# Fatal Attractions



## ZergFront (Oct 18, 2010)

Found a few articles about the Anita Finch woman who died from a viper bite. 



> December 17, 1999 - Anita Finch, 33, was found Wednesday night in her living room curled in a fetal position with two puncture wounds in the back of her hand, said Scott Carrier, a spokesman for the Los Angeles county coroner's office.


http://articles.latimes.com/1999/dec/17/local/me-44868

http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/1999/snake_bite_kills_woman.html


----------



## DrJ (Oct 18, 2010)

Aaaand...what was the purpose of this post?


----------



## jere000 (Oct 18, 2010)

Fatal attractions is full of bull <edit> is why I think he posted this.I watched it once and they changed every story on there.


----------



## khil (Oct 18, 2010)

jere000 said:


> Fatal attractions is full of bull <edit>


this
10this


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 18, 2010)

Yes, "Fatal Attractions" is a <edit> show, full of lies.  Pretty much anything on Animal Planet these days is pure AR propoganda, the sole purpose of which is to make exotic keepers(as in US) look like a bunch a irresponsible idiots who keep poor wild animals in cages to stoke our massive egos, and have no regards for anyone's safety, and to make animal breeders of ANY species out to be a bunch of money-grubbing psychopaths who hoard animals in horrific conditions in order to make a buck or two.  Animal Planet relies on sensationalistic programming that plays on that fear and ignorance the general public has of animals and animal husbandry.  HSUS is a major controlling influence/stock holder and is widely portrayed in many programs as the cavalry charging to the rescue of innocent, helpless animal victims.

pitbulllady


----------



## Onagro (Oct 18, 2010)

This show should really be cancelled. I saw the reptile one and ended up furious over it!  They really like to call anyone, even people with just a couple animals, "hoarders".


----------



## Vespula (Oct 18, 2010)

This show makes me angry, as well. They change the facts and make all keepers seem like maniacs, social outcasts, and wierdos...:evil: It just bothers me.


----------



## Toirtis (Oct 18, 2010)

Next episode has a case that I am very familiar with...I will watch to see just how accurate/inaccurate it is.


----------



## DireWolf0384 (Oct 18, 2010)

I have seen this show before and they make it look like these incidents happen all the time when in reality, they do not happen that often, and I am a firm believer that AP has declared war against the exotic pet trade. I know for a fact the HSUS funds them. They want the public to fear exotic pets and the people that keep them. I personally cannot stand AP anymore.


----------



## Kaimetsu (Oct 19, 2010)

It's frustrating because AP also shows alot of enjoyable wildlife documentaries that i love.  The animal rights movement frustrates me, because honestly i agree with alot of their positions, but they have been highjacked by idiots and wackos.  I feel that even the animals we slaughter for food should be given some level of quality of life before they get slaughtered, and obviously people who abuse pets should be prosecuted.  I even agree with groups like sea shephard that are fairly extreme, cetaceans such as whales and dolphins are inteligent enough that they should be protected from slaughter for profit, even if it means dangerous and aggressive tactics such as the ones that sea shephard employs.  I just want to ask those members of groups like the HSUS that are against exotic pets, sometimes against all pets, why can't i live with the animals that i love, such as snakes, even large ones, if i can prove that i can provide them quality of life?


----------



## snappleWhiteTea (Oct 21, 2010)

Has any one seen the "I Shouldn't Be Alive" show? Its equally as stupid as fatal attractions. FA is weird though, i seen one with a Harmlemite who owned a tiger and a solitary female who was bitten and died in her own trailer. the harlem one was funny though, they had the guy who owned it on there talking.


----------



## DireWolf0384 (Oct 22, 2010)

In my opinion,as long as we are providing the animal with the quality of life it deserves and keeping their cages secure and protecting the public, the HSUS, PETA and other groups should butt out. FACT: Exotic Pets have been known to lower blood pressure, combat depression and mental illness and help people recover from sickness.(Just as effective as Cats and Dogs) They want to effectively ban exotic pets from private people even if that means confiscation, putting politicians in their pockets and in some rare cases, eco terrorism.


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 22, 2010)

Kaimetsu said:


> It's frustrating because AP also shows alot of enjoyable wildlife documentaries that i love.  The animal rights movement frustrates me, because honestly i agree with alot of their positions, but they have been highjacked by idiots and wackos.  I feel that even the animals we slaughter for food should be given some level of quality of life before they get slaughtered, and obviously people who abuse pets should be prosecuted.  I even agree with groups like sea shephard that are fairly extreme, cetaceans such as whales and dolphins are inteligent enough that they should be protected from slaughter for profit, even if it means dangerous and aggressive tactics such as the ones that sea shephard employs.  I just want to ask those members of groups like the HSUS that are against exotic pets, sometimes against all pets, why can't i live with the animals that i love, such as snakes, even large ones, if i can prove that i can provide them quality of life?


The position you described is Animal WELFARE, NOT Animal RIGHTS.  There is a HUGE difference.  The basic gist of the Animal Rights movement is that animals are "equal" to us in every way, and therefore it is morally wrong for us to use them in any way, or own them for any purpose.  On the darker side, they are driven by a belief that animals are actually better off dead than being owned by humans, but only they(the AR activists)have the "right" to end an animal's life, out of mercy, of course, to prevent the possibility that the animal MIGHT be abused by humans somewhere down the road.  The AR people know that if they just come out and try to ban ALL animal ownership at once, they aren't going to get very far, but if they go after certain types of animals at a time, they can eliminate ownership of those types via attrition if not through outright bans.  The easiest way to accomplish this is to rely on the very powerful emotion of *FEAR*.  Create an image of certain animals and the people who own them that the majority of the public will find threatening, and the public will appeal to the lawmakers to "save" them from this menace.  They also rely on the "Divide and Conquer" concept-driving wedges between animal owners ourselves, creating this notion that "MY animals are OK, but YOURS are dangerous and have to go".  When people start to believe that they themselves are immune or protected along with their animals from the bans, etc., and that it's "the other people" who are the problem, they strengthen the AR movement considerably, whether or not they consider themselves supporters.

Here's a little something I found on the Time4Dogs Blog, which sums up nicely the differences between the way an Animal Rights group(the HSUS)thinks, and the way an Animal WELFARE supporter thinks:

"_Humane Society of the US-Their Philosophy Explained
HSUS Philosophy Explained: 
An Animal Welfare Advocate and an HSUS executive (an unlikely pair, I agree; but bear with me) were walking down the street when they came upon a homeless person and his dog. The Animal Welfare Advocate gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job so he could earn a living. Then he could afford food & shelter for himself and the dog. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person and a coupon for dog food so they could get by till the homeless person could start that job. 
The HSUS person was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person with a dog, he decided to help out as only he could. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the local animal "shelter" and a coupon for euthanasia, because he knew the homeless person would be better off without the dog; and besides, dogs are better dead than in the company of humans. He then reached into the Animal Welfare Advocateâ€™s pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept $19.50 for administrative fees and gave the homeless person 50 cents. 
If the homeless man refused this kind offer, the HSUS executive would make sure that he was cited for failure to license, failure to sterilize, and failure to provide food and shelter for the dog. And then he would take it to the "shelter" himself.

Now you understand the difference between Animal Welfare Advocates & the Humane Society of the US. 
_"

pitbulllady


----------



## Kaimetsu (Oct 22, 2010)

pitbulllady said:


> The position you described is Animal WELFARE, NOT Animal RIGHTS.  There is a HUGE difference.  The basic gist of the Animal Rights movement is that animals are "equal" to us in every way, and therefore it is morally wrong for us to use them in any way, or own them for any purpose.  On the darker side, they are driven by a belief that animals are actually better off dead than being owned by humans, but only they(the AR activists)have the "right" to end an animal's life, out of mercy, of course, to prevent the possibility that the animal MIGHT be abused by humans somewhere down the road.  The AR people know that if they just come out and try to ban ALL animal ownership at once, they aren't going to get very far, but if they go after certain types of animals at a time, they can eliminate ownership of those types via attrition if not through outright bans.  The easiest way to accomplish this is to rely on the very powerful emotion of *FEAR*.  Create an image of certain animals and the people who own them that the majority of the public will find threatening, and the public will appeal to the lawmakers to "save" them from this menace.  They also rely on the "Divide and Conquer" concept-driving wedges between animal owners ourselves, creating this notion that "MY animals are OK, but YOURS are dangerous and have to go".  When people start to believe that they themselves are immune or protected along with their animals from the bans, etc., and that it's "the other people" who are the problem, they strengthen the AR movement considerably, whether or not they consider themselves supporters.
> 
> Here's a little something I found on the Time4Dogs Blog, which sums up nicely the differences between the way an Animal Rights group(the HSUS)thinks, and the way an Animal WELFARE supporter thinks:
> 
> ...


