Posted on 06/09/2007 6:57:50 AM PDT by ReignOfError
Often yes. PETA probaly thought the proposal to sterilize pets meant popping them into the autoclave.
>Don’t give them any ideas.<
They’ve already discovered the formula. They’ll just slowly turn up the temperature.
The problem — and the great victory of groups like PETA — is that the concepts of animal rights and animal welfare have gotten tangled up with each other. They’re not the same thing.
Animal welfare groups like the SPCA and Humane Society have goals that most of us, I think, would readily endorse — that animals should no be abused or mistreated, that they should not be neglected or abandoned, that they should not be bred for profit without regard to their health or safety, that there should not be more “pets” than there are homes for them.
Groups like PETA do not believe that people can or should “own” animals, and want to completely abolish the practice of keeping pets (or “companion animals”). They are also concerned with the domesticated animals forced to fend for themselves in the wild, something for which they are ill-adapted. Under their vision, the dogs and cats bred over thousands of years to make suitable companions for humans would gradually die out.
Their goals are not the same, but they overlap on the issue of spaying and neutering pets. Interestingly, Bob Barker is a hero to the animal welfare folks, according to one Humane Society official I talked to — in 30 years of saying “have your pets spayed or neutered” in a daily TV broadcast watched by millions, he has at least gotten people thinking about something that wasn’t much of an issue before. And the number of animals put to death in shelters has been cut by about 2/3 in that time.
Interesting observation and post coming from a lady ... and a perfect one at that ... /8^)
It fits however, my opinion that I posted ... all produces none.
>>>Animal welfare groups like the SPCA and Humane Society have goals that most of us
They sound like a rogue terror cell to me.
http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/spca.pdf
That is a PDF download of the 178 page report.
Excerpt from that PDF:
The SPCAs are accountable to no governmental authority. Because there are no standards, rules or guidelines governing their composition, operation, training or activities, there is no consistancy or uniformity in their make-up, functioning or enforcement of the laws. These autonomous organizations present a true hodgepodge of extreme diversity and a danger to the state’s structured system of law enforcement. Once individuals in a county receive a charter from the state SPCA, they control the selection, discipline and removal of their members, officers and agents; the election of terms of office of members of the board of directors; the content of any by-laws; the formulation of any rules or regulations; what training, if any will be provided; how they will enforce the animal cruelty laws, and how they will spend the income. As a result, the SPCAs run the gamut in effectiveness of operation, scrupulousness in financial matters and enforcement of the cruelty laws. While some are operated in a highly professional manner, according to set rules and regulations, others are run as the personal domain of a well entrenched few who discard the rules on whim. Many individuals involved in these societies are dedicated to the welfare of animals and committed to functioning within an organized, structed environment, while others are ‘wannabe cops’ or motivated by personal gain. Because the SPCAs operate outside the realm of government, they have become havens for those who cannot obtain legitimate law enforcement positions.
(snip)
Excerpt:
The movement [SPCA] had its roots in the efforts of Henry Bergh, a European aristocrat who, following his appointment in 1863 to a diplomatic post at the Russian Court of Czar Alexander II, championed the cause of animals against inhumane treatment. Bergh soon immigrated to America, but only after stopping in London to confer with the president of England’s Royal Society. In February 1866, Bergh delivered an impassioned speech at New York City’s Clinton Hall before an audience that included influencial government and business leaders.
In recounting the horrific practices in America of the inhumane treatment of animals, he emphasized that the protection of animals had neither class lines nor political boundaries. Bergh’s speech was covered extensively by the press. Recognizing that anti-cruelty statutes were meaningless in the absence of enforcement, Bergh’s approach was two pronged. His efforts culminated in the New York Legislature’s passage of a charter incorporating the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on april 10, 1866, and nine days later, of an anti-cruelty law that vested the society with the authority to enforce it. Bergh, whose successes were due largely to his political and social connections, was elected as the society’s first president.
Excerpt:
The Honorable Reginald Stanton, J.S.C., recognized, but refrained from ruling on, the issue of the constitutionality of the statutory scheme. His comments are compelling:
“The powers granted under the various statutes [regarding the enforcement of the animal cruelty laws, adoption of a common badge, making of arrests and carrying of weapons] are significant law enforcement powers. It is important to note that all of the members of the state society and the county societies are self-selected. They are simply private persons who are interested in protecting animals. They are not selected by the public. They are not subject to managerial control by any public. They are not subject to managerial control by any public officials. They are not subject to any publicly imposed training standards or discipline.
At an early stage in this litigation, it occurred to me that the broad grant of powers to the state society and to the county societies might involve an unconstitutional delegation of governmental powers to the private persons...
...Although I have serious misgivings about the wisdom of granting extensive law enforcement powers to private persons, there is, of course, a vital difference between what I might view as an unwise legislative policy and an unconstituional policy. Furthermore, the record in this action is particularly ill-suited for making a sound adjudication on the issue of possible unconstitutionality of the statutory scheme. I have decided to refrain from any ruling on constitutional issues in this case.”
