‘Why is anyone still listening to PETA?’

September 19, 2007

Good question, and Nathan Winograd asks it, in the latest of his blog posts:

[M]any animal rights activists blindly follow PETA’s lead, whitewashing killing even in the face of No Kill alternatives and the success of shelters like Tompkins County [which Winograd runs]. They do so because they see PETA fighting for the right to life of other animals—animals in circuses, on factory farms, in research laboratories, and in other industries. Yet, when it comes to companion animals, they have an entirely different standard. They not only call for the deaths of dogs and cats in shelters, PETA kill dogs and cats themselves—nearly 2,000 per year.

Despite an annual budget of tens of millions of dollars, PETA kills over 90% of the animals it its care. By contrast, the Tompkins County SPCA has been saving over 90% of dogs and cats for five years. As a result, Tompkins has nothing to learn from PETA, but PETA certainly has a lot to learn from the Tompkins County SPCA.

People are still listening to PETA because PETA is good at talking. They’re reliable for a highly quotable statement when a reporter needs a comment, and they step up and offer themselves as experts on every animal issue, from biomedical research to Michael Vick’s pit bulls.

And because they’re presented in the media, time and time again, as the “animal’s side” of the issue, people believe that they are, and give money that lets the group keep mouthing off.

Now, if you agree with PETA and their animal-rights stand (which includes the elimination of all domesticated animals, including your long-suffering pet poodle, honestly it does), then by all means support them with your money and your words. But know what you’re supporting, and do not assume they speak for your point of view unless you are certain.

Personally, I find I agree with them on some issues, disagree with them on most. But I don’t blame PETA for working so hard to get themselves in the media and keeping themselves there. I blame every reporter who takes the easy route and picks up the phone to call PETA for comment on every animal issue.

By the way, Nathan Winograd’s new blog is now part of our bl0g roll. I know his new book blew Christie’s mind (she’ll blog about it later), and I’m waiting for Amazon to drop it on my doorstep now.

***

And speaking of homeless pets, Patrick Burns over on Terrierman’s Daily Dose is asking breeders to put a link to rescue prominently on their Web pages. Check it out.

Filed under: no-kill,pets, connected — Gina Spadafori @ 9:04 am

34 Comments »

  1. good article. . . I wish everyone would realize PETA’s real true agenda is the eradication of pets!!! If you love pets, don’t support PETA.

    Comment by Bonnie — September 19, 2007 @ 10:43 am

  2. I don’t agree with everything PETA says, but I do agree with them on no-kill shelters. I’m sure there are some that take in every animal every time, but most turn away animals that can’t be easily adopted or cared for. How is it better or kinder to die by car, starvation, exposure, or attack by larger animal than a painless death for the hopelessly old, sick, too aggressive, or otherwise unadoptable animals? I know people don’t want to hear it, but euthanasia is sometimes kinder than the alternative. No kill shelters are just more selective than shelters that accept all animals.

    Comment by Meg — September 19, 2007 @ 12:38 pm

  3. No one’s arguing that euthanasia isn’t kinder in some cases, especially over the alternatives you list. Problem is, those aren’t the alternatives. Finding homes is the alternative, and many outfits flat-out aren’t trying.

    Read up about what’s happening now in No Kill. It’s not about warehousing some pets for life and turning the rest away.

    If you agree with PETA that dead pets are better off, do you agree with PETA’s giving the pets in their care the pink needle and tossing their formerly healthy, adoptable bodies in a Dumpster behind a supermarket?

    Because I sure don’t.

    Here’s a good place to start reading: http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 19, 2007 @ 12:53 pm

  4. no-kills can’t take in all the animals. there just isn’t room even if they aren’t warehousing. the no-kills here have decent turn-over, but our all intake is at max capacity in it’s 3 large facilities and they are begging for rescues because they need to euth for space. our adoptions are up, euths are down, but the intake rate sure isn’t budging much . . . and we have more rescue groups now than we did 5 yrs ago!

    just because a no-kill has to turn animals away, doesn’t mean all those animals are hitting the streets. yes some do, but they line up here to turn in animals at the all intake shelters.

