From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Animal Cult Backtracks on Dog Show Attacks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:20:58 GMT

Scott Wood writes:
>unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>
>`>In many cases, they have.  Unfortunately, short of disorderly conduct, these
>`>are publicly held events and there are not many laws that apply to releasing
>`>dogs (though I personally think their should be - ie tampering with someones
>`>property) unless harm results to the people or the animals as a result.
>
>`Criminal mischief applies.  Assault could be applied.  How about burglary?
>
>The dog show in question did not say these people stole the dogs.  Nor
>did it say that they attacked or threatened to attack the pet owners,
>so assault and burglary are out of the question.  As far as criminal
>mischief, I have never heard the term and I am not aware of any laws
>pertaining to such in my area anyway.

Criminal mischief is a very real charge across the country.  It is applied
in cases where tampering of property is done with intent to harm or cause
trouble.  It appears that it can easily be applied here as it is quite
extensively in anti-abortion demonstration cases.....

>`>But are you also aware that these animals were destroyed because people
>`>DIDN'T buy them or pick them up?  
>
>`So, if there is an abundance of animals available, isn't it unethical to
>`continue to contribute the pet overpopulation problem?
>
>But, as I already stated.  These dogs aren't cheap.  They are well cared
>for and well kept.  They are not the causes of the overpopulation of mutts.
>So why stop the breeding of them?  

Because it is one reason that "unwanted" pets are unwanted.  The stigma
that is perpetrated by many who claim "unpure" dogs are inferior directly
results in not adopting these loving, caring, feeling beings......

>It is like saying you should arrest all
>law obiding bank customers because someone robbed a bank.

It is like holding people who use State Parks accountable for the
condition of the park system in general, i.e., trash, overuse......

>Your talking apples and oranges when you try to group show dog breeding
>with rampid breeding of common house or feral animals.  (granted one
>came from the other, but that is an exception rather than a rule of
>thumb)

For every show dog bought, at least one "common" dog is not adopted
to become functioning members of that home.......

>`> ... these people applaud loosing animals ....
>
>`What people are you referring to?  Puppy mill owners, pet stores, common
>`citizens who continue to let their pets have more and more off-spring
>`because puppies and kittens are cute?  Back home, many of the farms in the
>`area are blessed with abandoned animals every year.  This problem needs to
>`be solved for the sake of the animals involved......
>
>I refer to Animal "Rights" groups.  The very same people we have been
>referring to throught this thread.  

You chopped off the first part of your sentence.......
"Sure people are letting animals loose to breed and end up in pounds,
but these people applaud loosed animals."
I'm not so sure who you are referring to since many animal protection
groups actively promote spay/neuter and not to let them "loose to breed".
What of the groups that sponsor catching feral animals, spay/neutering
them, and re-releasing them (most feral pets cannot be re-domesticated)?

>And if this ("for the sake of the animals involved") is your opinion,
>then what is your stance on deer hunting?  And if this is allegedly
>PeTA's stance then why are they not only against, but endorsing
>terrorizing legitimate deer hunters and constantly spreading
>falsehoods about it?

Falsehoods?  Is that anything like management programs that actively
ensure hunting stocks in subsequent years in the name of population
control?

>`For every $100+ dog bred, one from an animal shelter will not be adopted
>`by the purchaser of the $100+ animal.  Sadly, the shelter will probably
>`destroy its animal.There is roughly 10 to 15 MILLION animals destroyed yearly.
>
>Because - as you have stated - they are financially worthless dogs.  I
>buy a $100+ dollar dog, because I know its breeding.  I can ask to see
>its mother and its father and to see proof (first hand or from awards)
>that the dog is a good hunter or a good show dog.  

So are you saying that your motivation for "purchasing" a dog is to
enhance your ego by having one that can be a "good" show dog or hunter?
If your motivation is merely to impress someone else and not become
friends with a caring, sensitive, feeling being, and provide for his/her
well being, I think your priorities are a little skewed.

>I am not afraid to say it, that I do not believe animals have rights.

You are an animal.  Do you have rights?

>  A worthless dog (fiscally) is not
>worth enough to me with companionship alone.  I am not going to spend
>tons of my money to feed a dog that licks my face once a day and sleeps
>and wants to go potty all the time.

I guess a significant other is out of the question for you too.....   :-)
So what if you have a loved one who becomes incapable of feeding, cleaning,
or caring for him/herself?  Will you not spend money on him/her?

>If the dog won't fetch a duck, point a bird, trail a rabbit (or otherwise
>help put food on the table) - or in the case of show dogs actually help
>make money (both in showing and breeding) then I don't want it.  

We have a Border Collie mix that does well herding our horses.  So, by
your first criteria, it is worthless and you wouldn't want it.  But by your
second criteria, you would want it.  Isn't that a little odd?
We have a Lab mix that does very well retrieving frisbees, balls, and
people from the pond.  I guess this is a worthless animal too......

>However,
>if they do, I will protect them from things such as unnecessary litters
>of mutts if I have to buy them a chastity belt (they have them).

Why not spay/neuter?  You can never be too safe.....

>`>Most of these shelters you speak of are involved in encouraging and many
>`>times requiring the spaying or nuetering of all animals that leave the
>`>premises.  
>
>`According to Leo Lieberman, DVM and Thomas Lane, DVM:
>`"Up to 70 percent of the dogs and cats adopted from shelters with a
>` neutering contract fail to have that contract fulfilled"
>
>So you want to stop professional breeding now because the average Humane
>Society pet owner fails to fulfill their contract?  

How about, the average person appears not to be able to provide the most
rudimentary of services even when they agree to it.......

>Do they keep track or follow up on the contracts
>so that any owner who does not fulfill it will not get another pet?
>I doubt it...

Follow-ups were done.  Also, 80-90% of these owners kept their pets while
10-20% reported the animals lost, killed, or the owners moved away.

>`That would be for the 1991 Fiscal year.  Most groups, PETA included, make it
>`a point to report their income (Form 990 for nonprofit groups) to the Internal
>`Revenue Service.

>Wait a minute.  PeTA has declared only three official members for
>the sake of keeping their books closed to the public.  They may file
>the appropriate forms, but the are not willing to disclose where that
>money is going to actually help animals.  Once again raising suspicion
>as to their practices.

According to the IRS PETA allocated $6,561,808 to programs, $2,249,354
to overhead.  There assests were divided up as $946,158 fixed and 
$1,499,041 in cash/securities.  The PPF doesn't even bother with this much...

>If they were up to legitimate business, then they should have no reason
>to keep their books closed.

Where are the PPF forms at.......?

>swood
>P.S.  I like the way you dodged the question in regards to whether
>	or not spaying animals is endorsed ethical treatment or
>	why it is not considered a violation of the animals "rights"

You posed that question in a different post.  Is it ethical to continue
to bring more and more animals into the world while so many are being
destroyed?  It is in the best interest of the animals involved, unlike
hunting which is in the best interest of the hunters involved.

>	I might suggest you attempt the same with the hunting issue,
>	as I have a couple of PeTA distributed fliers on the subject
>	in front of me.  Full of lies and loaded rhetoric I might
>	add.

By all means post them.  I'm pretty sure I know of which you refer to
and find nothing wrong with them.......

Rob U, those PETA flyers are part of the PETA programs budget
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals