helps save animals. In reality, you paid those settlements with your donations intended to help save animals. If you only knew.

And what is worse, the founders and highest ranking officers of most of these organizations have participated in and have been speakers at many Animal Rights Conferences for more than 20 years. The ultimate goal of these conferences is to end animal agriculture. They want you to eat no more meat, to drink no more dairy, and to be a vegan; they want to end circuses and rodeos, end horse and greyhound racing, eliminate all pets, ban hunting & fishing, etc. Ending ALL animal agriculture is their end game. If you only knew.

For years, these organizations have successfully pushed thru, both at the state and federal levels, bills and ballot initiatives and referendums that have negatively impacted animal husbandry, food processing, animal agriculture, the pet industry, animal ownership, hunting & fishing, conservation/breeding programs for endangered species, and greyhound racing. If you only knew.

It is important that you educate yourself as to what both your State and Federal Legislators are working on. It is important to speak up and get involved. You need to know.

Please invite your friends to follow this page and help spread the word.

Oval 5

Zitat von: Greyhound Chronicles - The Truth About Grey2K, fb, 12.9.2020

Greyhound Chronicles - The Truth About Grey2K
12. September um 12:02 ·

If you need more irrefutable proof that Animal Rights groups deceive and manipulate to suit their agenda, here is another example. Back in 2009, Grey2K requested and received 2008 greyhound racing injury statistics for the State of Arizona. They reported on those statistics on their website and other online outlets. In addition, they sent the unsolicited report to The Arizona Republic newspaper. The paper ran with Grey2K's information believing it was accurate, since Grey2K claimed they came "directly off the injury reports." Grey2K added a link to the newspaper article on their website, pointing to the newspaper article as verification of their numbers — when the paper had assumed Grey2K was telling the whole truth to start with. However, and here lies the problem, that report included the injury reports AND the veterinarians' suspension reports, which included ALL of the SCRATCHES at Phoenix Greyhound Park, whether for being "lame", "sick", or scratched by the judges.

Seeing what had happened, Clifton, a trainer at the Phoenix greyhound track, emailed Grey2K referencing the injury report they'd posted on their website. He offered to help them revise it, to remove dogs listed on the report with no actual notation of an injury and to remove dogs who were scratched at the scale with no proof of an actual injury. He said that he thought it was "unfair and misleading" to claim every single dog listed on the veterinarians' suspension list as an injury.

Clifton received the following reply from Christine Dorchak of Grey2K:
"Through official public information requests, our office requested the injury reports of the dog tracks in Arizona. We received them. We typed them, exactly as they are written, into a spreadsheet and generated pie charts and a bar chart. We delivered these to the Arizona Republic, which ran a story. That's it. We added no editorial comment, except to hold the reported injuries against the industry's own classification system. See: http://grey2kusa.org/action/az.html. I think that's 'fair'; don't you? I think this answers your inquiry and I truly hope that you will someday join us in our determined efforts to end the archaic pastime of commercial dog racing."

Clifton then proceeded to respond back to Grey2K saying that he would be happy to supply a list of dogs who should not be included in the report. He politely and respectfully, but firmly, demanded that they remove the dogs from their injury report and revise the totals. He listed 135 dogs, out of a total of 451 dogs, which he felt should (or, in some cases, must) be removed from their injury spreadsheet and from the totals they had publicized on their website, Facebook page, and other places on the Internet. He also contacted The Arizona Republic and sent the list to them as well, since they wrote the story under the assumption that the numbers Grey2K had provided to them were correct. Reasons for the removal of these dogs included dogs that
* were scratched before the races, either by the judges due to paperwork/licensing discrepancies or by the paddock judge due to being more than two pounds over their set weight at weigh-in (a violation of racing rules).
* were scratched by the attending veterinarian before their races due to appearing sick in the holding area prior to going on the track.
* were scratched by their trainers at weigh-in on their scheduled race day as "sick" or "lame".
* had fallen during the race but showed no injuries.

The newspaper responded to him, and the reporter was interested in discussing the injury report statistics. However, she couldn't guarantee a follow-up article.

Grey2K responded to the second email with "That's a lot of information. We'll have to get back to you." But they never did.

Yet another reprehensible act by Grey2K!! Instances such as this bring into question the validity of Grey2K's other assertions based upon their misleading data. If you have an example of this type of experience, please message us or email us at greyhoundchronicles@gmail.com

The blog containing Clifton's story can be seen here:

In the blog, Clifton also pointed out these stats:
The total number of individual performances that were covered by these 2008 injury reports - 60,487
The total number of true injuries reported - 316
Percentage of dogs injured expressed as a percentage of total number of performances - 0.52% (one-half of 1%)

That is a 1 in 200 chance of receiving ANY injury, and the VAST MAJORITY of injuries listed in the reports were general lameness, soreness, sprains, nicks and cuts, and other injuries remedied by a brief rest — in other words, injuries that could occur to any dog, anywhere, at any given time, and probably at about that rate, as well. They are required to file a report for ANY type of injury, no matter how small or insignificant.

Please share with your friends and invite them to follow this page.

Oval 5

Zitat von: Greyhound Chronicles - The Truth About Grey2K, fb, 18.9.2020

Greyhound Chronicles - The Truth About Grey2K
18. September um 16:32 ·

Are you interested in seeing from a Grey2K Executive EXACTLY HOW Grey2K manipulates, providing false information about greyhound racing? The following link contains a Facebook debate between Fred Barton of Grey2K and a greyhound advocate... https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheGreyhound/permalink/2645636618860846/. It reveals exactly how Grey2K manipulates to suit their needs. It is a long read, but you can see how they twist the truth. Some points are summarized below.

Grey2K always says that greyhound racing is cruel. However, did you realize by Grey2K logic, that you as a pet owner are treating your dog(s) in a cruel manner every day? Grey2K defines "cruel" as "an intentional or criminally negligent act that causes pain and suffering." They claim racing greyhounds are treated cruelly because of the "needless injuries and deaths", that owners and trainers are aware of the potential for harm while racing. However, as pointed out in the debate, every time a greyhound pet owner allows their greyhound to run in their backyard, in a fenced field, at a dog park, or in amateur sports or even to ride in the car, they are intentionally putting them in situations where they could be injured or even killed.

When Grey2K reports on injury rates, they choose timeframes that give them the highest possible number, never mind that it is spread over a long timespan and involves thousands of greyhounds and many more thousands of racing starts which they don't disclose. And they don't disclose any information about how many of those injuries were minor, such as a torn toenail or sprained toe. Every statistical analysis reveals that the injury rate for ALL injuries -- minor to major -- is between 1% and 2% of all racing starts, and it's less than 1% of all racing starts for more serious injuries. A study reported in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association looked at injuries of pet dogs doing agility. The study found that 31.8% of those agility dogs experienced agility-related injuries and that 27.6% of the injured dogs sustained more than one agility-related injury... http://speakingforspot.com/blog/2014/02/16/injuries-affecting-agility-dogs/. But they never talk about or compare greyhound racing to other dog activities.

Grey2K follows the same methodology when talking about racing greyhound deaths. They choose the timespan that will give the greatest number and then report that number with no information about the causes of the deaths and whether they were from catastrophic injuries sustained in racing or mortality from natural causes that can be found in any dog population. They never give a comparison of how many deaths there are in a racing Greyhound population compared to another working breed or compared to the pet dog populations.

And Grey2K does the same thing with positive drug tests, not disclosing how many samples were taken in the timeframe. They just cite the number of positives, so that there's no context. This article puts it in context.... https://floridapolitics.com/archives/275807-jennifer-ng-anti-racing-activists-use-misinformation-out-of-context-data?fbclid=IwAR0v3Qodm7K7ZbKuoqVGT8azJA2i3jkaYr1WhZAyxEOi8iBW7ZyB4RF9RBE. It shows that positive drug test results which showed just traces of cocaine exposure represented less than 0.1 percent of all total samples taken from 2007 - 2017. That's much lower than similar positives in horse racing. Additionally, Dr. Craig, a pre-eminent animal doping expert who provides drug-testing protocols and consultations to all manner of sanctioned animal sports, said that the cocaine testing protocols used for the Florida racing greyhounds were flawed because they failed to test for all the human-produced metabolites of cocaine.

Yet more examples of misinformation and deception from Grey2K. Please share with your friends and invite them to follow this page.

Oval 5

Zitat von: Greyhound Chronicles - The Truth About Grey2K, 22.8.2020

zu Deutsch:
Es sind in Florida, im Gegensatz zu den Aussagen von Grey2K, NICHT ab Ende 2020 die Greyhound-Rennen verboten. Verboten wird in Florida ab Ende 2020 sein, auf Rennen, die in Florida abgehalten werden zu wetten, wenn man in Florida ist. Es kann nach der dann neuen Gesetzeslage weiterhin von überall auf der Welt auf Hunde gewettet werden, die in Florida laufen, nur eben nicht innerhalb Floridas ;)

Weiters gibt es in den USA nur einen Staat, in dem Greyhound-Rennen an sich verboten sind, das ist Idaho. Und da sind ALLE Hunderennen verboten. Also auch z. B. ein "Jederhundrennen", Hobbyrennen etc. wie wir sie hier in Deutschland kennen.


