the facts about PETA
Jazmyn Concolor
In article <331565...@nicom.com>, <ali...@nicom.com> wrote:
>M.Ju...@inter.nl.net (Martin & Corine Judkins) wrote:
>
>>Folks, if you believe this person, check out PETA's site. You'll find
>>that it is in their charter to abolish all uses of animals INCLUDING
>>THE USE OF ANIMALS AS PETS. It's the ideological equivalent of >turning them loose to fend for themselves.
>
>This is simply not true. I encourage anyone with doubts to go to
>PETA's website and see for yourself: http://envirolink.org/arrs/peta.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Alison Green
>PETA Correspondent
Oh look..They replaced Doug since he renounced PETA and joined the real
world. :)
Or maybe they replaced Doug for being wishy washy. :)
Alison...Give up and leave PETA before its too late and you need to be
deprogramed from their 'religion'..:)
M. N. Cahill
And I quote from their web page "it is important to stop manufacturing
'pets,' thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans
to survive." That's fairly clear about their agenda. Spay them all and
let the species die out. (taken directly from
http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/peta/facts/com/fscom19.htm )
Alison, before you post to a group at least have the decency to read the
page you use to "back up" your argument. You are obviously misinformed.
Answer me this, I am a fisherman, as was my father and his father before
him. What gives you the right to make ethical judgements for me?
Mark N. Cahill
David Bold
In article <331C43...@telegram.infi.net_REMOVE_THIS>, "M. N. Cahill" <mnca...@telegram.infi.net_REMOVE_THIS> writes:
>
><deletia>
>
>> >Alison Green
>> >PETA Correspondent
>
><deletia>
>
>Answer me this, I am a fisherman, as was my father and his father before
>him. What gives you the right to make ethical judgements for me?
Who needs a right to do that? All one needs is the power to do so.
Alison, as well as most other people, could be said to have a right
to make ethical judgements *about* the actions of others rather than
*for* them if one follows a teleontological argument about the
nature of moral agents but that's another topic I suppose.
I ought to point out, specifically because I'm a moral agent, that
the fishing activities of you, your father, and your grandfather are
or were probably immoral and you're lucky I don't have the power to
stop you. You're a moral agent too, no doubt, and have come to an
alternative assessment with the advantage of having the liberty to
pursue it at present. Hey, no problem.
David.
--
I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know.
Mark Twain.
M. N. Cahill
David Bold wrote:
>
> In article <331C43...@telegram.infi.net_REMOVE_THIS>, "M. N. Cahill" <mnca...@telegram.infi.net_REMOVE_THIS> writes:
> >
> ><deletia>
> >
> >> >Alison Green
> >> >PETA Correspondent
> >
> ><deletia>
> >
> >Answer me this, I am a fisherman, as was my father and his father before
> >him. What gives you the right to make ethical judgements for me?
>
> Who needs a right to do that? All one needs is the power to do so.
When one's goal is to legislate morality or ethics for others, it
presupposes that they believe they have the right to do so.
> Alison, as well as most other people, could be said to have a right
> to make ethical judgements *about* the actions of others rather than
> *for* them if one follows a teleontological argument about the
> nature of moral agents but that's another topic I suppose.
Exactly. It is everyones right to make ethical judgements *about* the
actions of both themselves and others. It is when they attempt to force
their view on others that they err. Personally, I have no problem with
vegetarians, or people who do not believe in pets. I would NEVER
attempt to force them to eat meat or own pets.
> I ought to point out, specifically because I'm a moral agent, that
> the fishing activities of you, your father, and your grandfather are
> or were probably immoral and you're lucky I don't have the power to
> stop you.
And as long as I breath you will not have the power to stop me. Just as
I will not stop you from exercising your right not to fish, or not own
pets, or not eat meat (assuming that is your desire).
>You're a moral agent too, no doubt, and have come to an
> alternative assessment with the advantage of having the liberty to
> pursue it at present. Hey, no problem.
We are agreed.
Mark N. Cahill
Douglas A. Percival
jazmyn wrote:
> Oh look..They replaced Doug since he
> renounced PETA and joined the real
> world. :)
>
> Or maybe they replaced Doug for being
> wishy washy.
Jazmyn, I would appreciate it if you
would not lie about me - although I'm
sure you don't give a damn about that,
and will go on lying, as is your wont.
PETA replaced me as maintainer of the
PETA pages on the Envirolink web site
because I resigned from both my paid
job as Manager of Information Systems
at PETA, and my volunteer position as
web site maintainer, when PETA relocated
from the Washington, DC area to Norfolk
Virginia.
I have never "renounced PETA" - whatever
that is supposed to mean. I chose not
to leave the Maryland suburbs of Washington,
DC - my home for the last 30 years and a
place where I have friends, family and other
community ties - to move to Norfolk, Virginia,
a place that I felt would never really be my
"home".
I now work for another (not animal related)
nonprofit organization in DC. I continue
to support and advocate animals' rights as
an individual, in my own way. I will always
be grateful to have had the opportunity to
be part of PETA and to contribute my energy
to PETA's work on behalf of animals.
I have always been in the "real world,"
Jazmyn - there are by definition no "unreal
worlds."
And your characterization of me as "wishy
washy" is your own; I never heard such a
characterization expressed by anyone at
PETA, nor did such things have anything to
do with my leaving the organization.
doug percival (dper...@igc.apc.org)
"do as thou will shall be the whole of the law" - crowley
Jazmyn Concolor
In article <APC&1'0'5b8bfa40'3...@igc.apc.org>,
Douglas A. Percival <dper...@igc.apc.org> wrote:
>jazmyn wrote:
>
>> Oh look..They replaced Doug since he
>> renounced PETA and joined the real
>> world. :)
>>
>> Or maybe they replaced Doug for being
>> wishy washy.
>
(Blah, blah, blah deleted)
So who posted this then? Santa Claus? :)
(quote)
Article 64494 of talk.politics.animals:
Xref: netcom.com talk.politics.animals:64494
Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!info.ucla.edu!psgrain!nntp.teleport.com!usenet
From: dper...@igc.apc.org (Doug Percival)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: pet owners' rights, peta, etc
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 14:02:14 GMT
Organization: PETA
Lines: 9
Sender: dper...@igc.apc.org (Doug Percival)
Message-ID: <4et4h9$n...@maureen.teleport.com>
Reply-To: dper...@igc.apc.org (Doug Percival)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ip-roseb1-17.teleport.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
I can't believe it, I finally saw the light, all of you have convinced
me that yes, peta is indeed trash!
I can't believe I have been such a sucker all these years, it was all
a complete waste of time..
I have resigned and no longer support this group that wants pet
ownership ended. This is goodbye folks.
I'm such an asshole I just cant believe I fell for this garbage..
(end quote)
Anonymous
> "do as thou will shall be the whole of the law" - crowley
COOL! I'm off for a prosciuto sandwich and to buy a cute fur waistcoat.
:)
Todd C. Andrews
On Fri, 07 Mar 1997 07:12:02 -0800 (PST), "Douglas A. Percival"
<dper...@igc.apc.org> wrote:
>jazmyn wrote:
>
>> Oh look..They replaced Doug since he
>> renounced PETA and joined the real
>> world. :)
>>
>> Or maybe they replaced Doug for being
>> wishy washy.
>
>Jazmyn, I would appreciate it if you
>would not lie about me - although I'm
>sure you don't give a damn about that,
>and will go on lying, as is your wont.
>
>PETA replaced me as maintainer of the
>PETA pages on the Envirolink web site
>because I resigned from both my paid
>job as Manager of Information Systems
>at PETA, and my volunteer position as
>web site maintainer, when PETA relocated
>from the Washington, DC area to Norfolk
>Virginia.
>
Okay, so you are a card carrying PETA member.
You actually believe in all that garbage?
I'm not trying to be rude, but I really think that anyone
who would believe in the tenets of PETA are absolute
nut cases. Again, I'm not trying to be rude; rather, I'm
merely stating my heartfelt belief.
Before ignoring the rest of this message, please realize that
I consider your views as kooky as you might view someone
who had as his life ambition going to mars building his own
rocket out of toilet paper spindles. So please bear with my
somewhat sarcastic tone and put yourself in my shoes for a
moment.
I'm curious about some things, now that I've actually
met (cyberspace wise) a real live human being who actually
believes the wacked-out tenets of PETA.
Here's what I'd sincerely like to learn about you:
1) Where in the world did your views come from?
2) Do you eat meat?
3) Have you ever had pets?
4) Have you, or anyone you loved, been helped by animal
research (remember, this means basically anyone who's been
helped by medical science).
5) If you were in a situation where you could save either
1) A 3-year old child or a
2) Dog
which would you save?
6) Same as #5, comparing a rat to a goldfish.
7) Same as #6, comparing a goldfish to a piranha.
8) Same as #7, comparing an amoeba to a bacteria.
9) Same as #7, comparing a fly to a praying mantis.
Your thoughtful responses would be most appreciated.
Oh, and I believe that Jazmyn's views were meant very much to be
humorous.
Wayne VanTassel
RannnD wrote:
>
> Todd Andrews wrote, among other things:
>
> >Okay, so you are a card carrying PETA member.
>
> >You actually believe in all that garbage?
>
> >I'm not trying to be rude, but I really think that anyone
> >who would believe in the tenets of PETA are absolute
> >nut cases. Again, I'm not trying to be rude; rather, I'm
> >merely stating my heartfelt belief.
>
> While I realize that Todd was trying to be funny, to a point, I just
> wanted to chime in here to say that anyone who believes in the
> compassionate ideals of PETA is not a nut case.
>
> I may be a bit nutty for taking the time to respond to Todd's
> posting.... but I assure you that I am a mentally stable person.
>
> And my "heartfelt belief" is that helping and protecting animals from
> suffering cannot be accurately called "garbage."
>
> Thanks !!! :-)
What do you call the mass extermination of entire species? Because is
PETA's stated goal with regard to dogs and cats.
--
Wayne Van Tassel
Wii Gimawnjii'idimin Gaye Wii Nibawaadaanamin
(We will all meet together and we will dream)
RannnD
Jack D Papin
In article <jazmynE6...@netcom.com>, jaz...@netcom.com (Jazmyn
Concolor) wrote:
> In article <APC&1'0'5b8bfa40'3...@igc.apc.org>,
> Douglas A. Percival <dper...@igc.apc.org> wrote:
> >jazmyn wrote:
> >
> >> Oh look..They replaced Doug since he
> >> renounced PETA and joined the real
> >> world. :)
> >>
> >> Or maybe they replaced Doug for being
> >> wishy washy.
> >
>
Hooray! Another Brainwashed PETA lacky freed from slavery!
Now, go buy a carnivorous pet and share a hamburger with your new pal!:)
Dont feel too bad, we all make mistakes.
Remember....Animal welfare not 'animal Rights!'
PETA is a religion of nature worship, and self-righteous hatred of others.
Its eco-communism!>:(-
Check out Libertarianism on the Web and read about the populist nature views of
Teddy (Theodoore) Roosevelt! Youll like what you see!:)
Best Regards!
Jack D Papin
-John 3:16-
Mike Brock
Simply put, PeTA takes your money and your time and then spends it on
their favorite cause, themselves.
BTW: I love animals, anyway you cook them.
Jazmyn Concolor
In article <APC&1'0'5b8bfa44'5...@igc.apc.org>,
>
>> So who posted this then? Santa Claus?
>
(Stuff deleted)
So why didn't you answer the post back when it was first posted? Since you
never did, it was assumed you had quit PETA and left the net.
And no...I don't like you either..I have an aversion to brainwashed
religious fanatics of all kinds.. I personaly can't believe you still believe
all that BS PETA spouts off.. Tell me WHY PETA bankrolls it money every year.
What are they saving up millions of dollars for anyway? To buy an army? To
fund terrorists? Its certainly not to fund local shelters..They don't get a dime
of it and concider PETA a farce like the rest of the people whos IQs are above
40...
John Mercer
RannnD <ran...@aol.com> wrote:
> Todd Andrews wrote, among other things:
>
> >Okay, so you are a card carrying PETA member.
>
> >You actually believe in all that garbage?
>
> >I'm not trying to be rude, but I really think that anyone
> >who would believe in the tenets of PETA are absolute
> >nut cases. Again, I'm not trying to be rude; rather, I'm
> >merely stating my heartfelt belief.
>
> =======================================================
> While I realize that Todd was trying to be funny, to a point, I just
> wanted to chime in here to say that anyone who believes in the
> compassionate ideals of PETA is not a nut case.
I think that he was referring to belief in the *lies* of PeTA, not its
ideals. Why do they feel the need to lie?
> I may be a bit nutty for taking the time to respond to Todd's
> posting.... but I assure you that I am a mentally stable person.
I believe you. The real question is, are you an informed person?
> And my "heartfelt belief" is that helping and protecting animals from
> suffering cannot be accurately called "garbage."
What do you call PeTA's lying about those whom they wish to demonize for
purely political reasons, RannnD?
--
John Mercer
Scientist
McLaughlin Research Institute
The Nit Nurse
|> In article <331565...@nicom.com>, <ali...@nicom.com> wrote:
|> >M.Ju...@inter.nl.net (Martin & Corine Judkins) wrote:
|> >
|> >>Folks, if you believe this person, check out PETA's site. You'll find
|> >>that it is in their charter to abolish all uses of animals INCLUDING
|> >>THE USE OF ANIMALS AS PETS. It's the ideological equivalent of
>turning them loose to fend for themselves.
|> >
|> >This is simply not true. I encourage anyone with doubts to go to
|> >PETA's website and see for yourself: http://envirolink.org/arrs/peta.
From:http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/peta/facts/com/fscom19.htm
Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?
"...it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby
"perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive."
and...
"What You Can Do
"
" o Spay or neuter dogs and cats. "
David L Evens
: >Okay, so you are a card carrying PETA member.
: >You actually believe in all that garbage?
: >I'm not trying to be rude, but I really think that anyone
: >who would believe in the tenets of PETA are absolute
: >nut cases. Again, I'm not trying to be rude; rather, I'm
: >merely stating my heartfelt belief.
: =======================================================
: While I realize that Todd was trying to be funny, to a point, I just
: wanted to chime in here to say that anyone who believes in the
: compassionate ideals of PETA is not a nut case.
: I may be a bit nutty for taking the time to respond to Todd's
: posting.... but I assure you that I am a mentally stable person.
: And my "heartfelt belief" is that helping and protecting animals from
: suffering cannot be accurately called "garbage."
The problem with this being that protecting animals from suffering cannot
be accurately called an objective of P'E'TA Corp.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carla & Steen
In article <dam-100397...@kerrera.dcs.gla.ac.uk>,
d...@kerrera.dcs.gla.ac.uk (The Nit Nurse) wrote:
> "What You Can Do
> "
> " o Spay or neuter dogs and cats. "
So PETA encourages you to spay & neuter pets. What a horrible crime.
