From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Pound seizure was: Re: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:24:20 GMT

In article <C1J52z.HI6@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> 
> 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.

I never suggested otherwise.  Their hypocrisy stems from their "liberating"
animals and, despite multimillion dollar annual budgets, claiming that they
had insufficient funds to maintain the animals.

> As you know, two of my closest friends are dogs,

Do you have any friends among your own species?

>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,

Why?  It's entirely possible that the "strange company" might treat them
better than you.

>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.  

If you need an artificial bone replacement someday, you might change your
mind.
 
>[...]
> 
> I'm in favor of spay and neuter laws that would greatly reduce 
> the number of homeless animals,

Me too.

>and I'm in also favor of regulations 
> and restrictions that would reduce unnecessary animal 
> experimentation.

Me too, although I'm waiting for you to tell us about an unnecessary animal
experiment.

>Both of these would reduce waste substantially 
> more than proposed pound seizure laws.  

The point, that you avoid, was that widespread neutering is yet a fantasy,
and euthanised animals are wasted.

> > 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.

No I'm not.  
  
> 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.  

There sure is.  In the latter case, potentially useful medical information
is obtained, and the life of another purpose-bred animal is spared.  In the
former case, no such valuable information is gained, and a replacement
animal will die.
 
> 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.

You are still missing or avoiding the point.  As long as there are so many
unwanted animals out there, why should I do this?

> 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."

Are you complaining that the taxpayers might get more results than they
originally paid for?

BTW, how long have you had the GAO report in your possession?
 
> > ...
> > 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.

I recall discussing zoos, but I do not recall discussing these issues.  As
I recall, you avoided my questions then just as you are avoiding them now.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals