From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal Cult Backtracks on Dog Show Attacks
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:09:57 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

`Scott Wood writes:
`>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......

Let me try to give an example here to refute this.  The dogs are worth
more money and have more intrinsic value because they are bred to be
a certain way.  And that way is kept pure and usually bred to help
the desireable characteristics of a breed.

Now let me compare this to something else of tangible value, say jewelry.
Pure gold and pure gemstones cost more.  Costume jewelry costs less.
That does not mean that real (pure) jewelry takes away from the sales
of costume jewelry.  It comes down to a matter of what you can afford
or what you are willing to pay for.

If you have the money and want to get "your money's worth" in a pet,
why not?  Those that don't have the money, or don't particularly care
if there pet is worth more than the personal value of a companion are
more than welcome to go to the pound and get a "mutt."  I prefer to
get proof the dog is what I want - I prefer a pure-bred with papers.

`>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.......

So what?  Maybe the buyer wanted or preffered a show dog.  A pure dog!

`>`> ... these people applaud loosing animals ....
`>
`>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.......

I chopped it off, because the original wording was not very concise.
by cutting last half off, I was able to show that I was in fact talking
about two different groups in the same sentence.  I apologize for not
making it clearer the first time.

"Sure [some] people are letting animals loose to breed and end up in pounds,
but these [AR extremist] people applaud loosed animals."

`>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?

To this again, I say so what?  Frankly, deer do not need management
programs to keep overall populations up.  Without hunting or present
day intervention of man, deer would over populate in a few years and
the populations and the numbers would then drop drastically due to
disease and lack of food.  I have documented cases to back this up.
(particularly a small island - I forget where right off my head - that
decided it was the humanitarian thing to do to stop deer hunting and
has since had to not only bring back hunting for population control
but literally had to reintroduce the species due to the high mortality
rate following a population surge)

If hunters money is supporting "hunting" areas of wildlife, then let some
of the money go to renewing the sport as well.  If that means sustaining
populations of hunting animals that need help (such as introduction of
sechuan pheasants) then so be it.  The plain fact is that hunting raises
valuable moneys that can be used to help more than just game species.
More than just hunting interests.  And most hunters are not cold blooded
killers or flagrant destroyers of nature, but on the contrary, exactly the
opposite.
Every time I go in the woods to hunt I bring with me a garbage bag.  I
carry an amateur radio and keep a car phone in my car.  If I see trash
I pick it up.  If I see someone in violation, I either talk to them or
report them.  If I see sign of a wounded or suffering animal, I will stop
hunting to tend to tracking it down so I may either help it (if it is a
non-game species) or put it out of its misery.  These statements are
true for every hunter I know (short of the level of communications they
are able to utilize) and believe me, I know a lot of hunters.

`>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?

When I hunt, I prefer to succeed.  I enjoy the sport, and though I do not
have to kill to enjoy myself, anything an everything I can do to improve
my chances of not only being successful, but making it as humane as
possible, I will do.  This has nothing to do with "ego" or "machoism".
A good dog is part of that.  I personally would not buy a dog just on
financial reasons, as I have no desire to hit the show circuit or get
involved with breeding.  But I would not take that right away from
someone who does have such a desire either!

`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.

A $100+ dollar dog can be just as caring as a $$-less mutt (sort of the
opposite of your arguement eh?) and I can be sure that it will also
serve other functions to help me with my sport or my dinner table.

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

`You are an animal.  Do you have rights?

I am a reasoning being.  I can honor rights as well as understand them.
Thus I have rights.  Without such a reasoning being walking the face of
the earth, this discussion would not even exist.  Thus the concept of
rights would not even exist.  I say it again, animals have no 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?

You now get into the area of capabilities.  Watch what you say.  I would
personally not become SO with someone if they did not help me along in
some way.  And this does not exclude those incapable of feeding, cleaning,
or caring for herself.  For example, much can be learned on this computer
network by typing back-and-forth to people to whom I have no idea whether
or not they are able to feed, clean or care for themselves, and I can find
it quite mentally stimulating.  Talking with my dog is not quite the same.

Sharing anything with a human (even when I have helped my ex work with
retarded adults) tends to be much more stimulating then interacting with
an animal.  The only things that can be "learned" from animals is by
observing their behavior, whether instinctual or conditioned.  Humans,
unlike animals strive to learn.
Even if you argue that some chimps in labs have been taught basic speach,
there are still valid arguements to support the fact that it is just
advanced conditioning.  And usually they are not willing to learn what
they are taught, however, they are more interested in getting a treat.

`>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......

Yes, but if someone has a mixed dog, how can they prove that it will do
what the traits of either of the parents may do.  There are some breed
mixes of dogs that are sold for money even though they have not as of yet
been recognized officially by the breeders organization.  They are worth
money because the blending of traits has turned out to be positive in
many successive breedings.  This gives them value.
Hap-hazard breeding can not be proved in this manner until the dog is
older.  Until behavior or stature has been examined and shown.  I would
buy a dog that was a great hunter if someone could prove to me such
regardless of breed if I never planned on breeding it.  But I also prefer
to take a dog from a puppy so that it can be conditioned to behave as I
want it to, and to follow commands exclusively from me should I decide to
hunt with friends.
(BTW:  I always use positive reinforcement and no harmful physical
reinforcement in training my dogs)

`>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.....

If I like a dog, and it does as I need, I would prefer to keep the bloodline
should I feel desire to maintain owning that type of dog.  I would much
rather own the off spring of one of my well liked dogs that to once again
go out from scratch and start anew.  However, in the passed, I have always
made it a priority to get my dogs spayed as I have desire at this time of
my life to deal with puppies....

`>Do they keep track or follow up on the contracts

`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.

And?  Surveys are one thing.  Were any actions taken?  Even black-listing
these people from getting other pets from shelters?  If they are not part
of the solution (by your logic) are they not part of the problem?

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


I plan on calling them again this afternoon.  We shall see.

`>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.

So buy them all chastity belts, I bet they are cheaper, and it surely
is more ethical then putting them under a knife.  Spend more money on
pet owner education or on shelters.  Or on legal battles to require
contract holders to fulfill their obligations to spay or nueter their
pet.  Don't go after legitimate pet owners and breeders.

I just think that there are more ligitimate ways (especially in a free
speech democracy) to get things done than by terrorizing, threatening
and destroying property of legitimate citizens making a living or enjoying
their lives.  (who by the way - for the most part - are doing so within
the constraints of the law)

swood


-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+