Some excelent points here the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights is something i havnt been able to articulate nearly as well as you did here.  The scenario you posted is clearly fiction but it does an excelent job of highlighting the two different ways of thinking.  The sad thing is i think the majority of people who support the humane society and consider themselves animal rights proponents are really animal welfare proponents and don't realize who they are supporting.  I personally support animal welfare very strongly, is their an organization out there that works to fight for animal welfare without supporting "animal rights" in the sense that you have defined it?


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 22, 2010)

Kaimetsu said:


> Some excelent points here the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights is something i havnt been able to articulate nearly as well as you did here.  The scenario you posted is clearly fiction but it does an excelent job of highlighting the two different ways of thinking.  The sad thing is i think the majority of people who support the humane society and consider themselves animal rights proponents are really animal welfare proponents and don't realize who they are supporting.  I personally support animal welfare very strongly, is their an organization out there that works to fight for animal welfare without supporting "animal rights" in the sense that you have defined it?


Sadly, no, not nationally, anyway.  Nearly every single Animal Welfare group has been "hijacked" by the Animal Rights movement, and we are gradually seeing them "turn".  The ASPCA long supported people's rights to breed dogs and other pets responsibly and own the pet of their choice, but now they are more and more against breeding animals, and absolutely against owning any sort of "exotic" animal, such as snakes or tarantulas.  My best advice is to research your local animal protection groups/shelters, see what their positions are are, and donate to the ones that you find acceptable.  They can sure use it, since they don't receive a penny from the national groups.  If you don't want to make monetary donations, most are happy with gifts of things like pet food, towels, paper towels, bleach, animal toys, etc.

pitbulllady


----------



## dtknow (Oct 22, 2010)

DireWolf0384 said:


> In my opinion,as long as we are providing the animal with the quality of life it deserves and keeping their cages secure and protecting the public, the HSUS, PETA and other groups should butt out. FACT: Exotic Pets have been known to lower blood pressure, combat depression and mental illness and help people recover from sickness.(Just as effective as Cats and Dogs) They want to effectively ban exotic pets from private people even if that means confiscation, putting politicians in their pockets and in some rare cases, eco terrorism.


References? I'd love to see the study/article. I mean-everyone on hear knows that their pets help them relax etc. but it is neat to see a study on something other than cats/dogs.


----------



## Ashphetamine (Oct 23, 2010)

Hm. Well, i've spent a lot of time reading this thread- there are a lot of really good points here. I would just like to toss my own opinion in on this.

I refuse to watch the show honestly. I saw a fragment of the show in which they were bashing Tarantulas as being "highly poisonous" and totally making my snuggly little creepies out to be some kind of demonic man eating monsters. Mind you- the only <edit> examples they used were naturally DEFENSIVE species- i.e OBT. Oh, and by the way- if you poke ANY spider with a pair o prongs long enough- it will eventually get peeved!!!! They didnt specify that only SOME types of T's are aggressive- they just generalized them and basically gave every under informed idiot watching the show a bad impression and every reason they could think of to be terrified of them.

Personally, I've grown to dislike most television as it has become a media mind<edit>. People today have the lack of thirst for knowledge and they'll believe anything someone with sufficient funds throws in their face. Look at American politics! [thats a whoooole 'nother issue though]. 

All I have to say is AP used to be informative- back when Irwin was still around, people actually LEARNED from their programs. Now they're just fulling people full of fluff and whatever brings their ratings up.

Media monsters.
Perhaps they should do an episode about greed.

FATAL ATTRACTIONS: THE REAL REASON WE BIAS OUR PROGRAMS.


This trash is the reason I started the LSV thread in Tchat. *Encourage people to LEARN before they develop a ridiculous FEAR/PHOBIA.*

Humans have devolved[sp?] in that area, I believe. At least wild animals will try it and learn the hard way before they learn/decide to be afraid. =\ Humans just jump to fear as an easy excuse for apathy on any political/controversial subjects.

If they're afraid, they cant be scolded for not caring by either side.

well-
IM SCOLDING THEM!


----------



## forsakenfuture (Oct 23, 2010)

It has been a while since ive been on this forum and like the OP i watched Fatal Attractions last night and started searching info on Anita Finch. It led me back to this forum. I am glad to see that there are others out there that agree with me.


----------



## ZergFront (Oct 24, 2010)

jere000 said:


> Fatal attractions is full of bull <edit> is why I think he posted this.I watched it once and they changed every story on there.


 Yup. Some of the story seems funny (not in the Har Har way either). 

 I never would own one but I'm fascinated by venomous snakes. I think shows like this only do damage to the responsible owners.

 This is why I watch Nat Geo and Science Channel now instead of AP. It died with Steve Irwin...


----------



## jere000 (Oct 24, 2010)

ZergFront said:


> AP. It died with Steve Irwin...


That is one of the most true things i have heard about AP in awhile lol.Off topic Zerg rush wins;P


----------



## ArachnidSentinl (Oct 24, 2010)

I currently work in Hennepin, IL, where an episode of _Fatal Attractions_ was filmed (the one concerning tigers and other big cats). Hennepin is a small farm town of about 700, so you can imagine that information travels quickly. Surprisingly, _no one_ in town knew that they had filmed there nine months before the show aired.  There was more to the story that they missed, simply because AP only took a few sound bites from a few deputies.

There's an inside joke in town now about the _Fatal Attractions_ series. In the episode, the narrator refers to how there were "rumors of _creatures_ lurking in the woods." This was never the case -- just AP's ridiculous fear mongering. At any rate, whenever someone goes outside now we tell them to "beware the creatures," hehe.


----------



## Dessicaria (Oct 24, 2010)

Vespula said:


> This show makes me angry, as well. They change the facts and make all keepers seem like maniacs, social outcasts, and wierdos...:evil: It just bothers me.


I don't mind being a social outcast and weirdo.  "Maniac" doesn't quite suit me, though. 

On-topic, however: those of us with exotics who could potentially kill us, make that choice very consciously and in complete awareness.  Just like someone with a passion for, say, mountain climbing, goes into it knowing they could die pursuing their passion.  You take every precaution and make every preparation, but still it *could* happen. I'm willing to take that chance, because the alternative, a life without animals, would be too horrible to contemplate.


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 24, 2010)

Dessicaria said:


> I don't mind being a social outcast and weirdo.  "Maniac" doesn't quite suit me, though.
> 
> On-topic, however: those of us with exotics who could potentially kill us, make that choice very consciously and in complete awareness.  Just like someone with a passion for, say, mountain climbing, goes into it knowing they could die pursuing their passion.  You take every precaution and make every preparation, but still it *could* happen. I'm willing to take that chance, because the alternative, a life without animals, would be too horrible to contemplate.


That is exactly how *I* feel.  My sister agrees-she has horses, and has been hospitalized no less than three times because of them.  That potential of being killed by one, or worse-winding up like Christopher Reeve-is very, very real, yet I have to wonder how many people give a thought to horses when they think of "inherently dangerous animals"? People who work with dangerous animals, be they venomous snakes, dogs, horses, cattle or venomous inverts, know the risks, for the most part, and weigh those against the benefits of keeping said animals.  For me, the latter outweigh the former, by a long shot.

pitbulllady


----------



## Ashphetamine (Oct 24, 2010)

pitbulllady said:


> People who work with dangerous animals, be they venomous snakes, dogs, horses, cattle or venomous inverts, know the risks, for the most part, and weigh those against the benefits of keeping said animals.
> pitbulllady


Admittedly, I would have to slightly disagree, but only in a hypothetical sense. Consider the people who euthanize animals [cat/dog specifically] because the animal bit a small child. Granted- the lawsuit would probably enrage me too, but Im pretty sure the small child was probably poking the animal and laughing leading up to the bite.

Point being- people sluff off the responsibility of knowing about the animals they handle- whether they truthfully know the risks or really are just that naive, its still a cruel sin of humanity and their "high horse" egos. Most people would rather blame the animal and kill it out of spite than actually face the honest fact that they screwed up and STUPID HURTS.

My mom always raised me on "Stupid hurts or costs money". 

I've been around horses, dogs, cattle, and other misc animals my entire life. I barrel race and team pen [cattle cutting from a herd] on the horses. I've been injured multiple times, some severely, by these large animals. It doesnt mean it was the horses fault she spooked when some jerk kid in the audience was shaking a plastic bag at the cows. It doesnt mean I put the horse down because she fractured my ankle and broke my ribbs when she flipped over on me.

I guess Im moving into blatantly hazardous pets because I enjoy the risks that come along with them. I believe learning your animal keeps your mind open- I have a lot of theories on why Animals are significantly more intelligent than we give them credit for, and how much we can learn from them.

Its a shame that there are public television shows that encourage people to fear animals instead of learning the truth.


----------



## DireWolf0384 (Oct 25, 2010)

My parents may have raised me old fashioned but they taught me that more than likely if a Dog was mad enough to bite me, I probably deserved it. I hate to say this, but I think AP has turned into a publicity loving, HSUS/PETA supporting propaganda station. Fatal Attractions exists simply to strike fear in the minds of the people that watch the show. I actually watch it just to make fun of it. They actually(IMO) want the show to be like watching a horror film, and the exotic pet owners and their pets are the killers and society as a whole is the victim.


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 25, 2010)

DireWolf0384 said:


> My parents may have raised me old fashioned but they taught me that more than likely if a Dog was mad enough to bite me, I probably deserved it. I hate to say this, but I think AP has turned into a publicity loving, HSUS/PETA supporting propaganda station. Fatal Attractions exists simply to strike fear in the minds of the people that watch the show. I actually watch it just to make fun of it. They actually(IMO) want the show to be like watching a horror film, and the exotic pet owners and their pets are the killers and society as a whole is the victim.


To some extent, I have to blame the AR movement for the mindset that animals are responsible for their actions, thus removing any guilt on the part of the human who gets bitten, scratched, kicked, etc.  The whole concept of having _rights_ is dependent on also having the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and make moral choices, and being held accountable when the wrong choice(according to society's laws)are not made.  "Back in the day", if you got bitten by a dog or scratched by a cat or kicked by a horse, the general consensus was that it was because of something YOU did wrong.  The animal was just reacting to a stimulus, and was not held to blame.  Today, if the animal hurts someone, it's 100% the ANIMAL'S fault, and the human is just a blameless, helpless victim.  But then, if you have "rights", you have to have responsibility and accountability, don't you?  People tend to think of animals as oddly-shaped humans and have unrealistic expectations of how animals are supposed to behave.  Their concepts are based on fictional movies and tv, as more and more people drift further and further from agricultural/rural roots, making it easier for the AR mentality to take hold.

pitbulllady


----------



## Toirtis (Oct 25, 2010)

OK, I watched the most recent episode....the basic facts involving the case were correct, but how they portrayed it was pretty dramatic, and all the suggestions that people keeping such animals are 'lonely', 'marginalized' and 'danger junkies' was uncalled for (and inaccurate) and the suggestion that these people define themselves on the pets that they keep was perhaps true for 20% of exotic animal keepers.


----------



## ArachnidSentinl (Oct 25, 2010)

Toirtis said:


> ...perhaps true for 20% of exotic animal keepers.


The sad thing is that that's all it takes. As they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.


----------



## Dessicaria (Oct 25, 2010)

Ashphetamine said:


> Point being- people sluff off the responsibility of knowing about the animals they handle- whether they truthfully know the risks or really are just that naive, its still a cruel sin of humanity and their "high horse" egos. Most people would rather blame the animal and kill it out of spite than actually face the honest fact that they screwed up and STUPID HURTS.


I've been nailed a couple of times by my sweetest, gentlest Burmese pythons.   Not their fault, but mine; it was feeding time, and they smelled rodents, and they saw my hand move.  Once they realized it didn't taste like rat, they let go, but by then I had a nice set of bleeding bite marks.  These are called Stupid Feeding Accidents.  It's been many years since I had one, so I did learn from my mistakes - and I certainly never thought less of my Burms over it, nor trusted them less in any other circumstance.


----------



## Ashphetamine (Oct 26, 2010)

Dessicaria said:


> I've been nailed a couple of times by my sweetest, gentlest Burmese pythons.   Not their fault, but mine; it was feeding time, and they smelled rodents, and they saw my hand move.  Once they realized it didn't taste like rat, they let go, but by then I had a nice set of bleeding bite marks.  These are called Stupid Feeding Accidents.  It's been many years since I had one, so I did learn from my mistakes - and I certainly never thought less of my Burms over it, nor trusted them less in any other circumstance.



Exactly.  I have to say, its refreshing to hear that other people out there can relate to this. I myself have had many injuries from my various pets- including some life threatening broken ribs- but I I got back on the horse, and kept her for another 5 or 6 years before she went lame and was put down out of sympathy for suffering. 

