Tail Docking Illegal?
Borzoi
Do you think they may win their case?
In response to the tail-docking (amputation) requirements for certain
breeds in the Westminster Kennel Club’s (WKC) internationally promoted
annual dog show, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has
filed a complaint with New York officials against the club, alleging
criminal violations of the state’s anti-cruelty law, which prohibits
unjustified mutilations of animals.
Both the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Animal
Hospital Association acknowledge that tail-docking (amputation) causes
dogs pain and distress, as well as posing the risk of such medical
complications as hemorrhaging and infection. And the legal community is
taking notice of the cruelty of such conduct as well. Just last year,
several appellate justices on the New York Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, stated that mutilating dogs by docking their tails is not
justified simply for cosmetic show purposes.
Puppies are normally just a few days old when their tails are docked.
They are generally not even given any anesthetics to numb the pain of
having their tails cut off. Compassionate veterinarians object to the
arbitrary removal of body parts used for communication, balance, and
expression. Dogs “talk” to their human companions and other dogs using
their tails (e.g., thumping to indicate submission or pleasure, held
between the legs when afraid, various forms of wagging for happiness,
greetings, and warnings, etc.).
There is simply no justification for medically unnecessary procedures
that simply perpetuate the image that dogs are fashion accessories. New
York law prohibits unjustified mutilation or injuring of animals.
Causing pain and trauma by amputating body parts solely for cosmetic
purposes represents the most superficial of values and cannot be
justified by a compassionate society.
What You Can Do
Please contact the following people and urge them to take action on
PETA’s complaint so that the cruel practice of unjustified mutilation
will stop:
The Honorable Michael Bloomberg
Mayor of New York
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
212-NEW-YORK
http://nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html
The Honorable Robert M. Morgenthau
District Attorney of New York County
One Hogan Pl.
New York, NY 10013
212-335-9000
Tee
accessibility to do something tangible to help dogs, things like working to
get a national animal cruelty law on the books that doesn't leave so much up
to state & local governments. Things like urging a nationwide donation
campaign to local shelters. Things like funding and/or organizing a
national education campaign to deal with mass byb practices.
--
Tara
Gwen Watson
Tee wrote:
Here, Here!
Gwen
Borzoi
news:ck6j7g$dqq$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:
Works for me :)
Just sent them a C&P of your post Tee.
Borzoi
Mary H Healey
> Just sent them a C&P of your post Tee.
>
>
> Borzoi
Because, of course, Tara is far too delicate and incapable of making her
opinions known where and as she will without some devious microcephalic
shit-stirrer "helping".
Asshole. No, wait, at least assholes have uses.
--
Mary H. and the Ames National Zoo:
Raise A Fund, ANZ Babylon Ranger, ANZ MarmaDUKE, and Rotund Rhia
Borzoi
@iastate.edu:
> Borzoi wrote:
>
>> Just sent them a C&P of your post Tee.
>>
>>
>> Borzoi
>
> Because, of course, Tara is far too delicate and incapable of making her
> opinions known where and as she will without some devious microcephalic
> shit-stirrer "helping".
>
> Asshole. No, wait, at least assholes have uses.
>
I have been called a FAThead before, but never have I been called
"microcephalic"
Thanks!
That's a first.
Oh..... I am not "helper" for Tara. I rarely post here.
Borzoi
culprit
"Mary H Healey" <mhhe...@iastate.edu> wrote in message
news:4166D6F3...@iastate.edu...
>
> Because, of course, Tara is far too delicate and incapable of making her
> opinions known where and as she will without some devious microcephalic
> shit-stirrer "helping".
>
> Asshole. No, wait, at least assholes have uses.
wow. now, i don't much like PETA, but your response seems a bit, um, over
the top.
-kelly
Tee
news:2sot6oF...@uni-berlin.de...
Why? The only reason I didn't follow back up was because Mary said it well.
I don't need someone else taking my usenet postings and emailing them to
PETA or anyone else. If I wanted PETA to have my email address then I'd
give it to them myself. If you post something here that says you don't like
PetsMart and I say "oh that's nice, I just emailed your post to PetsMart"
would you think it was ok to do so?