Excerpt:
ARREST POWERS: The legislative provision governing arrests for violations of the animal cruelty laws is contained in N.J.S.A. 4:22-44. It empowers only the state society and not the county societies. Arrests may be made with a warrant or without a warrant when the violation occurs in the individual’s presence. Since the provision was first enacted in 1880, the power to arrest has been conferred not only upon the NJ SPCA’s officers and agents, but also upon its members. However, nowhere in the statutes governing the societies is the term ‘member’ defined. Therefore, it includes dues-paying members and those members of the Board of Directors who are not agents or officers. These individuals receive no law enforcement training.
Excerpt:
POWER TO CARRY WEAPONS: Perhaps the most disturbing area of unbridled authority bestowed upon SPCAs is the ability of their officers to carry firearms without being subject to governmental oversight or to most of the stringent requirements governing legitimate law enforcement officers. While some SPCAs do not allow their officers to carry weapons or do not use the designation ‘officer’ in order to eliminate the firearms issue, the officers of nine SPCAs are armed. Both county and state SPCA officers are exempt under NJSA 2C: 39-6c(7), which empowers SPCA officers to carry weapons in the actual performance of their official duties.
Excerpt:
SPCA Officers in the Bergen and Warren County societies admitted that even though they did not investigate any cruelty complaints and owned no guns before joining the SPCA, they purchased numerous weapons after they became qualified to carry as SPCA officers.
This might not be a popular sentiment, but I think that's reasonable (though I'd cut the price difference by about half). It changes the question from "why should I spay?" to "why shouldn't I?"
The bottom line is that the supply of pets far exceeds the demand, in every city, county and state. The breeding habits of dogs and cats don't obey market forces. So the government has to step in, and that incurs costs.
Sure, I’l get mine fixed right after there’s a law passed that all congresscritters get fixed.
In fact, it cost me "only" $90 to have my dog spayed, which means that in that one year, the total cost was the same, and I saved the differential every year thereafter.
My little dog wasn't going to populate the city with hordes of unwanted pets, but I had -- and made -- the choice.
If you're not a certified liberal, darn straight.
And if you are a liberal you'll abort your babies, post-birth if not before.
Got to make room for the illegals, after all.
If nonbreeders neutering their pets is a good thing, then having the state enforce it can’t be all bad. Just be thankful Bush hasn’t interpreted the Commerce Clause to force it on all the states, yet.
>>>the supply of pets far exceeds the demand, in every city, county and state.
I think the people (animal rights activists) that WANT these laws are the MOST of same groups that create the problems.
In marketing, we call it, “give a headache, sell an aspirin”.
About PETA’s save a sato program:
http://www.breederville.info/petnews/redefining.htm
Fewer and fewer dogs are entering shelters every year, and shelter deaths are down and continuing to fall. This steady decline in intakes and deaths pays tribute to the tireless efforts of shelter employees, responsible dog breeders and rescue volunteers who have worked, prayed, and bullied their way to a future when the demand for pets would equal or exceed the supply and they would no longer be forced to euthanize healthy, adoptable animals.
That future is now! Nationwide, studies show that during the last 30 years shelter intakes and euthanasias have decreased by 70-90 percent or more in many cities, particularly those located on the east and west coasts. One consequence of this remarkable development is a steep decline in the number of shelter dogs available for adoption in many parts of the country. In order to deal with their newfound success, some shelters and rescue groups have had to realign their efforts, sometimes with surprising results.
Faced with fewer small dogs and puppies to offer the public, a handful of shelters and organizations have swapped their traditional mission for a new bottom line strategy aimed at filling consumer demands. Simply stated, they have become pet stores. Some are importing stray dogs across state lines and from foreign countries to maintain an inventory of adoptable dogs.
More:
http://www.breederville.info/petnews/redefining.htm
http://www.breederville.info/petnews/humane-insane.htm
Humane or insane?
Importation of foreign stray animals into US shelters
threatens health, sustains ‘overpopulation’
Patti L. Strand, president; National Animal Interest Alliance
* The flies in the ointment
* Health matters
* Footnotes
If you don’t know what’s happening at your local animal shelter, or what local pet rescue groups are doing, it’s time to find out! Dangerous practices are emerging that threaten public health, sustain ‘pet overpopulation’ and undermine responsible dog ownership and breeding.
Finding out what’s happening in the world of animal sheltering and rescuing, however, is not that easy. Although most shelters use the issue of ‘pet overpopulation’ to fundraise, it turns out that few of them have sufficient records to support the term. In fact, a major impediment to solving the US stray and surplus pet problems is the lack of reliable shelter statistics.1
Many shelters combine dog and cat statistics, thus making it impossible to track dog or cat trends individually. Shelters also tend to lump together all shelter deaths regardless of the reason for euthanasia, even though their data would be of far greater statistical value if categorized, such as: 1) owner requested due to health, temperament or old age; 2) shelter mandated because the animal was judged too sick or too dangerous to be rehabilitated and placed; 3) and, shelter mandated because insufficient resources existed to continue maintaining an animal even though it was healthy and adoptable. Of these three categories, only the last, the adoptable pet that died for lack of a home, signifies a surplus animal problem. But muddled euthanasia statistics combined with fundraising campaigns to stop ‘pet overpopulation’ encourage the public to believe that all shelter deaths are part of a massive ‘pet overpopulation’ problem.
The practice of relocating pets from a crowded shelter to one with empty runs within the same community also leads to confusion if the source of the animals is not reported. The practice itself may be reasonable and humane if it increases adoptions, but too often all participating shelters count the same animals in their totals inflating the number of shelter animals reported for a given community.
Over-representing shelter impounds hinders the development of an accurate baseline for shelter populations. Without an accurate baseline it’s impossible to get a handle on pet population trends and difficult to identify remaining problems, much less to plan appropriate strategies to solve them. Over-representing shelter impounds or shelter euthanasia statistics has few negative consequences, while higher numbers and the appearance of a crisis buoy donations and budgets.
Another confusing factor is that the actual number of euthanized adoptable dogs (surplus dogs) varies enormously from one region to another and from rural to urban areas within states and regions. Generally speaking, many of the larger cities in the Pacific Northwest, New England and the Great Lakes region have dog population dynamics that are in balance, meaning that the demand for dogs equals or nearly equals the supply of dogs in their regions. This may seem incredible to people living in cities or regions where shelters are still brimming with surplus animals, as in the farm belt states, parts of the South and in the rural areas of most states – but it is true.
In many US cities today, campaigns to end ‘pet overpopulation’ have been so successful that the demand for dogs far outstrips supply. In fact, shelters in many of these cities would have a significant percentage of empty dog runs were it not for the mushrooming practice of moving dogs around from one region to another and from one shelter to another within regions, an activity known somewhat euphemistically as humane relocation.
Humane relocation began as a common sense method for helping animals to get adopted through cooperative efforts among city shelters. It made no sense for the humane society to euthanize dogs for lack of room while the local animal control agency had the space and resources to help get them adopted. Over time, as the number of surplus dogs in some cities continued to drop, they began taking in animals from greater distances. For example, some shelters in the greater Portland metropolitan area routinely accept dogs from other counties in Oregon, Washington and sometimes from states as far away as Hawaii.
As long as participating shelters publicly disclose what they are doing so that taxpayers and donors can assess the risks and benefits, and as long as exporting municipalities and shelters increase their commitment to the responsible pet ownership programs in their areas, humane relocation can be a helpful tool. However, if exporting regions do not increase spay/neuter and public education programs, humane relocation could amount to little more than a constant reshuffling of dogs and resources and would not lead to further reductions of surplus animals. Irresponsibly used, humane relocation could be used for maintaining the status quo and making money instead of solving long-term shelter problems.
The flies in the ointment
Unfortunately, humane relocation is not being conducted responsibly by a small but growing number of shelters and rescue groups. The answer for some shelters with empty runs has not been to contact shelters in their own regions or in other areas of the continental US, but to institute programs of importation from other countries and territories. According to their own records, one foundation, the Save a Sato 2 program championed by PeTA, has already sent 14,000 dogs to the US. Satos (a slang term for mixed-breed street dogs in Puerto Rico) arrive in US cities practically every day. Dozens of shelters are involved. Some of the shelters NAIA is tracking bring in 100-200 dogs each month and are placing them for $200-$250 each.3
More: http://www.breederville.info/petnews/humane-insane.htm
Who is Save a Sato?
# http://www.petpopulation.org
# http://www.saveasato.org
# http://www.daws.org/sato.htm
# http://www.northeastanimalshelter.org/special.html
# http://www.sterlingshelter.org/services/puppyrescue.html
# http://www.geocities.com/~t-aarf/main.html
# http://www.humanityforanimals.org/howyoucanhelp.html
# http://www.buddydoghs.com/html/satoInfo.html
# http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/aragenda.htm
# http://www.idausa.org
# http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/osh/info/rage_e.html
Actually, don’t give them any ideas.
Already the global warming nutcases are demanding that westerners cease having children.
It is the stated goal of a group of people within our California legislature and bureaucracy to ELIMINATE all domesticated animals, especially farm animals. They want only wild and feral. They say so openly. Veganism gone mad.
They are actively making trouble for small dairies at a local (county) level and have eliminated some.
Everybody should run out and get a pet Democrat, right now!
Make sure you satisfy their “wonder” before you carry them away.
bttt - and the group isn’t just in California.
Different laws, different countries, but in both cases the attitude is the same : You're a child with no right to decide anything for yourself, so I'm going to pass a law to force you to act as I think you should.
I work with a dog rescue, all of our pets are “fixed” but the state of California can’t round up Illegals, how can it keep track of pets? Stupid, Crazy, and out of whack priorities, let’s get things in order here. OMG is this effort a low priority. Try some EDUCATION before Legislation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.