From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Pound seizure was: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:32:57 GMT

From article <mhulsey-270193075215@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> However, I deeply regret the wasteful practice of euthanizing unadopted
> animals when animal researchers can utilize them to gain information that
> could enrich human and animal lives.  The euthanization of "liberated"
> animals at Aspin Hill by PETA was absolute hypocrisy.

I don't think PETA's ever taken a stand against euthanization.   To the
contrary, PETA favors euthanization in cases where the alternatives
are predominantly painful or unpleasant for the animals involved.

As you know, two of my closest friends are dogs, and I've 
occasionally wondered what might happen to them if they were to 
get lost some day and end up in strange company.  In such an 
instance, I'd much prefer to have their lives ended quickly and
painlessly, than to end up in one of LSU's dog experiments wherein 
teeth are drilled and infected and allowed to abscess in order to 
study artificial bone replacements.  

> You and your colleagues claim to be concerned about wasting the taxpayer's
> money in research.  Why, therefore, do you want to force taxpayer-funded
> researchers  to pay exorbitant prices for purpose-bred animals while more
> taxpayer dollars are being utilized down the street to euthanize others? 
> It is a huge waste of resources, and suggests that the true intention of
> the animal "rights" movement is to make animal research prohibitively
> expensive.

I'm in favor of spay and neuter laws that would greatly reduce 
the number of homeless animals, and I'm in also favor of regulations 
and restrictions that would reduce unnecessary animal 
experimentation.  Both of these would reduce waste substantially 
more than proposed pound seizure laws.  

> The animal "rights" opposition to so-called pound seizures cannot possibly
> be based on a concern to save the lives of animals because this practice
> results in the death of more animals (the one euthanized in the shelter and
> the one subsequently purchased to replace it).  This is another example of
> how animal welfare is sacrificed for the sake of animal "rights."

For starters, you're ignoring the circumstances of death, Martin.  
Surely there's a difference between a painless death in the 
shelter and the painful deaths experienced by the cats in Michael 
Carey's experiments.  

Perhaps you'd be willing to donate your pets to the cause of science,
Martin.  In doing so, perhaps some grateful researcher will be able
to conduct a few more experiments that would otherwise be unaffordable.

Permit me to quote from Michael Carey's cat shooting proposal,
as published in the GAO report GAO/HRD-91-30:

   "Dr. Gonzales states that he will make every attempt to supply
    additional cats (ie > 100) from local sources.  If he is 
    successful, the animal costs will drop dramatically.  This will 
    leave perhaps $5000-$10000 additional monies each year.  This
    money will be spent doing additional experiments."

> ...
> I am pleased that the animal "rights" movement has FINALLY addressed the
> real root of the problem - that people don't control the reproduction of
> their animals.  Then again, if animals truly have "rights," how can we
> justify such reproductive meddling?  If animals truly have "rights," how
> can we justify imprisoning them in "shelters?"

I've explained this previously, but you apparently didn't bother to learn.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals