From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal Cult Backtracks on Dog Show Attacks
Date: 12 Sep 92 01:10:18 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Scott Wood writes:
>unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>`>                 Animal Cult Backtracks on Dog Show Attacks
>`How is this backtracking?  It was my impression that this was always their 
>`policy.
>
>the backtracking the article spoke of is how PeTA is now trying to erase
>what they stated about pet ownership because it is leading pet owners (a
>healthy portion of their donation base) to stop sending money and to start
>asking questions.

It appears to me that they are not trying to "erase" but state their policies.
Many of the problems the article appears to address lies with the fault of the
people who joined the group without bothering to understand the group's
position.

>`>     Simultaneously, reports are flooding in to PPF from dog fancies
>`>that these extremists are releasing show dogs from cages and crates.
>
>`Why do these people report to the PPF and not to their local police?  

>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?

>As for documented proof, the article does not come directly forward with
>the exact show in question (for whatever reason), but I am sure that if
>you are that curious you can call PPF headquarters (with your own quarter)
>and find out... 

If the incidents were reported to the police, and "in many cases, they have",
then why aren't these incidents known?  Someone should be able to claim the
reward money!

>`> As John Hoyt of HSUS demands, "Don't breed, don't buy, don't
>`>even accept giveaways."

>`Are you aware of the motivation for this statement?  In 1991 slightly fewer
>`than 6 million animals were destroyed in pounds and shelters in Connecticut,
>`Massachusetts, New Jersey, and LA County alone! 

>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?

>Sure people are letting animals loose to
>breed and end up in pounds, but these people applaud loosed animals.  That
>is there goal is to reintroduce pets to the wild.  "Fifi of the great
>white north!"

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......

>They instead are speaking of people that breed for money, and these pets
>are not the ones that you speak of.  If I lost a $100+ dog I would not stand
>around while it sat in a pound.  I would call every pound for three states
>if just for the companion value alone - not to even mention the money.

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.
Now if your $100+ dog is impregnated and has a litter of mutts?  Where do
those "worthless" animals end up.  In a pound.  And all to many are not
being adopted.  What of the genetic defects that are being bred into our
"purebred" breeds because of the greed of some breeders?

>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"

>If these animals were all liberated, then there would be no
>control at all, and we would be discussing solely feral dog issues instead
>of breeding.

Packs of feral dogs are a problem now!  If people were, in fact, compassionate,
they would do everything in their power to promote reducing pet overpopulation
through spay/neuter.  All to often, unwanted animals are "liberated" by
irresponsible owners who turn them loose.......

>`>     But the animalists' virulent antagonism toward pet owners is
>`>alienating those who love their pets, and diverting their
>`>contributions from so-called animal "rights" back to genuine animal
>`>welfare groups.  As a result, our sources indicate, the PeTA money
>`>machine lost $2 million last year.
>`>(courtesy of Fred Trost`s Outdoor Digest "SOS Alert!" June/July 1992)
>
>`According to the Internal Revenue Service(Form 990) PETA showed a 26% increase
>`in its operating budget.  Note that PETA is a non-profit organization while
>`PPF did not file a Form 990 (nonprofit groups) in the same period.  PPF seems
>`to be in it to MAKE money ...... :-)
>
>I would be willing to argue that.  
>I do, however, request that you inform me of what "period" you speak of,
>as PeTA has most certainly been around longer than PPF.
>swood

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.

Rob U, euthanizing unwanted pets is not a solution to overpopulation
--
-       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