Tierrechtler und "kommerzielle" Tierschützer haben anscheinend ihr fachwissen über Tere und deren Verhalten und Bedürfnisse aus Entenhausen.

Mit dieser Argumentation könnte man auch Autos verbieten weil man damit Unfalle verursachen kann, und die Atmosphäre mit fossiles CO2 verscmutzt. Greyhounds geben kein fossiles CO2 ab...

Oval 5

Ehrlich, mich macht das zunehmend fassungslos, daß sich die Rennindustrie so gar nicht auf rechtlicher Ebene gegen all diese Anschuldigungen wehrt.

Ich will wirklich nicht behaupten, alles wäre perfekt. Einfach weil es das nie und nirgends ist.
Jeden Tag sind in den Nachrichte Meldungen, bei denen man sich fragt, was den Leuten einfällt - Kindsmißbrauch/ Hunde und Kinder, die in Autos am Hitzschlag sterben/ "Familiendramen"/ Einbruchsdiebstahl/ "religiös" oder "politisch" motivierte Terrortaten und und und. Es wäre ja albern anzunehmen, daß ausgerechnet bei den Hunderennen nur und ausschließlich Heilige beteiligt wären.
Aber -
und das wird je länger ich mich mit dem Thema Rennhunden und Hunderennen beschäftige umso deutlicher - die Gegner der Greyhound-Rennen glauben tatsächlich, sich jede Gesetzesverletzung erlauben zu können auf einer vermeintlichen GUTEN Grundlage. Da wird gelogen und betrogen, daß sich die Balken biegen. Diffamiert auf völlig an den Haaren herbeigezogenen angeblichen Tatsachen, die sich bei näherem Hinschauen praktisch durch die Bank als falsch erweisen.

Ich will nicht Greyhound sein in China - da möchte ich aber auch kein Haushund und auch keine Katze und ganz sicher auch kein Fisch sein. Vermutlich möchte ich in China nicht mal Mensch sein müssen.

In Irland dagegen glaube ich, kann man es als Rennhund gut haben. Im UK, in den USA ... vermutlich sogar in Australien. So wie hier bei uns. Da wird es Unterschiede geben - wie bei uns - aber im Wesentlichen ist das, was ich rundum sehen kann nicht falsch.

Dann kommt wieder einer und sagt:
Aaaaber, der Hund läuft Gefahr, sich auf der Rennbahn zu verletzen. Ja, das ist so, der Greyhound IST schnell und stark. Wenn etwas schiefgeht, dann geht es schief. Das tut es aber auf der Wiese im Freilauf ganz genauso. Und sicher auch im Rahmen der full speed gelaufenen Kilometer nicht seltener als auf einer präparierten Sandbahn. Eher öfter, weil ein professioneller Hundemensch in aller Regel nun mal mehr Ahnung hat, als ein normaler Mitbürger mit einem Haushund. Wäre ja auch blöd, wenn es andersherum wäre, der Patient mehr Ahnung häte als der Arzt, der Klient rechtssicherer wäre als der Anwalt etc.

Ich glaube eigentlich, daß es bei all dem, was die europäische Rennindustrie an Regelungen aufgestellt hat in den vergangenen 10 bis 15 Jahren, keine berechtigten Klagen gegen die kommerziellen Hunderennen mehr zu geben braucht
und daß es an der Zeit ist, daß sich auch der Bereich Tierschutz bzw. Tierrechtsaktivismus mal wieder neu ausrichtet an aktuellen Gegebenheiten, Zahlen und Wirklichkeiten.

Da wird von den gleichen Menschen im rumänischen Tierschutz hochgelobt, was hier bei uns als Grund für eine Meldung beim Ordnungsamt gelten und einen Shitstorm der Superlative auslösen würde. Klar, im Tierschutz muß mehr möglich sein, als in einer auf Dauer ausgelegten Tierhaltung - nur muß dann auch vermittelt werden, damit der Tierschutzzustand nicht zum Dauerzustand wird. (Ich denke da z.B. an "ungeeignete" Herdenschutzhunde, die ihr Leben lang in Tierheimzwingern dahin vegetieren, zu stark und zu schlecht zu führen, als daß sie auch nur einem Gassigänger täglich für einen Spaziergang mitgegeben werden könnten. Niemand kann einen Herdenschützer festhalten, wenn der das nicht will!)   

Die Greyhounds in der Rennindustrie jedenfalls haben es heutzutage fast durch die Bank wesentlich besser, als der größte Teil der Tierschtzhunde es je wird haben können und zum großen Teil auch besser, als es die meisten Haushunde haben. Die Standards sind echt hoch inzwischen. Wenn das nicht reicht, frag ich mich schon, wer da wem was zu erzählen hätte.