What are we going to do with the overflowing animal shelters? And then we
would put people out of work, who are now gainfully employed euthanizing
discarded pets!!!
Seriously, did you even ponder the reason why PETA suggests this, or are
you simply grasping for something to discredit PETA with because you donšt
agree with them??
Whatever you think about PETA or their opinion about pets, I would find it
unwise to insult the intelligence of the rest of us who are not PETA
members, but who care about animals.
I immensely dislike the irresponsibility of many pet owners who buy pets
without giving thought to the care and time needed, and who then let them
loose on their own. I also find the conditions of puppy mills etc.
appaling. This does NOT mean that I think any use of animals is immoral.
Rather it is my opinion that people should take responsibility for their
actions, and this includes SPAYING AND NEUTERING.
Steen Goddik
David Bold
In article <gibson-1103...@rby1-m2.btigate.com>, gib...@btigate.com (Carla & Steen) writes:
>In article <dam-100397...@kerrera.dcs.gla.ac.uk>,
>d...@kerrera.dcs.gla.ac.uk (The Nit Nurse) wrote:
>
>So PETA encourages you to spay & neuter pets. What a horrible crime.
>What are we going to do with the overflowing animal shelters? And then we
>would put people out of work, who are now gainfully employed euthanizing
>discarded pets!!!
One doesn't euthanise in these situations, one kills the results of a
human reneging of responsibility. The motive is different.
<deletia>
>I immensely dislike the irresponsibility of many pet owners who buy pets
>without giving thought to the care and time needed, and who then let them
>loose on their own. I also find the conditions of puppy mills etc.
>appaling. This does NOT mean that I think any use of animals is immoral.
>Rather it is my opinion that people should take responsibility for their
>actions, and this includes SPAYING AND NEUTERING.
Indeed. Perhaps humans should apply to adopt domestic animals rather
than own them as property and make them subject to an assessment of
suitability and capability. If those animals were accorded legal rights
to state care based on their welfare interests then the adopters would
be culpable for any neglect of the animal's welfare interests rather
than just for some vague indirect duty not to inflict cruelty.
Just entertaining the thought ...
Martin & Corine Judkins
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 23:19:43 -0600, gib...@btigate.com (Carla & Steen)
wrote:
>In article <dam-100397...@kerrera.dcs.gla.ac.uk>,
>d...@kerrera.dcs.gla.ac.uk (The Nit Nurse) wrote:
>
>> "What You Can Do
>> "
>> " o Spay or neuter dogs and cats. "
>
>So PETA encourages you to spay & neuter pets. What a horrible crime.
>What are we going to do with the overflowing animal shelters? And then we
>would put people out of work, who are now gainfully employed euthanizing
>discarded pets!!!
No, PETA does not simply encourage you. PETA wants =all= cats and dogs
to be spayed and neutered. PETA wants it to become mandatory that
=all= cats and dogs are spayed and neutered.
This means, if PETA has its way, that in a very short time, there will
be NO cats and dogs left as pets.
The problem with this whole situation is that it is only going to
affect the already =responsible= pet owners. It will have no bearing
whatsoever on irresponsible pet owners. And =they= are the ones
causing the majority of inhabitants of animal shelters!!
Corine
Martin's Irish music page:
http://www.inter.nl.net/users/M.Judkins/martin.html
Corine's Siamese cattery page:
http://www.inter.nl.net/users/M.Judkins/astra.html
ICCSBW homepage:
http://www1.tip.nl/users/t342406/home.html
Martin & Corine Judkins
>Indeed. Perhaps humans should apply to adopt domestic animals rather
>than own them as property and make them subject to an assessment of
>suitability and capability. If those animals were accorded legal rights
>to state care based on their welfare interests then the adopters would
>be culpable for any neglect of the animal's welfare interests rather
>than just for some vague indirect duty not to inflict cruelty.
And who are you going to put in charge of =that=. What kind of legal
rights are you talking about. They already have legal rights, they are
called animal cruelty laws. Many shelters already have such strict
adoption laws that the average couple, both working a job, has =no=
chance of adopting a cat from a shelter in many places.
As with human adoption and fostering agencies, there are already
people in there who are trying to make it so difficult for people to
adopt that many good couples don't make it through the process.
How in heavens name would you apply this to animals???
Many breeders already have such strict adoption policies in place. As
for my part, if people don't get through my selection process, then
they don't get one of my kittens. And I follow up. I stay in touch, a
phone call once in a while, a card or a letter, just to make sure that
the kitten is doing ok. Will animal shelters be doing the same thing?
I don't think so! Where are they going to get the manpower to do the
sort of thing I do for my kittens??
Pet overpopulation is not caused by responsible owners, who will
spay/neuter their household pet. Pet overpopulation is caused by
irresponsible owners who breed their HHP because "it's so nice for the
kids" or "it would be unfair to fluffy", who do not give any thought
to the sort of commitment that is necessary for a kitten to go to and
remain in a loving, caring, responsible home. If a kitten of my
breeding cannot stay with the family that bought it, it comes back to
=me=. How many HHP-owners will do the same thing?
The only people who are going to be affected by stricter rules and
regulations are the people that are responsible owners already,
because they will want to stick to the law and do what is best for
their animal. The people who are not reponsible pet owners will simply
dump fluffy at the nearest shelter (or tie him to a tree in the woods)
when s/he finds out that the law requires certain things of a pet
owner.
Wayne VanTassel
Carla & Steen wrote:
> So PETA encourages you to spay & neuter pets. What a horrible crime.
> What are we going to do with the overflowing animal shelters? And then we
> would put people out of work, who are now gainfully employed euthanizing
> discarded pets!!!
>
Yes, actually. According to their leaders eliminating overpopulation is
just the first step into eliminating the entire species. The
extermination of all dogs and cats is their stated goal.
> or are
> you simply grasping for something to discredit PETA with because you donšt
> agree with them??
No need to grasp at straws to discredit PETA.
>
> Whatever you think about PETA or their opinion about pets, I would find it
> unwise to insult the intelligence of the rest of us who are not PETA
> members, but who care about animals.
Actually it is PETA who insults the intelligence of animal lovers by
feigning a public concern for companion animals while less publicly
working for their total extermination.
John Mercer
Carla & Steen <gib...@btigate.com> wrote:
> In article <dam-100397...@kerrera.dcs.gla.ac.uk>,
> d...@kerrera.dcs.gla.ac.uk (The Nit Nurse) wrote:
>
> > "What You Can Do
> > "
> > " o Spay or neuter dogs and cats. "
>
> So PETA encourages you to spay & neuter pets. What a horrible crime.
Not a horrible crime, just horribly inconsistent.
> Seriously, did you even ponder the reason why PETA suggests this, or are
> you simply grasping for something to discredit PETA with because you don't
> agree with them??
How could they possibly suggest the fascist denial of reproductive
rights to animals, if animals have rights?
Did you ponder this?
---snip---
> I immensely dislike the irresponsibility of many pet owners who buy pets
> without giving thought to the care and time needed, and who then let them
> loose on their own. I also find the conditions of puppy mills etc.
> appaling.
Me too.
> This does NOT mean that I think any use of animals is immoral.
Obviously. If you felt that animals have rights, you would have no right
to spay them.
> Rather it is my opinion that people should take responsibility for their
> actions, and this includes SPAYING AND NEUTERING.
Right--because animals don't have rights.
g watson
Wayne VanTassel wrote:
>
> Actually it is PETA who insults the intelligence of animal lovers by
> feigning a public concern for companion animals while less publicly
> working for their total extermination.
>
Which in fact is extinction. Extinction in any form is bad and serious!!
Doesn't matter species or critter you refer to extinction is not ever good.
Gwen
Pam
Martin & Corine Judkins wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 23:19:43 -0600, gib...@btigate.com (Carla & Steen)
>
> >In article <dam-100397...@kerrera.dcs.gla.ac.uk>,
> >d...@kerrera.dcs.gla.ac.uk (The Nit Nurse) wrote:
> >
> >> "What You Can Do
> >> "
> >> " o Spay or neuter dogs and cats. "
> >
> >So PETA encourages you to spay & neuter pets. What a horrible crime.
> >would put people out of work, who are now gainfully employed euthanizing
> >discarded pets!!!
>
> to be spayed and neutered. PETA wants it to become mandatory that
> =all= cats and dogs are spayed and neutered.
the web page is obviously nothing but a recommendation to the random
people browsing by.
But that point aside, I happen to be pretty amenable to the idea that
*all* animals should be spayed and neutered. It is pretty rough on me,
as I have always lived with cats and dogs and actually found them
instrumental in my growing respect for animals. In ways I would like to
see a better option, but the elimination of "pets" seems so far superior
to our current situation, that for the moment I can embrace it.
Just to point out in general - I am an "ARA" I suppose according to most
of the people here, and my emotion based decision would definately be
to cling to the institution of pet ownership. I can't even imagine
what my life would be like without cats around the house, but I make an
ethical decision to forego that in hopes of preventing suffering.
> This means, if PETA has its way, that in a very short time, there will
> be NO cats and dogs left as pets.
This is true, and it's hard to swallow. It is also incredibly unlikely
that peta will "get its way" on this. Even if a law was passed, it
would be semi-difficult to enforce and I assume it would take
generations before we even got to a point where the shelters didn't have
to kill animals off.
> The problem with this whole situation is that it is only going to
> affect the already =responsible= pet owners. It will have no bearing
> whatsoever on irresponsible pet owners. And =they= are the ones
> causing the majority of inhabitants of animal shelters!!
This is a problem in your argument. If the irresponsible people keep
breeding animals and causing this problem then pets won't be abolished,
right?? It would seem that your concern is that it would be impossible
to run a breeding program and charge hundreds of dollars for these
kittens you care so much about.
>
> Corine
I would personally be happy if we could just get to a point where we got
rid of breeds and pet shows. Okay, I wouldn't be happy, I want an end
to overpopulation and a situation where every animal that needs one has
a good home. But I do believe that the whole mindset that allows people
to "responsibly" breed more cats or dogs (ha ha) while cats and dogs are
being killed daily because of overpopulation is a serious problem. The
whole idea that a siamese is worth (what?? I have no idea - $200? 800?)
when a tabby can't even find a home is completely abhorrent to me. Also
the idea that human breeders can come up with better cats and dogs than
nature left to itself is just ludicrous to me.
So, yes, just so there is no confusion, I am completely out to abolish
your hobby/lifestyle/I don't know what it is, as part of a larger
agenda. I want to ask you whether you think about these issues, whether
you have any agenda beyond complete selfishness. But I can't imagine
that you do. Is it really important to you that the world not suffer
from lack of siamese cats?? do you really think that would have a large
negative impact?? or are you just into the money and the glory?? (like
I am really gonna get an honest answer on that one)
David Veal
[Followups to t.p.a.]
In article <332691...@utig.ig.utexas.edu>,
g watson <gw...@utig.ig.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Which in fact is extinction. Extinction in any form is bad and serious!!
>Doesn't matter species or critter you refer to extinction is not ever good.
If you think we're bad for the ecosystem, imagine every species that
has ever existed but is now extinct suddenly popping back into existence.
--
David Veal ve...@utkux.utk.edu
"Any smoothly functioning technology will be
indistinguishable from a rigged demo." Isaac Asimov
Jack D Papin
See PETA people are Hypocrytes! Neutering is CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Chuck Narad
(newsgroups trimmed to t.p.a. only)
In article <1997Mar12.0...@terminus.ericsson.se>, da...@terminus.ericsson.se writes:
> In article <gibson-1103...@rby1-m2.btigate.com>, gib...@btigate.com (Carla & Steen) writes:
> >
> >So PETA encourages you to spay & neuter pets. What a horrible crime.
> >What are we going to do with the overflowing animal shelters? And then we
> >would put people out of work, who are now gainfully employed euthanizing
> >discarded pets!!!
>
> One doesn't euthanise in these situations, one kills the results of a
> human reneging of responsibility. The motive is different.
the action and the result are the same.
c/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Chuck Narad -- diver/adventurer/engineer |
| |
| "Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. And today? |
| Today is a gift. That's why we call it The Present." |
| - Babatunde Olatunji |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Carla & Steen
In article <papin.2-1203...@ts25-9.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
pap...@pop.service.ohio-state.edu (Jack D Papin) wrote:
> See PETA people are Hypocrytes! Neutering is CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
You guys donšt get it. PETA is not the only org./group encouraging
neutering. So the rest of us, who think pet overpopulation, with the
accompanying euthenizing, animal shelters etc. is an issue of concern
suddenly have become fanatics??
Steen
Carla & Steen
In article <3326C5...@unix.newnorth.net>, Wayne VanTassel
<wvta...@unix.newnorth.net> wrote:
> Carla & Steen wrote:
>
> > So PETA encourages you to spay & neuter pets. What a horrible crime.
> > What are we going to do with the overflowing animal shelters? And then we
> > would put people out of work, who are now gainfully employed euthanizing
> > discarded pets!!!
> >
> > Seriously, did you even ponder the reason why PETA suggests this,
>
> Yes, actually. According to their leaders eliminating overpopulation is
> just the first step into eliminating the entire species. The
> extermination of all dogs and cats is their stated goal.
First step, YES. And is it so wrong to go that one step, or are you one
of the dicotic people who only see either extreme, rather than a balanced
outcome?? Even if you donšt like PETA, I have trouble seeing why their
encouragement to spay/neuter would be inflamatory. It sounds to me like a
case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
>
> > or are
> > you simply grasping for something to discredit PETA with because you donšt
> > agree with them??
>
> No need to grasp at straws to discredit PETA.
No, but you just tipped over the whole haystack with the rest of us in it.
>
> >
> > Whatever you think about PETA or their opinion about pets, I would find it
> > unwise to insult the intelligence of the rest of us who are not PETA
> > members, but who care about animals.
>
> Actually it is PETA who insults the intelligence of animal lovers by
> feigning a public concern for companion animals while less publicly
> working for their total extermination.
They can feign all they want. I still think that it is a good idea.
Then, when that goal is reached, then the further agenda can be dealt
with. If the majority then dissagree, then it stops right there. THAT is
the blessing of a democracy.
Steen Goddik
Tirya
Carla & Steen (gib...@btigate.com) said...
The only thing I might be considered "fanatic" about is that these
irresponsible idiots who think Fluffy should have a litter "so she can
know the joy of motherhood" or "so the kids can see the miracle of life"
should be tied into a sack and drowned. That would at least keep 5 - 8
helpless animals from suffering the same fate.
Tirya
--
ti...@enteract.com http://www.enteract.com/~tirya NO JUNK EMAIL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ain't looking for no final destination with you.
I never want to get there.
And I ain't looking for no final resting place with you.
I never wanna die... - Edie Brickell, "Woyaho"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel and Rebekah
Carla & Steen wrote:
> =
> In article <dam-100397...@kerrera.dcs.gla.ac.uk>,
> d...@kerrera.dcs.gla.ac.uk (The Nit Nurse) wrote:
> =
> > "What You Can Do
> > "
> > " o Spay or neuter dogs and cats. "
> =
> So PETA encourages you to spay & neuter pets. What a horrible crime.
> What are we going to do with the overflowing animal shelters? And then=
we
> would put people out of work, who are now gainfully employed euthanizin=
g
> discarded pets!!!
> =
> Seriously, did you even ponder the reason why PETA suggests this, or ar=
e
> you simply grasping for something to discredit PETA with because you do=
n=B9t
> agree with them??
> =
> Whatever you think about PETA or their opinion about pets, I would find=
it
> unwise to insult the intelligence of the rest of us who are not PETA
> members, but who care about animals.
> =
> I immensely dislike the irresponsibility of many pet owners who buy pet=
s
> without giving thought to the care and time needed, and who then let th=
em
> loose on their own. I also find the conditions of puppy mills etc.
> appaling. This does NOT mean that I think any use of animals is immora=
l.
> Rather it is my opinion that people should take responsibility for thei=
r
> actions, and this includes SPAYING AND NEUTERING.
> =
> Steen Goddik
My family lives on a farm, needless to say, we are sonstantly being
bambarded with stray and unwanted cats taht somehow find their way into
our barn. My parents can't afford to vaccinate all of these animals, all
of our personal pets are, but not the "barn" ones. Recently we had a
rabid racoon on the farm and the vet stated that for the safty of the
rest of the community, we should put to "sleep" all of the barn cats.
Needless to say, we euthanised 23 cats. It was one of the most horrible
things I have ever had to witness, I love animals, especially cats, but
there was nothing else we could do. Our local shelter couldn't take any,
they already have too many to look after. If the parents of these cats
had been spayed and neutered this murder would never had to have
happened, I think that any animal organization that believes in spaying
and neutering is trying to stop the over population of unwanted animals.
I think that they are being responsible and obviously care about
animals. Animals should be loved and cared for. If this included spaying
and neutering to stop over population then so be it. I have had my
three cats fixed, not because I am cruel but because I am caring and
responsible for their well-being.
Rebekah. yu13...@yorku.ca
David Bold
In article <3326a4c6...@news1.inter.nl.net>, M.Ju...@inter.nl.net (Martin & Corine Judkins) writes:
>On Wed, 12 Mar 97 09:49:42 GMT, da...@terminus.ericsson.se (David
>Bold) wrote:
>
>>Indeed. Perhaps humans should apply to adopt domestic animals rather
>>than own them as property and make them subject to an assessment of
>>suitability and capability. If those animals were accorded legal rights
>>to state care based on their welfare interests then the adopters would
>>be culpable for any neglect of the animal's welfare interests rather
>>than just for some vague indirect duty not to inflict cruelty.
>
>rights are you talking about. They already have legal rights, they are
>called animal cruelty laws.
Whilst I'm inclined to see cruelty laws as *implying* rights, animals
in the UK are considered as property rather than rights-holders. This
is why they may be killed if the property owners wish to dispose of
them and why euthanasia is an odd word for this activity. The animal
cruelty laws make for a strange situation in the UK where, for example,
domestic or captive animals cannot be tortured but wild mammals such
as foxes may be subject to all sorts of abuse for pleasure. I don't
consider them particularly sensible or useful to true animal welfare.
>Many shelters already have such strict
>adoption laws that the average couple, both working a job, has =no=
>chance of adopting a cat from a shelter in many places.
Shelters, yes, pet shops or commercial outlets, no. Presumably, the
former are staffed by animal welfarists who recognise at least some
welfare issues for the animals concerned even if they are constrained
by utilitarian assessments, whilst the latter are sometimes *just* in
for the profit.
>As with human adoption and fostering agencies, there are already
>people in there who are trying to make it so difficult for people to
>adopt that many good couples don't make it through the process.
Intuitively, I'd say that human welfare interests are much more
important even if one took a strict animal rights stance because there
are social and political considerations to be made. Let's not set the
hypothetical standards too high here. Afterall, there is probably a
very strong case for retaining "companion animals" despite PETA's
aims if one considers animal welfare centered in the animal itself and
the benefits to both sides of the "social contract" in the symbiotic
relationship domesticated animals have within human society.
>How in heavens name would you apply this to animals???
>
>Many breeders already have such strict adoption policies in place. As
>for my part, if people don't get through my selection process, then
>they don't get one of my kittens. And I follow up. I stay in touch, a
>phone call once in a while, a card or a letter, just to make sure that
>the kitten is doing ok. Will animal shelters be doing the same thing?
>I don't think so! Where are they going to get the manpower to do the
>sort of thing I do for my kittens??
State care and funding perhaps? If the animals have legal rights then
there will be recourse to justice and the obligation of the state to
uphold that. Perhaps taxing all pet-ownership may achieve finance to
provide state care services for those instances where (say) elderly
adopters have died without making provision for their adoptees, and
may actively discourage those who adopt animals on a whim. Whilst
funding might seem prohibitively expensive now, a gestalt shift would
probably make a utilitarian assessment much easier in the future.
>Pet overpopulation is not caused by responsible owners, who will
>spay/neuter their household pet. Pet overpopulation is caused by
>irresponsible owners who breed their HHP because "it's so nice for the
>kids" or "it would be unfair to fluffy", who do not give any thought
>to the sort of commitment that is necessary for a kitten to go to and
>remain in a loving, caring, responsible home. If a kitten of my
>breeding cannot stay with the family that bought it, it comes back to
>=me=. How many HHP-owners will do the same thing?
If welfare interests become protected by the state then legislation
may follow to make this sort of thing mandatory. Incidentally, I'd
be inclined to support research into animal contraception and/or
vasectomies rather than neutering but that's further down the track.
>The only people who are going to be affected by stricter rules and
>regulations are the people that are responsible owners already,
>because they will want to stick to the law and do what is best for
>their animal. The people who are not reponsible pet owners will simply
>dump fluffy at the nearest shelter (or tie him to a tree in the woods)
>when s/he finds out that the law requires certain things of a pet
>owner.
Electronic tagging, licensing, breeding records, stiff sentences for
failure to adhere to the law? Let's face it, there are child and
other moral patient abuses now whether or not laws and support services
are aimed to protect them but the object is pragmatically to minimise
such abuses.
(I'm still entertaining an idea, by the way, to paraphrase Aristotle).
David.
t.p.a
Kirk Haines
Carla & Steen (gib...@btigate.com) wrote:
:
: I immensely dislike the irresponsibility of many pet owners who buy pets
: without giving thought to the care and time needed, and who then let them
: loose on their own. I also find the conditions of puppy mills etc.
: appaling. This does NOT mean that I think any use of animals is immoral.
: Rather it is my opinion that people should take responsibility for their
: actions, and this includes SPAYING AND NEUTERING.
I have nothign against spaying and neutering most pet animal in an effort
to reduce the surplus population, but PETA also advocates putting out of
business breeders who are trying to improve the breeds they work with, and
breed out the defects caused by careless puppy-mill style breeding.
Michelle
Flutist
Carla & Steen
The original post claimed PETAs total fanaticism by their support of
spaying/neutering. This was the attitude I spoke out against. I agree
completely with your concern about real breeders, but am worried about the
narrow minded people who is throwing the baby out with the bath water,
just to be able to critizise PETA. I had trouble accepting their implied
message; that if PETA supports an idea, it MUST be bad, and we should all
fight against it.
Sincerely,
Steen Goddik
-----------------------------
In article <5g7gtd$iso$1...@quasar.dimensional.com>, oshc...@dimensional.com
Janis
Pam wrote:
> whole idea that a siamese is worth (what?? I have no idea - $200? 800?)
> when a tabby can't even find a home is completely abhorrent to me. Also
> the idea that human breeders can come up with better cats and dogs than
> nature left to itself is just ludicrous to me.
>
> So, yes, just so there is no confusion, I am completely out to abolish
> your hobby/lifestyle/I don't know what it is, as part of a larger
> agenda. I want to ask you whether you think about these issues, whether
> you have any agenda beyond complete selfishness. But I can't imagine
> that you do. Is it really important to you that the world not suffer
> from lack of siamese cats??
woohoo!!! way to go Pam!! i couldn't have said it better myself!
the very idea that pets are gonna be eliminated by a minority group like
PETA (no matter how popular they get) is ludicrous. Yes, the leaders
are bordering on insanity -- but I truly don't think they are gonna get
what they want with regard to eliminating pets.
the part I will continue to support is that we need to get a handle on
the pet overpopulation before we can realistically stand back & assess
what exactly constitutes *rational* breeding programs. if you people
who are all riled up by PETA were to visit an animal shelter like the
one i do volunteer work at, you would immediately see just how far away
we are from ever realizing even a tiny bit of PETA's agenda -- as far as
both neutering & animal-cruelty are concerned.
btw, Houston already offers financial incentives to people who neuter
their pets -- cheaper pet licensing prices. but, the folks who wouldn't
be neutering their animals cuz they are ignorant are the same ones who
don't vaccinate or register them, either -- so what is the big deal?
oh - & yes, I give money to PETA!
--
--janis,etc
Have you loved on a Bunny today?
Bunny Buddies: 713-686-0073
http://www.compassnet.com/rabbit/
Martin & Corine Judkins
On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:32:33 -0600, Pam <don'ts...@whatever.net>
wrote:
>Martin & Corine Judkins wrote:
>So, yes, just so there is no confusion, I am completely out to abolish
>your hobby/lifestyle/I don't know what it is, as part of a larger
>agenda. I want to ask you whether you think about these issues, whether
>you have any agenda beyond complete selfishness. But I can't imagine
>that you do. Is it really important to you that the world not suffer
>from lack of siamese cats?? do you really think that would have a large
>negative impact?? or are you just into the money and the glory?? (like
>I am really gonna get an honest answer on that one)
>
>Pam
>nc...@bitstream.net
>
Money and glory... hahaha.. sorry, but I just couldn't help laughing
at that one. If I were into this for the money, I'd need my head
looking at.
First of all, I'm not in the US, I'm in The Netherlands, where prices
charged for kittens are about 1/3 of those charged in the US.
I breed one litter per queen per year, I currently have 2 breeding
girls, one to be spayed shortly.
A litter of 4 will cost me around US$ 1000 to raise. That litter will
sell for a total of US$ 1200. So my grand profit for one litter is US$
200, you can really tell I'm into this for the money, can't you.
If I need to visit the vet with the kittens, that entire "profit" will
be wiped out.
Ok, so much for the money bit.
The glory bit. =What= glory???? I go to shows on average 4 to 5 times
a year. The quality of Siamese in this country is such that most
Siamese entered in a show are very good examples of their breed. Once
in a while I get a Best in Variety or Best in Show and yes, I'm
extremely pleased when that happens.
So, as far as your conclusions to my character, how funny you seem to
be able to conclude anything about me at all, from the fact that I'm a
breeder. And especially the bit where you accuse me of not thinking of
anything at all.
Now, where did I state that I was out to make sure that the world
suffer no shortage of Siamese cats? And where precisely did I state
that I thought it would have a large negative impact on the world?
I've looked over all my other posts and nowhere did I state that.
You see, the problem with you is not that you're out for the welfare
of animals. You're after CONTROL. You want to be able to tell me how I
should live my life. You want to be able to legislate my way of life
so that it suits YOU.
So let me tell you something, your rights end where my nose begins,
and you so much as touch my nose with a feather and I'll have your arm
of, metaphorically speaking.
Martin & Corine Judkins
>I would personally be happy if we could just get to a point where we got
>rid of breeds and pet shows. Okay, I wouldn't be happy, I want an end
>to overpopulation and a situation where every animal that needs one has
>a good home. But I do believe that the whole mindset that allows people
>to "responsibly" breed more cats or dogs (ha ha) while cats and dogs are
>being killed daily because of overpopulation is a serious problem.
In the US, only 2% of the feline population in animal shelters is
purebred.
That means 98% of the feline population is random bred.
Now =WHO= is causing a problem here?
Take away breeds, and you will have solved exactly 2% of your
overpopulation problem.
Now, that would really solve the problem, wouldn't it?? (NOT!)
The answer to the overpopulation problem is not restricting people's
rights, the answer to the overpopulation problem is education,
education and education.
And just to turn these mandatory this and that thoughts around.
There is a problem with irresponsible parents abusing their children,
and an overpopulation problem with humans on the planet.
In order to solve the problem of child-abuse, we will be demanding
mandatory spay/neuter for all humans.
B A Cragg
g watson (gw...@utig.ig.utexas.edu) wrote:
: Wayne VanTassel wrote:
: >
: > Actually it is PETA who insults the intelligence of animal lovers by
: > feigning a public concern for companion animals while less publicly
: > working for their total extermination.
: > Wayne Van Tassel
:
: Which in fact is extinction. Extinction in any form is bad and serious!!
Extinction is neither good or bad it just is. It might be good or bad when
viewed from a human perspective but we are just one species and pretty
irrelevant.
In the course of geological time more species of plants and animals have
become extinct than are currently alive, that must make it quite a
commonplace event.
BAZZA
Vicki Russell
>Many shelters already have such strict
>adoption laws that the average couple, both working a job, has =no=
>chance of adopting a cat from a shelter in many places.
I ran into this adoption law 12 years ago when I went to get a dog from
my local shelter. Since I worked and could not spend "quality" time
with the animal - I was refused to adopt. I was very upset that the
dog I wanted was due to be "put down" in a couple of days. I ended
up saving a 2 week old puppy from being "put down" and nursed her
by bottle. She is now 12 years old, spoiled rotten, and very happy
even though I work.
g watson
> > Actually it is PETA who insults the intelligence of animal lovers by
> > feigning a public concern for companion animals while less publicly
> > working for their total extermination.
Especially when they go around pretending to advocate animal rights! When
in fact animals have no rights because if they did I doubt very seriously if
any of them would opt to be spayed and neutered! Would you? Of course
not. There are millions of people in third world countries starving
everyday. Do any of these people opt to be spayed and neutered? Again of
course not. Why because humans have rights. Animals don't if they did they
would not allow spaying and neutering.
Bottom line PETA is not an advocate for animal rights or even for animal
cause. They are just one more organization ripping people off!
Gwen
Sharon Talbert
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Carla & Steen wrote:
> The original post claimed PETAs total fanaticism by their support of
> spaying/neutering. This was the attitude I spoke out against. I agree
> completely with your concern about real breeders, but am worried about the
> narrow minded people who is throwing the baby out with the bath water,
> just to be able to critizise PETA. I had trouble accepting their implied
> message; that if PETA supports an idea, it MUST be bad, and we should all
> fight against it.