    Comment by straybaby — September 19, 2007 @ 2:16 pm

  5. Part of Winograd’s No-Kill equation is helping people retain their pets. Whether it is by talking to landlords to convince them to allow their tenants to keep animals or by offering aid to folks at the end of the rope over behavioral issues, or making sure people can aford veterinary care, it’s a vital part of reducing shelter and rescue intake.
    Many of the people lining up to relinquish a pet will walk out of that shelter, another shelter, a pet store etc with another puppy or kitten, dog or cat, they will subsequently give up on. Particularly in the case of dogs, the majority of those waiting for adoption are adolesecents or adults who had homes. If we don’t find ways to get people to keep their pets, intakes will not go down

    Comment by Jennifer J — September 19, 2007 @ 2:36 pm

  6. Breeders who don’t link to, support, and in many cases recommend breed rescue are part of the problem, and not the solution. I might not always agree with Patrick, but he nailed this one.

    As for PETA? They wanted to – and tried VERY HARD to – kill the Vick case pit bulls, just as they have time and time again in pit bull cases across the country.

    Lab rats have more worth to them than pit bulls do.

    Shame on the people who support them financially, and claim ignorance of their agenda.

    Comment by Carol — September 19, 2007 @ 3:26 pm

  7. Comment by Jennifer J — September 19, 2007 @ 2:36 pm

    we’re doing all that and more. we even have laws protecting pets in no-pet apts, BUT the LL’s DO have 90days (as they should) to react to someone bringing pets into a no-pet building. seems you can’t teach some folks that when they sign a no pet lease they really shouldn’t run out and get a dog that barks or needs to walk several times a day. the no-kill movement can only do so much. many people WILL get it and nobody should give up, but you do have a segment of the population that is a major contributor to the problem. reaching THEM is the issue. BYB’s, Puppy Mills and Selfish People.

    Comment by straybaby — September 19, 2007 @ 3:36 pm

  8. No argument there. No matter what there will always be a segment of society that won’t act responsibly with pets. Or children. Or whatever. And there will always be disasters and unforseen events, large or small scale.There will always be a need for shelters and rescue. But I do think there is still alot of room for improvement. Both within the system in many places and in many segments of the pet owning public.

    Comment by Jennifer J — September 19, 2007 @ 4:36 pm

  9. Thank You Gina for posting this and the link you gave out. I get so tired of hearing people talking about how good PETA is, when they don’t know what happened.
    Meg, PETA Kills Animals. In the back of their vans and then throws them into our dumpsters in the middle of a heat wave . They are disgusting. These animals were very adoptable. some pure bred and some little kittens. I can’t even go on, most of you all know what they are really like. and that they love their money!

    Comment by Trudy Jackson — September 19, 2007 @ 4:51 pm

  10. The Finger Lakes area of New york , where Tompkins County is located, has become a haven for puppy mills. When the mill operators attend the same town meetings we do to push their agenda for zero regulations on puppy mills. They try to sway public opinion by connecting everyone to extreme groups like Peta. They label everyone who opposes them animal rights activists , a.k.a. terrorists. Even though we are not members of Peta we get linked to them. We even are asked by board members if we are members of Peta. We explain we are animal care groups. There is an attempt being made to organize the shelters and resvue in new york state to lobby for stronger laws governing the care of animals and to try to get law enforcement to enforce the laws currently on the books.

    Comment by thomas — September 19, 2007 @ 5:37 pm

  11. Yes, all puppy mills, and kitten mills should be shut down!

    Comment by Trudy Jackson — September 19, 2007 @ 5:50 pm

  12. My local shelter was formerly a no kill. They were filled up with dogs and cats that were not adoptable due to health conditions, agressive, etc. They had a very low adoption rate. Some animals had been there for a couple of years. Since they have changed to euthanasia after 90 days their adoption rate has went way up. They are now able to help so many more pets find homes.

