From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Animal Cult Backtracks on Dog Show Attacks
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 02:57:53 GMT

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

`Scott Wood writes:
`>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.

They called pet owners "slavers" by stating companion animals are like
slaves.  Pet owners stopped sending money.  Now they have changed face
(for financial reasons apparently).  That's what I would qualify as
back tracking.

`>
`>`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?

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.

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

`> ... 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.  If you don't endorse pet owners
and call it slavery, then the only discourse is to let them go.  Where
else can they go, but into the wild.  I don't know, but I am willing to
bet that the neighbors cocka-poo mutt would not fare too well out in
the real world of predators and desease...

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?

`>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.

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.  In fact, I would
not begin to consider buying a dog in the $100-$300 market as it is
most likely puppy mill and poorly bred.
I am not afraid to say it, that I do not believe animals have rights.
Not until we (as reasoning beings offer them to them)  So as a result,
I see dometicated animals, cows, sheep, chickens, etc. as commodities
besides the fact they are animals.  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.
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.  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).

`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?

When I was younger, and did not own my own dog, a couple of the family
dogs got impregnated with "mutts".  We gave them away.  But I do know that
none of them ever ended up in the pound.  We not only were responsible
in who we gave them to, but if it was to a stranger, we followed up.
The only real incedent was when we gave a puppy to a neighbor (the person
was of somewhat questionable character - but he lived right up the street
and we felt we could keep an eye on the dog)  The rumor is that one day
when he was mad, he kicked the dog killing it, but we can't be sure
it is true.  However, we followed that up as well, and had the local
animal division investigate the incedent.

`>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?  I think you are
going at this problem from the wronge end.  I would be willing to bet
that it is most likely a majority of the same people returning to the
centers to get pets.  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...

`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.

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

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"

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