I have to say I respect my animals more when they hurt me. Obviously, I did something that wasnt kosher- whether i was presenting myself as food or I was standing in a stupid place to get kicked-- The animals have stronger natural instincts than humans. I believe as people, we've lost our natural survival processes because we're overly comfortable as the "DOMINANT SPECIES" or whatever.


Lol. Thats a relatively vague way for me to put it, but i think I kinda made some sense.


----------



## pouchedrat (Oct 28, 2010)

My father has the mentality that "if it bites, it dies"... he always says he'll drag his dog out back and shoot her if she ever bit someone.  I have the belief that if you get bit, there's a reason for it.  I've kept all kinds of weird exotics, and have been bitten by all kinds of animals for various reasons, but I certainly don't automatically blame the animal.  I look at WHY it happened and how it can be prevented.  

I've always told my kid if he got bit, it's his fault for poking it.  He never runs up to others' dogs or pets to pet them, he knows not to and he's only just turned 5.  Perhaps it's growing up with weird small exotics like an african pouched rat, or banner tailed kangaroo rats, chipmunks, short tailed opossums, etc.  If a small child with a learning disability and ADHD can understand that doing something stupid will result in being hurt by an animal, you'd think adults would figure that out as well.  he's been bitten ONCE, and by a rat, and it wasn't bad, and happened a couple years ago.


----------



## Ookamii (Oct 28, 2010)

OK i agree with what alot of yall are saying, i personally have been bitten by Variouse pet snakes, lizards, cats, dogs, rats, and even almost got stung by my scorpion. all my pet snakes where non-venomous, same with my lizards, but my scorpion was a stripped bark scorpion from AZ. and in all cases it was my fault, either i smelt like food, or i picked up one of the reptiles while it was shedding, or in the scorpions case i handled it to long. I learned quickly, and have the scars to prove my stupidity, but i have not been bit by a animal snce i was 14 years old. It just takes some common sense and we should not be blaimed if some one else lacks said common sense and "pokes the animal in the nose" and gets hurt from it. and people should not be blaiming our pets if we get bit because its not there fault.


----------



## K-TRAIN (Oct 28, 2010)

gotta love how a few idiots out there can make a good pet "evil" or how a person who has so many pets a hoarder. 


i was raised knowing its not if you get bitten, its when. 

when your working with animals your eventually gonna slip up or do something and accidently get bit. 


the way animal planets going, pretty soon were gonna see a special on how hamsters can kill you


----------



## dtknow (Oct 28, 2010)

pouchedrat: You kept krats as pets before? I've heard they tame in the wild well but do poorly in captivity.


----------



## ZergFront (Nov 1, 2010)

I noticed something else on AP recently. I just saw a tryveg (try vegan) ad. I can believe HSUS is now with AP or something.


----------



## jere000 (Nov 1, 2010)

ZergFront said:


> I noticed something else on AP recently. I just saw a tryveg (try vegan) ad. I can believe HSUS is now with AP or something.[/QUOTEThis does not surprise me in the least.


----------



## pitbulllady (Nov 1, 2010)

ZergFront said:


> I noticed something else on AP recently. I just saw a tryveg (try vegan) ad. I can believe HSUS is now with AP or something.


HSUS OWNS a large chunk of shares in AP, so they control the programming and use AP as a sounding board for their views.  Animal Planet is now basically just the HSUS/PETA Channel.

pitbulllady


----------



## kevin91172 (Nov 1, 2010)

pitbulllady said:


> Yes, "Fatal Attractions" is a <edit> show, full of lies.  Pretty much anything on Animal Planet these days is pure AR propoganda, the sole purpose of which is to make exotic keepers(as in US) look like a bunch a irresponsible idiots who keep poor wild animals in cages to stoke our massive egos, and have no regards for anyone's safety, and to make animal breeders of ANY species out to be a bunch of money-grubbing psychopaths who hoard animals in horrific conditions in order to make a buck or two.  Animal Planet relies on sensationalistic programming that plays on that fear and ignorance the general public has of animals and animal husbandry.  HSUS is a major controlling influence/stock holder and is widely portrayed in many programs as the cavalry charging to the rescue of innocent, helpless animal victims.
> 
> pitbulllady


"DITTO" they all can kiss my a@@!!!


----------