    Comment by Sheila — September 20, 2007 @ 6:16 am

  13. Sheila, perhaps instead of a blanket “euthanize after 90 days, regardless of circumstances” policy, they simply needed to better identify the truly unadoptable (too aggressive, untreatable medical conditions, etc.) Because as you describe it, it sounds like you’re claiming that killing healthy, adoptable animals was an essential part of increasing finding more homes for more animals.

    Comment by Lis — September 20, 2007 @ 6:42 am

  14. Whether you think PETA is right or not about No-Kill shelters (I think they’re only partly right), they shouldn’t be charged with things they’re not guilty of.

    First, PETA does not “[give] the pets in their care the pink needle and [toss] their formerly healthy, adoptable bodies in a Dumpster behind a supermarket?” Two PETA employees did that, without authorization and contrary to PETA’s policy. PETA doesn’t deserve the blame any more than any other organization deserves the blame for the behavior of rogue employees.

    Second, does PETA’s position “[include] the elimination of all domesticated animals, including your long-suffering pet poodle, honestly it does”? Well, no. Not honestly. You can check out what they say about pets right here: http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp. The opening line begins with “We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes,” and the closing line, with a link to more information, is “Learn more about how you can provide full, interesting lives for your animal companions.” In between, they explain their stand and that “Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and ‘set them free.’ ”

    So why do animal-lovers keep repeating the myth? Most heard it from someone else and didn’t bother to check before they repeated it. The few who did check are not being honest.

    Comment by Charles — September 20, 2007 @ 7:10 am

  15. Whoever said anything about the myth of PETA wanting to “set free” companion animals? I sure didn’t. I said they wanted to see an end to companion animals altogether. That’s “the myth” that PETA cleverly does not address on that PR page you pointed to.

    So where did I get that idea?

    I sat across a desk from Ingrid Newkirk in an interview and had her tell me that PETA’s goal was to see the companion animal paradigm end. She said that while petting a dog she clearly loved, a little mixed breed who had a bed in her office.

    Now, mind you, that was in the ’80s, before the organization got smart to the fact that that particular policy view was a loser as a fund-raiser. But it makes perfect sense in a way: Animals who are never born will never suffer. She told me that she wanted the current pets to be the last ones, to live out their lives and that would be that.

    Is that a good enough “check out” for you? Or would you rather continue to rely on PETA PR?

    As for what PETA’s employees were doing … well, you can believe they were rogue actors if you want. Doesn’t pass the sniff test for me.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 20, 2007 @ 7:34 am

  16. “The cat, like the dog, must disappear… We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.

    “As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves.” PeTA’s Statement on Companion Animals.

    “You don’t have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them … One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild … they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV,” Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.

    “Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us? Harper’s, August 1988, p. 50.

    “Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles–from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.

    “I don’t use the word “pet.” I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer “companion animal.” For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship ­ enjoyment at a distance.” Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

    “In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive “free” in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing “pets,” thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive.” PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?

    We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as “surplus.” This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to.” Animal Rights Uncompromised: PETA on Pets: published on PETA’s webiste, January 8, 2007

    “The bottom line is that people don’t have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats … If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind,” Ingrid Newkirk, founder, president and former national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Animals, May/June 1993

    “I’m not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is nothing but vanity, human vanity.” Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA’s founder and president, New Yorker magazine, April 23, 2003

    Comment by Laura — September 20, 2007 @ 9:11 am

  17. Charles, you need to do more reading on what’s going on. there have been 3 to 4 years of us finding dead animals in the dumpsters. We just couldn’t catch them doing it. They looked us in the face that day and said- We WILL find a good home for these animals. Have you named them yet? They are beautiful. — then went out the door and killed them. don’t tell Me PETA didn’t know- Or maybe you belong to PETA?