--
Tara
culprit
"Tee" <crappol...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2sp1ioF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Why? The only reason I didn't follow back up was because Mary said it
> well. I don't need someone else taking my usenet postings and emailing
> them to PETA or anyone else. If I wanted PETA to have my email address
> then I'd give it to them myself. If you post something here that says you
> don't like PetsMart and I say "oh that's nice, I just emailed your post to
> PetsMart" would you think it was ok to do so?
um, welcome to the wonderful world of Usenet, Tara. when you post, your
words are publicly available to millions of people, all over the world. and
you can't do anything about what anyone else does with those words.
scary isn't it?
-kelly
Tee
Do you purposely misunderstand everything I post because you have a problem
with me or is it some kind of accident that all but your headstone posts to
me are filled with attitude?
--
Tara
culprit
>
> Do you purposely misunderstand everything I post because you have a
> problem with me or is it some kind of accident that all but your headstone
> posts to me are filled with attitude?
i think it's probably the other way around. all of my posts to you aren't
filled with attitude, at least not lately. that last one was because, well,
i think it's silly to post to a public forum and then get upset when someone
uses your words.
honestly, i can't think of the last time i was rude. i'm really sorry if i
come across that way all the time, but i seriously think you're reading
something into my posts that isn't there.
-kelly
Robin Nuttall
culprit wrote:
> "Tee" <crappol...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:2sp3v3F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>Do you purposely misunderstand everything I post because you have a
>>problem with me or is it some kind of accident that all but your headstone
>>posts to me are filled with attitude?
>
>
> i think it's probably the other way around. all of my posts to you aren't
> filled with attitude, at least not lately. that last one was because, well,
> i think it's silly to post to a public forum and then get upset when someone
> uses your words.
>
Sorry, but that is an incorrect application of how posting works, either
on usenet, email groups, etc.
By posting to rec.pets.dogs.breeds, Tara certainly gives her permission
for anyone who reads rpd.breeds to also read her message. However, that
does NOT mean that her post is automatically public domain. It does NOT
mean that anyone can then forward her post to any other entity, public
or private, on the planet. If that post is forwarded to someone who has
never, and does never, read rpd.breeds, it's a breach of copyright.
I often compare it this way. Let's say you were on a list just for, say,
Field Spaniels. On that list, you write that a certain Golden breeder is
very unethical. Not only does this Golden breeder breed too often, she
does it just for money, doesn't screen her dogs, and doesn't take back
dogs either. You wrote that email for the members of your Field Spaniel
group.
Now let's say that one of those members then took your post and put it
on another group that the breeder belongs to--a huge Golden list. YOu
would rightly feel indignant that someone had forwarded your post
without permission.
It's not rocket science. If YOU didn't write it, then YOU don't get to
decide where it goes or what happens to it. It's not YOUR job.
culprit
"Robin Nuttall" <rob...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:BdR9d.209356$MQ5.201578@attbi_s52...
>
> By posting to rec.pets.dogs.breeds, Tara certainly gives her permission
> for anyone who reads rpd.breeds to also read her message. However, that
> does NOT mean that her post is automatically public domain. It does NOT
> mean that anyone can then forward her post to any other entity, public or
> private, on the planet. If that post is forwarded to someone who has
> never, and does never, read rpd.breeds, it's a breach of copyright.
i have an extremely limited understanding of copywrite law. can you show me
a web site that explains this? i agree that it's immoral, but it's not
terribly surprising, nor do i believe it's illegal.
what about all the folks here who've posted private emails that they found
offensive? is that a copywrite violation as well?
-kelly
culprit
>
> i have an extremely limited understanding of copywrite law. can you show
> me a web site that explains this? i agree that it's immoral, but it's not
> terribly surprising, nor do i believe it's illegal.
>
> what about all the folks here who've posted private emails that they found
> offensive? is that a copywrite violation as well?
apparently, my knowledge of copyright is so limited, i can't seem to spell
it correctly either. :-)
-kelly
Robin Nuttall
Frist of all, gentle nudge, it's copyRIGHT not copyWRITE. As in, your
RIGHTS regarding your own property. Copyright law applies not only to
written materials such as books, etc. but also to photos, artworks,
music, etc.