>
Actually, PETA aside, let's talk about pet over-population. it is far too
easy to blame breeders (especially the scum "puppymillers") for pet over
population and to excuse the average schmucks who do not sterilize their
household pets. Pogo had it right: "We have met the enemy and they is
us."
Sharon Talbert
Friends of Campus Cats
Sharon Talbert
Friends of Campus Cats assumes most adult households have more than one
working member but do not refuse adoption on those grounds. We gladly
adopt cats or kittens in companionable pairs to such a home -- if it is a
good home -- and will consider adopting a single cat (but not kitten) to
such a home, if the match is right. After all, working folks are home as
much as (often more than) anyone else. Quality time should not be equated
with quantity time. Glad you got that pup, Vicki -- bet she is, too!
Carla & Steen
In article <3327CA...@utig.ig.utexas.edu>, g watson
<gw...@utig.ig.utexas.edu> wrote:
So now we are comparing self-determining people with pets???
It is exactly BECAUSE they are pets, that their caretakers are
responsible. Humans have the self determination to act however they
want/can with regards to reproductions (although I am sure many women in
the *third world* and other *more developed* regions who would be very
grateful for access to birthcontrol).
Pets, however, only have their instinct to propagate their own genes to
the greatest extend possible (cornerstone of evolution). Therefore, the
humans wh control them are the ones who are (in the cultural context)
responsible. In our culture, we have decided that suffering, starvation
etc. is not desirable for pets, hence animal shelters, spaying/neutering
campaigns etc. We are not doing this because the pets want this, but
rather because it is part of what defines our cultural society.
I agree completely with this attitude. Needless suffering bothers me
immensely, and it angers me when somebody suggests that we should not try
to stop it, especially, when they are not doing this based on the welfare
of the animal in question, but solely to get back at some organisation
they dislike.
Sorry, but the wild west is GONE. We now live in a society, where
democracy and popular opinion governs everybodys situation. Popular
opinion today says that letting pets suffer because there are to many and
they are easily obtainable, causing a *disposable* attitude towards them,
is NOT acceptable. Therefore the comment that PETA is out of the
mainstream because they support spaying/neutering is WRONG. Rather, the
people who support excessive breeding of pets are the ones on the radical
fringe, and no amount of name calling at PETA will change that. Maybe you
need to re-evaluate your position on the basis of being on the radical
fringe, and see if you would not rather be part of the society. It is
awfully cold on the outside. I do not say that you have to abandon your
principles, but rather that you should look at whether your hatred of PETA
has caused you to take positions that you would not take if PETA did not
exist. To have opinions based on what the other guy says is not the same
as having opinions based on how you feel about the issue.
Steen Goddik
Brian Henderson
oshc...@dimensional.com (Kirk Haines) wrote:
>I have nothign against spaying and neutering most pet animal in an effort
>to reduce the surplus population, but PETA also advocates putting out of
>business breeders who are trying to improve the breeds they work with, and
>breed out the defects caused by careless puppy-mill style breeding.
Oh, I don't know about that. There are a lot of breeds that are
inherently dangerous to the animals, where hip displaysia, breathing
problems, etc. are all routine because some moron thinks the cat or
dog looks cute that way. Bettering the breed? I don't think so.
-Brian
Brian Henderson
gib...@btigate.com (Carla & Steen) wrote:
>The original post claimed PETAs total fanaticism by their support of
>spaying/neutering. This was the attitude I spoke out against. I agree
>completely with your concern about real breeders, but am worried about the
>narrow minded people who is throwing the baby out with the bath water,
>just to be able to critizise PETA. I had trouble accepting their implied
>message; that if PETA supports an idea, it MUST be bad, and we should all
>fight against it.
I think the point is that PETA isn't for spaying/neutering because
it's best for the animals, they are for it because they want to
ELIMINATE the animals completely. All of my animals are altered, have
all their shots, are properly licensed where necessary, and well taken
care of, but I'll be damned before I fall into line behind, or support
in any way, shape or form, the idiots and agendas behind a radical
organization like PETA.
-Brian
Tirya
g watson (gw...@utig.ig.utexas.edu) said...
> > > Actually it is PETA who insults the intelligence of animal lovers by
> > > feigning a public concern for companion animals while less publicly
> > > working for their total extermination.
>
> Especially when they go around pretending to advocate animal rights! When
> in fact animals have no rights because if they did I doubt very seriously if
> any of them would opt to be spayed and neutered! Would you? Of course
> not.
Four words: vasectomy, hysterectomy, tubal ligation.
Tirya
--
ti...@enteract.com http://www.enteract.com/~tirya NO JUNK EMAIL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Run. Run far. Run fast. FLY, if you can. | Tell him about the Twinkie.
- Mara MacLeod | - Winston
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bold
Chuck Narad wrote:
>
> > One doesn't euthanise in these situations, one kills the results of a
> > human reneging of responsibility. The motive is different.
>
> the action and the result are the same.
Indeed. The action and result would also be the same if we kill sick humans
when they become a burden to functional people. In both cases, the value of
the animal or sick person is, or would be, solely based on the utility of
that being to others. In the case of sick humans, euthanasia only becomes
conceivable if it is in the benefit of the human involved. Killing healthy
animals simply because human society is done with them is not euthanasia
but utility killing. Calling it euthanasia is simply muddying the waters.
David
Dale Anderson
gl...@mail.bris.ac.uk (B A Cragg) wrote:
>Extinction is neither good or bad it just is. It might be good or bad when
>viewed from a human perspective but we are just one species and pretty
>irrelevant.
>In the course of geological time more species of plants and animals have
>become extinct than are currently alive, that must make it quite a
>commonplace event.
One would consider it part of the evolutionary process, wouldn't one?
Dale Anderson
dand...@waun.tdsnet.com
(Not to be attributed to TDSNET)
(Not to be attributed to the State of Wisconsin)
FIDO 1:238/202
ANIMAL_RIGHTS Moderator
DAIRY_FARM Moderator
Janis
Corine responds with a lot of defensive statements:
> So, as far as your conclusions to my character, how funny you seem to
> be able to conclude anything about me at all, from the fact that I'm a
> breeder. And especially the bit where you accuse me of not thinking of
> anything at all.
ok, Corine -- you never actually say what motivates you to breed.
so **WHY** are you breeding then?? if you aren't making money or
acheiving glory?? or do the Netherlands actually have a shortage of
cats & you are accommodating a real consumer need?? (then why can't
you charge more money?)
Chuck Narad
fine, I'll go along with "utility killing" if you prefer. from the
point of view of the animal, however, it still dies.
"kills the results of a human reneging of responsibility" seems like
a strange rationalization, from my perspective.
Diane E. Emery
> Corine responds with a lot of defensive statements:
> > So, as far as your conclusions to my character, how funny you seem to
> > be able to conclude anything about me at all, from the fact that I'm a
> > breeder. And especially the bit where you accuse me of not thinking of
> > anything at all.
>
> ok, Corine -- you never actually say what motivates you to breed.
>
> so **WHY** are you breeding then?? if you aren't making money or
> acheiving glory?? or do the Netherlands actually have a shortage of
> cats & you are accommodating a real consumer need?? (then why can't
> you charge more money?)
>
> --
> --janis,etc
I cant speak for this particular breeder, but responsible breeders, who
health test their stock, show their animals, etc. do it for the love of
the breed. I dont breed now but one day, maybe, when I have the time,
money, commitment, and space, I would love to breed German Shepherds.