    Comment by Trudy Jackson — September 20, 2007 @ 9:55 am

  18. PETA in my book is known as:
    People Exterminating Terrified Animals

    Anyone who thinks of their dog, cat, or other pet as only a “companion” with no moral, ethical, or legal rights to possess, own, and be responsible for in an extended family environment of their pets is as blind as PETA is to their own destruction of the beloved family pets being allowed to be owned by their loving owners without government of group intusion and vilation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Animal Rights Activists, and PETA support and promote Terrorism! Period!

    Comment by Dean A. Ayers, Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom — September 20, 2007 @ 9:55 am

  19. Beyond the “Death-Van” and dumping incidents, it is a fact that PETA kills 90% of t he animals it gains custody of in it’s one shelter. They did not purchase a walk in freezer to store tofu. Perhaps instead of No-Kill we could use the term “Pro-Kill” for PETA? They have expressed over and over that a dog or cat is better off dead than suffering at human hands. And suffering to PETA includes long coated dogs or cats who could possibly become matted (not that are, but who might become), any animal left alone at a home for any period of time, all pitbulls, feral cats, outdoor cats, hunting dogs etc, etc…
    They have not to the best of my knowledge released their shelter numbers for 2006. The Virginia Commonwealth is not happy about that. And currently a case is pending wherein PETA employees picked up a working hunting dog, removed it’s collar and stole it. When they were stopped in the PETA owned van by authorities they at first denied they had the dog then were forced to admit the dog in the van was infact the dog in question. They have publically stated that they were following PETA policy by stealing the dog and removing it’s tracking collar (which states that the dog is not lost, it is working). As they were headed for the PETA shelter, it’s not hard to guess what lay in this dogs future either.

    Comment by Jennifer J — September 20, 2007 @ 10:12 am

  20. Jennifer,

    what’s their issue with ferals? isn’t that how they think animals should live? or is it that we shouldn’t be tending to the feral colonies and doing TNR? ;) and how could they have an issue with people letting their cats outside to roam naturally?

    i guess i should inform my formerly feral kitty that she was born wrong ’cause her coat is long, lol!~

    Comment by straybaby — September 20, 2007 @ 10:44 am

  21. PETA’s ad tactics turned me off them some years ago, but I was totally shocked to find that they were against “no kill” shelters and against people keeping pets.

    I had hoped that internet reports of interviews with Ingrid Newkirk might have been hearsay, but now Gina reports she also had an interview with Newkirk and received similar answers.

    I distrust everything that PETA does now because of their dishonesty — I had thought they were zealots FOR animals (a bit scary, but working towards better lives for all our animals), and learning over the last year that they do not value the lives of dogs/cats in shelters or in our homes has horrified me. Hopefully, they can do some good for circus animals, helping stop bunny sales at PetsMart, but I think they are ignored as wackos by many who do not even suspect their truly wacko beliefs about dogs/cats.

    Comment by shadepuppy — September 20, 2007 @ 11:15 am

  22. PETA jumped on the publicity bandwagon here in NorCal when the feral kitten was intentionally burned, They wrote a letter to the Santa Rosa paper stating that no pet should ever be left outside unattended for any period of time or it could be subject to abuse or accident or whatever. Apparently I am abusing my two former ferals(now approachable and occaisionally touchable) and they would be better off dead than altered and fed and cared for because they are not confined in my home (where they would be absolutely freaked out and terrified). They seem pretty happy but what do I know. PETA wrote a letter previously to one of the local papers stating that it was unethical to have outdoor cats and that ferals were better off humanely euthanized.

    Comment by Jennifer J — September 20, 2007 @ 12:13 pm

  23. from the Feral Cat Network website:

    Are Your Donations Killing Feral Cats?

    Many well meaning feral cat advocates and TNR supporters are unknowingly writing checks to organizations that are opposed to TNR. These groups are working feverishly to educate the public about the dangers of TNR and the benefits of trap and kill programs. The following is intended to inform and educate all feral cat advocates about those organizations trying to sabotage all that you work for every day.

    PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PeTA)

    From http://www.peta.org: “PETA cannot in good conscience oppose euthanasia as a humane alternative to dealing with cat overpopulation.”

