Nebraska student asks for Nevada information
My name is Cruze Safranek, and I go to Anselmo-Merna Public Schools. We are doing a states fair project. I picked Nevada as my state to research. I will appreciate all of your help.
If you could, can you please send: pictures, rocks, cactus samples, and more! Thank you very much!
Please send letters and packages to:
750 North Conway Street
P.O. Box 68
Merna, NE 68856
Animal legislation restricting constitutional rights
I was dismayed to read in the February 17, 2016 PVT issue that Tina Trenner, longtime advocate for animal rights, is running for an Assembly seat. I am a huge supporter of animal welfare (AW), which seeks to improve the lives of animals. I oppose the concept of animal rights (AR), which seeks to end the captive keeping and use of all animals and seeks to abolish any contact between humans and animals. Rights come with responsibilities, a concept that can’t be understood by animals.
Under the U.S. legal system, animals are considered property. If animals were not our property, anybody could come and take our animals without permission and legal consequences, and we wouldn’t have a legal recourse, farmers couldn’t sell meat or leather, and breeders and pet stores couldn’t sell us our pets. The Nevada Constitution states in Section. 1: “All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness”. Property is not a dirty word, it signifies something people love, value and cherish, and often have to work hard for.
The Declaration of Independence also guarantees people “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”, which many animal owners haven’t been able to exercise lately because they have been too busy fighting all the crazy animal legislation. The U.S. Constitution also guarantees people property rights. Land and animals are some of the most ancient type of properties. Many new laws are messing with both of them, with peoples’ right to use their land without government interference and with their right to choose the types and amount of animals.
In her August 13, 2003 Las Vegas Sun letter to the editor Tina Trenner supported animal rights, a cruel, federal bill sponsored by disgraced former Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev, prohibiting owners of exotic cats to take their pet with them when moving to another state. What this means is that if you are a legal non-commercial pet owner of an exotic cat and want to move to another exotic animal-friendly state, you are forbidden to take your beloved pet with you, no matter how long you owned the pet. Your choices are limited; send it to an overcrowded sanctuary or have it euthanized. This bill does NOT affect the commercial exotic animal breeders or exhibitors at all, so her letter appears to indicate that she doesn’t understand this federal bill’s language.
Trenner writes: “I must tell you, the exotic animal people will say whatever it takes to continue making money off of the animals. They never want laws — if it’s a local law they say they want federal enforcement, and if it’s a federal law they say they want local laws. Sure they do. The truth is, they want no laws because they have run amok for so long with almost no oversight that they fight anything that would get in their way.”
I see a hypocritical red flag the size of a socialist former Soviet Union flag when Trenner, who used to make her money as a horse breeder, wants to restrict others’ freedom doing the same with different animal species. If you cherish your freedoms to choose what type of animals you want to keep, then Tina Trenner is NOT your candidate.
Pahrump resident and taxpayer since 2000