The best place to go to find out about copyright is here:
http://www.copyright.gov/.
And yes, technically, I'd call posting a private message a copyright
violation, but I'm not sure there's any kind of legal recourse of any
kind. So I may have been overstating my case a bit to say this was a
breach of law, though if someone really wanted to do it, I'd say they
might have an interesting court case if they decided to pursue it.
The basics of copyright are very simple. You create it, you own it.
Period. That applies to artworks, photos, music, and written materials,
including emails.
Copyright also covers derivitave work. Let's say you see a beautiful
photo taken by Tien Tran of an agility dog. And let's say you do a
pastel drawing based on that photo, and then sell t-shirts with the
drawing on it. You've just violated Tien's copyright, because YOUR work
wouldn't exist if HER creative eye hadn't captured the moment first. You
are capitalizing on her talent.
And yes, that even applies if that beautiful photo is of YOUR dog!
Unless the photographer expressly gives you permission, the photographer
retains rights to their original photo.
Most people seem to think that anything on the internet is automatically
public domain and can be stolen/taken/used at will. It's absolutely
not true.
Robin Nuttall
culprit wrote:
Well I saw that and corrected it, but gently I swear! Just disregard
that part of my reply...
Borzoi
news:2sp1ioF...@uni-berlin.de:
Ahhhhhhh!!!!
I didn't include your headers, name and the rest of the stuff.
Just for the record..... I sent it as if from ME.
What I put to them was:
>>It'd be wonderful if PETA ever decided to use their vast resources &
>>media accessibility to do something tangible to help dogs, things like
>>working to get a national animal cruelty law on the books that doesn't
>>leave so much up to state & local governments. Things like urging a
>>nationwide donation campaign to local shelters. Things like funding
>>and/or organizing a national education campaign to deal with mass byb
>>practices.
Here is what I got in reply:
Thank you for contacting PETA. If you e-mailed PETA to report an
animal emergency, we ask that you call our office immediately at
757-622-7382. If you are calling between 6 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. EST,
please listen carefully to the recording for emergency instructions.
Because of the volume of e-mail we receive, dispatching e-mail messages
to the proper party can take a day or two. Therefore, we ask that in
cases of emergency, you please call the number above.
If you are a member of the media, please e-mail us at
Medi...@peta.org
<../../cgi-bin/compose%3fcurmbox=F000000001&a=b9b8ca679889d277251940a82b
7225cf&mailto=1&to=Medi...@peta.org&msg=MSG1065821177.173&start=121444
0&len=3100&src=&type=x> , or call our office at 757-622-7382.
If you are inquiring about your membership status or monthly
pledge or if you have questions regarding your membership in general,
you will receive a personal response from a staff member within two
business days.
We read all letters and value your comments and suggestions.
Your input is important to us and will be shared with the appropriate
staff members. Because of the tremendous volume of mail we receive, we
cannot respond personally to all inquiries.
Please do not re-send your questions to other PETA e-mail
accounts. We ensure that every message goes to the right person. If you
have additional questions after you submit a question, please send them
separately and they will be quickly routed to the appropriate person.
However, if you have requested literature or merchandise items and you
provided a mailing address, please be assured that we will be sending
them right away. Suggestions and cruelty notifications will be passed
along to the appropriate staffers.
Please explore the following links to see if they can assist
you:
Many questions that we receive are answered on our "Frequently
Asked Questions" page at http://www.peta.org/fp/faq.html
<http://64.4.10.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=808f561ec260afb6a49ed009
745407b4&lat=1065821261&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2epeta%2eorg%2ffp%2
ffaq%2ehtml> or at http://www.AskCarla.com
<http://64.4.10.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=6fc95e5db942426b680a9b34
a9406f09&lat=1065821261&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2eAskCarla%2ecom> .
Please take a look.
For information about PETA, please go to:
http://www.peta.org/about/index.html
<http://64.4.10.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=e5a7c690ad3fb2d7b3f64e79
b8d1780c&lat=1065821261&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2epeta%2eorg%2fabou
t%2findex%2ehtml> .