    From PETA’s publication Why all Cats Should be Indoor Cats: “Euthanasia is a tragic necessity.”

    PETA’s factsheet Trapping is the Kindest Solution actually encourages people to trap and kill feral cats. It reads: “Please do not allow the prospect of euthanasia to deter you from trapping cats. If you leave them where they are, they will almost certainly die a painful death. A painless injection is far kinder than any fate that feral cats will meet if left to survive on their own.”

    Comment by Jennifer J — September 20, 2007 @ 12:16 pm

  24. PETA’s former staff have broken away to lead other groups founded by Newkirk . One I believe is called Community Animal Project. I am aware of this groups members willingness to steal people’s pets and have them euthanized. Some animal rights terrorists are willing to break the law to try and get their point across. One of the problems with these extreme groups is they make it hard for those of us who are legitimate and care about animals. Puppy mill operators use PETA’s reputation to their advantage to instill fear in the public.

    Comment by thomas — September 20, 2007 @ 1:30 pm

  25. PETA is obviously a DON’T DO AS I DO, DO AS I SAY organization! What do you want to bet that THEY would still have pets? They just don’t want the “unwashed masses” to have them.

    Case in point: A lobbyist for an environmental group that is opposed to harvesting trees wrote an article promoting his idea of a better world.

    He stated he looked forward to the time we would ALL be forced to live in cities, have a community garden, share tools and ALL ride bikes–no automobiles.

    He lives in a huge LOG home overlooking a lake heated by 3 WOOD STOVES! No doubt he also drives a big SUV or truck!

    I’m sure he thinks he will be passing all the bicyclists on the road in his SUV as he drives to Salem to tell the rest of us how to live!

    It is very important to thoroughly research an organization BEFORE donating to them! This guy is making BIG WAGES promoting an agenda that he surely doesn’t think he will have to follow.

    Comment by Elaine — September 20, 2007 @ 1:31 pm

  26. wow. thanks Jennifer! ok, so it’s not just companion cats and dogs they want gone, but all. i never really made that connection. of course, i never realized that all ferals lived in concrete jungles either . . .

    so i guess the right thing to do would be let companion animals die out. and then we should die out so wild cats and dogs and other formerly used as domestic animals could have their land back? they obviously can’t live safely as long as we exist which means they will always have to be companion animals, which is obviously not the right way for them to live. dogs and cats were meant to be here since they have been all along, so that seems like the only way to go, right PETA?

    good thing i never had those vanity babies! OY!

    Comment by straybaby — September 20, 2007 @ 1:51 pm

  27. I have three of those vanity babies. Not sure what the heck makes one “purebred”. Love it when people like Ingrid say having a child is just vanity or selfishness. Makes me wonder about her upbringing

    Vanity. Hmmm. Let’s see, ruining your body . Have not had a full nights sleep in two years and over the last 8 years maybe one full nights rest(6-8 hours) in 4. A fortune already spent on clothes and camp and schools etc with college down the line, GULP!. Lot’s of gray hair, stress, worry, my life utterly at their(or my pets) beck and call and my biggest joy is their happiness and success. I hope and pray that I survive the teen years!

    My dogs and kids go very well together. Many of my favorite childhood memories are of pets. I hate that PETA and other extremists wish to sever this bond, to deprive my children or any child of a future with animals. What a sad and sterile place that would be!

    Comment by Jennifer J — September 20, 2007 @ 4:17 pm

  28. I believe that during the same time they were dumping the pets in the trash bins here in town that they stole My 2 cats. A white van kept going by, I should have known. I had 2 outside cats that went missing the same week, and I have never seen them since. They were indoor-outdoor cats, all spayed and nutered and very beloved pets.
    PETA also says- Better Dead then bred!
    No, they don’t like the TNR, they want them dead.
    But they don’t even touch the real issues- Like the shipyard torturing the cats there. Right in their own back yard.

    Comment by Trudy Jackson — September 21, 2007 @ 6:57 am

  29. There is such a dichotomy between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Both PETA and HSUS are Animal Rights organizations. They maintain a highly funded and active PR organization that leads most pet loving people to believe they are for animal welfare. They aren’t. Their goal is to totally sever the human/companion animal/domestic stock bond. They want the breeding of non human animals for any reason to stop. Period. Gina’s face to face with Ingrid Newkirk is so right on! Ms. Newkirk and Mr. Pacelle are out to totally eliminate all domesticated animals from our lives.
    Animal Welfare activists want to continue the interspecies bond. They basically are after supporting and instituting laws and their enforcement that prevents cruelty and abuse.
    It gets confusing over certain issues, especially if it’s something the Media has focused on. PETA and HSUS with their elegant PR machines will be there first to get their propaganda in, and they will be the source quoted. AR and AW may agree on things like CA AB #1634, or breed specific legislation, or seuter laws, but their motives are different. A
    When you donate to either organization, that’s really where your money goes.To PR. Not the care of companion animals in a shelter. take the Vic case, the money donated to HSUS by people thinking they were helping the dogs was such a waste, because HSUS never had care of the dogs in the first place! The donations just went to salaries and PR!
    The dogs, cats, horses, rabbits, ferrets, birds, etc that you love are better served if you donate to a Breed or Species Specific organization, or to an individual shelter in your municipality. That’s where your money will directly help the the animals you/we care so very much about!

    Comment by Deb — September 21, 2007 @ 4:58 pm

  30. I turned against PETA for real the day they attacked Steve Irwin (um, that’d be the day after he died and could no longer defend himself). How many kids did Irwin reach versus PETA? To me, PETA’s the worst thing that ever happened to reasonable animal-rights people, because it gave our opponents a totally fringy, crazy group to tie us to.

    For proof, just listen to your legislators next time any animal-positive legislation comes up. Want to make starving an animal to death a felony? Must be PETA. Want to require all pets to be licensed? That’s PETA, trying to keep people from having pets.

    Of course it isn’t, and we all know it – but PETA’s the perfect straw-man opponent for puppy mills, crooked pet-food manufacturers, the works. “We didn’t screw up – it’s just PETA out to get us.” You’d be appalled by how often it works.

    PETA has screwed animal lovers for years by dominating the national conversation about pets’ importance to people. They DON’T speak for anyone I know. And it’s time to stop letting them pretend that they do.

    Comment by LauraL — September 21, 2007 @ 8:33 pm

  31. I am conflicted on the licensing thing. With city after city trying to pass pet limit laws, anything that gives the local government a way to identify me as well as know how many animals I keep makes me nervous. It also gives them a way to mandate rabies vaccination schedules – still yearly in many areas which is WAY too often. And in many cities, Animal Control (which is where licensing fees typically go) runs shelters that are often high-kill and poorly-managed. Not to mention I’ve run into a LOT of Animal Control employees who are “anti-breeder”. Why should I pay license fees to fund THAT?

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 22, 2007 @ 5:44 am

  32. Other Pat –
    Sorry, didn’t mean to say we should all support licensing per se. The point I was making is that there are arguments on both sides of that issue and others that never get heard – because all anyone has to do is shut down the conversation is to mention PETA. Does that make sense?

    Comment by LauraL — September 22, 2007 @ 7:16 am

  33. I really wish someone would put together a chart that shows what all the pet acronym people actually do and stand for.

    PETA, HSUS, ASPCA, etc. on one axis
    No-Kill, “companion” status, etc on the other

    I’d do it, but I’m not well versed enough (despite reading a lot on the issues) and when you do find info on policy positions, it’s often on a huge bill that groups will vote for or against for very different reasons.

    Not easy to decipher at all.

    Comment by Christopher — September 22, 2007 @ 11:05 am

  34. Just follow the money trail.
    Personally I don’t trust any of them. My money will go to the smaller rescues.

    Comment by Trudy Jackson — September 22, 2007 @ 2:46 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment


Syndication

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

website design by Black Dog Studios