Hugs for Puppies Not so Nice

Animal Rights Group with Previous Record of Violence to Exhibit at Animal Rights Conference

By Jason Webb, published Jul 29, 2007
Published Content: 51  Total Views: 24,892  Favorited By: 8 CPs
Rating: 4.0 of 5
A press release from the Center for Consumer Freedom announced Friday that the Taking Action For Animals conference, starting tonight at the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center, will feature an organization that has domestic terrorism ties. Sponsors for this event include the Humane Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and other leading animal rights groups. This event is prestigious among animal rights activists and gives leaders of animal rights organizations an opportunity to promote their cause.

One organization called "Hugs for Puppies" will be exhibiting at this event. "Hugs for Puppies" is the Philadelphia chapter of an organization called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). SHAC, and six of its leaders, was convicted last year in federal court for domestic terrorism charges that involved campaigning against medical researchers.

"Hugs for Puppies" currently has four different restraining orders filed against them to protect the public from potential harassment and threats. Back in November of 2006, the Hugs for Puppies director, Nicholas Cooney, was convicted of making "terroristic threats with the intent to terrorize another."

Many are outraged by Hugs for Puppies presence at and participation in this animal rights event. Among them is David Martosko, Center for Consumer Freedom Director of Research. He said concerning the conference, ""There's no excuse for consorting with terrorists. The Humane Society of the United States and PETA should be distancing themselves from violence. But by welcoming their movement's most vicious activists with open arms, they're defending the indefensible."

Hugs for Puppies Not so Nice
Date: July 27, 2007
Location:
Washington, DC  USA

Protesters.

Credit: Jess Dixon

Copyright: www.sxc.hu

Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 9 of 9
 
 
Another bunch of self righteous fucks that want to push their agenda and beliefs on others. Take their support of legislature banning foie gras in Philadelphia for example. What gives them the right to choose what I eat? The irony is these left extremists are really no different from the far right that they hate. Often liberals support these groups. Yet, they bash prolifers. What's the difference? Are puppies and ducks more important than fetuses? Stay out off my womb, off my plate, and off my property. I can make my own choices.

Posted on 08/03/2007 at 5:08:00 PM

 
I am curious if the writer of this article could articulate the nature of the violent acts that Hugs for Puppies is accused and been convicted of?? If they dont include rape, robbery, pillage and murder, and they constitute home demos and harsh rhetoric towards vivesectors then I ask for better journalism. If there is actual jail time for for specified crimes it would be important to the article and the judgements made from that information.

Posted on 07/31/2007 at 6:07:00 PM

 
While I agree in principle with Megans comments, I think the "violence" needs to be qualified. Doing home demos and even going so far as to damage property [aka vandalism] is not violence to other humans, and while the vast majority of animal rights people do not support violence of any nature CCF will use any event to rally against animal rights issues. This is because CCF is a paid lobbyist group and represents the core animal use industries that profit from animal abuse. They have no interest in welfare or rights for anyone but themselves and their profit margins.

Posted on 07/31/2007 at 8:07:00 AM

 
What is missing in this article is that the vast majority of animal rights activists oppose violence. Violent tactics on behalf of animals are not only immoral, they are counter-productive and ineffective. A very small fraction of the movement engages in violence, which then allows opportunistic groups like Center for Consumer Freedom to attack the entire movement, as they always do. CCF actually started as a front group for big tobacco and they consistently attack groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Posted on 07/31/2007 at 7:07:00 AM

 
Ardeth - is supporting spay/neuter so that millions of animals don't have to be killed each year "anti-pet"? That's not "fighting with and snipping at each other", which, by the way, is exactly what you're doing. What HSUS and other AR activists believe is that the number of pets should be reduced so they aren't crammed into shelters their whole lives then killed because there simply aren't enough homes for them.

Posted on 07/31/2007 at 7:07:00 AM

 
and part of the growth. What matters is the intent and for that I am grateful for each action and each voice for the helpless animals suffering at the hands of humans.

Posted on 07/31/2007 at 6:07:00 AM

 
The biggest thrill in my life is knowing that animal rights is a thought that did not exist and now does. It is being worked on by people in every walk of life, from librarians to students. While the main stream society tries to stay in a state of denial about their relationship with the animal world there are some who will not be quiet no matter the personal sacrifices it takes. The people working for animals are relentless and selfless. For those recieving home demos- I say get over it. Its America. As to violence- the 6 people from SHAC sitting in FEDERAL jails are there because they ran a web site and it scarred someone. Mr. Vick/ possible animal killer will be lucky to see six months in jail. Mr. Bush's friends in high places, doing high crimes against America- get pardoned. In a movement as large as Animal Welfare/ Animal Rights with all of the attending emotional baggage, it is no surprise that people would not agree or get along. That is part of the learning curv

Posted on 07/31/2007 at 6:07:00 AM

 
A different AC article brought up the controversial topic of PETA and animal rescue efforts after Katrina. The CP said that PETA is opposed to animal rescues and states as much on their homepage, a statement I haven't been able to find. I did, however find PETA Congressional testimony here: www.helpinganimals.com/f-reformcommittee.asp . Anyone know anything more about PETA and their pro pet/con pet stance?

Posted on 07/29/2007 at 3:07:00 PM

 
The biggest problem in animal advocacy is not that a few may advocate violence, in my opinion. The biggest problem is that AR advocates are constantly fighting with and snipping at each other. For example, my friend, who is an officer with the Cat Writers of America, invited Wayne Pacelle to speak to her group's convention. Many of the members (and also the Dog Writers of America) are furious because they claim Pacelle and the HSUS are "anti-pet" because the HSUS supported the mandatory spay/neuter law in California. Animal advocacy desperately needs a charismatic figure, a Martin Luther King type, to draw all the contentious threads together.

Posted on 07/29/2007 at 10:07:00 AM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 9 of 9
 
Most Commented On