If you would like to receive information and updates from PETA,
please click here (http://peta.org/view.asp?code=infosignup
<http://64.4.10.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=8bd4a7ba5b4e3d6465b44ce0
294ef4fa&lat=1065821261&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fpeta%2eorg%2fview%2easp
%3fcode%3dinfosignup> ) for information on our e-mail news lists.
For safety reasons, we do not open any e-mail attachments. If
you have sent an attachment, please re-send your message with the
contents of the attachment pasted into the e-mail message.
Thanks again for your feedback and your interest in animal
rights.
Sincerely,
The PETA Staff
We need your help! Support PETA's vital campaigns to save
animals.
http://www.peta.org/j/index.html
<http://64.4.10.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=f23e38c506975644b3fc9cf0
4ef3ab22&lat=1065821261&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2epeta%2eorg%2fj%2f
index%2ehtml>
Melinda Shore
Borzoi <nos...@nospam.ca> wrote:
>I didn't include your headers, name and the rest of the stuff.
>Just for the record..... I sent it as if from ME.
Say, that's an improvement.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com
The Bush economic record compared to his predecessors:
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2004/10/bush-economy-in-context.html
Robin Nuttall
Borzoi wrote:
> "Tee" <crappol...@netscape.net> wrote in
> news:2sp1ioF...@uni-berlin.de:
>>Why? The only reason I didn't follow back up was because Mary said it
>>well. I don't need someone else taking my usenet postings and emailing
>>them to PETA or anyone else. If I wanted PETA to have my email
>>address then I'd give it to them myself. If you post something here
>>that says you don't like PetsMart and I say "oh that's nice, I just
>>emailed your post to PetsMart" would you think it was ok to do so?
>>
>
>
> Ahhhhhhh!!!!
>
> I didn't include your headers, name and the rest of the stuff.
>
> Just for the record..... I sent it as if from ME.
>
>
Oh. So now you stole her message, sent it without her permission, and
and claimed it as yours. Oh yeah, that makes us all feel better about it.
Mary H Healey
> wow. now, i don't much like PETA, but your response seems a bit, um, over
> the top.
My response had nothing to do with PETA, for or against, so I'm not sure
why you predicate your response on that?
Over the top? Yeah, a bit. The tattletale aspect of the OP's action
really pissed me off. The strength of that visceral response was a bit
startling, to tell true, and I probably should have sat on it awhile
(and given Tara a chance to speak for herself).
Borzoi has since clarified, and for some reason the blatant plagarism
copped to isn't nearly as emotional an issue for me. It's still rude
and wrong, of course.
Child
>
> > Just sent them a C&P of your post Tee.
> >
> >
> > Borzoi
>
> Because, of course, Tara is far too delicate and incapable of making her
> opinions known where and as she will without some devious microcephalic
> shit-stirrer "helping".
>
> Asshole. No, wait, at least assholes have uses.
oh Mary, you are the Queen of the Insult.
Its much funnier when its not directed at me <vbg>
Borzoi
@attbi_s51:
No, I added support to the idea.
I took an idea/suggestion that was posted in a public forum and rather
than sending in her info (email address and name), I forwarded it that
great idea to them.
Did I claim it as mine?
Nope.
All I did was suggest that they should act on it.
And really, isn't it about the animals after all?
Who gives a shit who suggests it?
It something that needs to be acted upon.
And oh,
I think Universal Medical is needed in every country.
I think we need to do something about global warming and poverty and
Aids.
So if somebody sends something along to any organization concerning
those ideas, I guess we should be offended as well?
See my point?
In case you didn't:
1. I did not "steal" an idea and claim it as my own.
2. I did not send in the idea on someone else's behalf without their
permission.
3. All I did was agree with a suggestion and posed it in a similar
matter to PETA.
Got it?
Good.
Melinda Shore
Borzoi <nos...@nospam.ca> wrote:
>So if somebody sends something along to any organization concerning
>those ideas, I guess we should be offended as well?
Here's the problem: while most ideas are public property,
text is not. It's not the idea you appropriated but the
words someone wrote with their own creativity and their own
effort (and writing can be very difficult).
Before sending out someone else's words you really need to
ask for permission and you really need to credit the author.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com
Instead of allowing an embarrassing Congressional vote to
raise the debt ceiling before the election the Bush administration
is raiding civil service pension funds to pay for government operations