And you can bet they will be health tested, worked in Schutzhund, shown in
conformation, etc. I love the breed. THAT is the only reason to breed,
not so that Fluffy can get it on with Fido to fulfill some 'need' or to
show kids the mirical of life or to make a few bucks. Only because you
are dedicated to the breed.
diane
g watson
Carla & Steen wrote:
>
> The original post claimed PETAs total fanaticism by their support of
> spaying/neutering. This was the attitude I spoke out against. I agree
> completely with your concern about real breeders, but am worried about the
> narrow minded people who is throwing the baby out with the bath water,
> just to be able to critizise PETA. I had trouble accepting their implied
> message; that if PETA supports an idea, it MUST be bad, and we should all
> fight against it.
>
>
> Steen Goddik
> -----------------------------
I wrote one of the original posts and what I said was PETA is not
supporting animal RIGHTS. That is all I was pointing out. Then some
assumption came that I hated PETA. Which is far from correct. I do not
hate anyone or group. I may dislike them or what they claim to be but that
does not equate to hate.
Now again, animals would not elect to be spayed and neutered. We all
know that this is best for them in the long run. No one who cares about
animals and is responsible would chose not to spay or neuter their pets. This
is a death sentence for many offspring.
I do support spaying and neutering of dogs/cats/rabbits but I sure don't
claim to be an animal rights advocate like PETA does. I am an animal lover
and as an animal lover it is my resposibility to have my pets spayed and
neutered and encourage others to do the same.
PETA wants all dogs and cats spayed and neutered so that they will
eventually be no more domestic pets. This is their ultimate goal. They need
to more focused on preserving wildlife and rainforests and things that will
actually help endangered species of the world. If they really cared about the
ploy of animals they would be much more involved in these types of issues.
The fact is the only thing they care about is removing all animals from
mankinds hands. They do not care what happens to the
cows/chickens/bunnies/minks/fish/deer/ after they get their way. Let them
fend for theirselves is their moto. They have to be the worse excuse for
animal cause that ever hit the face of the earth.
No does this last sentence equate to hate? No just mistrust and dislike and
nausea!
Gwen
So I say to all have your pets spayed and neutered.
g watson
Martin & Corine Judkins wrote:
>
>
> Money and glory... hahaha.. sorry, but I just couldn't help laughing
> at that one. If I were into this for the money, I'd need my head
> looking at.
>
all breeders are making money and are in it for the money. I don't know of
any breeder that makes money other than hugh establishments that border
on if not being puppy mill/kitty mill/bird mill. I mostly into parrots. I do
not breed but have often wanted to breed parrots. Not for hte money
because there is no money in breeding birds. My four pet birds alone cost
me over $600.00+ to feed a year this does not include toys and other
supplies. At any rate most resposible breeder never make any money at it.
> The glory bit. =What= glory???? I go to shows on average 4 to 5 times
> a year. The quality of Siamese in this country is such that most
> Siamese entered in a show are very good examples of their breed. Once
> in a while I get a Best in Variety or Best in Show and yes, I'm
> extremely pleased when that happens.
Now as far as shows I do wish these would be eliminated. I do have to walk
on the other side of the fence on this issue. If it weren't for shows their
would be no real want/need to any particualr breed. It is the showing of
these breeds that caused the demand. We do need to see more animals in
shelters going to good homes.
>
snip
>
> You see, the problem with you is not that you're out for the welfare
> of animals. You're after CONTROL. You want to be able to tell me how I
> should live my life. You want to be able to legislate my way of life
> so that it suits YOU.
This is exactly what they are after is control. Most of these people happen to
be democrats and they love legislating something else to control others lives.
You no bicycle helmet laws, mandatory air bags so and so forth. We need
less government not more. If all you people want more government you
need to move to Cuba or somewhere that really does control the people. I
still believe in freedom.
>
snip
> Corine
Gwen
g watson
Diane E. Emery wrote:
>
> I cant speak for this particular breeder, but responsible breeders, who
> health test their stock, show their animals, etc. do it for the love of
> the breed. I dont breed now but one day, maybe, when I have the time,
> money, commitment, and space, I would love to breed German >Shepherds. And you can bet they will be health tested, worked in >Schutzhund, shown in conformation, etc. I love the breed. THAT is the >only reason to breed, not so that Fluffy can get it on with Fido to fulfill >some 'need' or to show kids the mirical of life or to make a few bucks. >Only because you are dedicated to the breed.
>
> diane
Yes this is true that the only reason for a breeder to breed a paritcular
breed is for the love of that breed. But why do we need to show that breed
and give it championship marks best of this and that? You can breed a breed
and not have to show it. I do not think showing animals with the over
abundance of aniamls is a good thing. Not to mention the health risks of the
animals when being shown. Sure Fido or kitty in the cage next door should
be and is supposed to be vaccinated but that doesn't guarantee anything.
Why do think at cat shows the breeders never allow you to touch them? Or
put feather toys near their cages? Thee do this in the attempt to prevent the
spreading of diseases. It is also very stressful for the animal to go through
the showing process.
So when you do breed do your animals a favor and not show them.
Gwen
g watson
Martin & Corine Judkins wrote:
>
> and an overpopulation problem with humans on the planet.
> In order to solve the problem of child-abuse, we will be demanding
> mandatory spay/neuter for all humans.
Yes I will vote for that! This would mean less destruction of the planet
overall. People are the ones destroying. Less destructions means more
rainforests left intact. More rainforests left intact equates to that many more
species to not be extinct. Of course that is irrational thinking because we can
not even consider such a thing. Who would chose who could or could not
have babies? At any rate it all comes back to more education.
>
> Corine
Gwen
Diane E. Emery
In article <332942...@utig.ig.utexas.edu>, g watson
<gw...@utig.ig.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Diane E. Emery wrote:
> >
> > I cant speak for this particular breeder, but responsible breeders, who
> > health test their stock, show their animals, etc. do it for the love of
> > the breed. I dont breed now but one day, maybe, when I have the time,
> > money, commitment, and space, I would love to breed German
>Shepherds. And you can bet they will be health tested, worked in
>Schutzhund, shown in conformation, etc. I love the breed. THAT is the
>only reason to breed, not so that Fluffy can get it on with Fido to
fulfill >some 'need' or to show kids the mirical of life or to make a few
bucks. >Only because you are dedicated to the breed.
> >
> > diane
>
> Yes this is true that the only reason for a breeder to breed a paritcular
> breed is for the love of that breed. But why do we need to show that breed
> and give it championship marks best of this and that? You can breed a breed
> and not have to show it. I do not think showing animals with the over
> abundance of aniamls is a good thing. Not to mention the health risks of the
> animals when being shown. Sure Fido or kitty in the cage next door should
> be and is supposed to be vaccinated but that doesn't guarantee anything.
>
Working and showing your dog proves he/she can do what the breed was bred
to do. There are German Shepherds out there that run from there own
shaddow, wouldnt herd sheep if their lives depended on it, etc. I am not
a big fan of conformation showing but it allows an individual to know that
their dog fits the criteria of the breed...that it is the right height,
ears erect, teeth all there, and tons of other things that are judged.
*Working* a dog is more important, in my mind. Stamina, willingness to
work, ability to do the job asked of it, etc. are all measured. Working
and showing your dog makes sure you are breeding an animal that correct
according to the breed standard (in the GSD case, it was written back in
the late 1800's by the founder of the breed) Also, all animals entered
into shows have to show proof of vaccination. No proof, no show.
g watson
Dale Anderson wrote:
>
> gl...@mail.bris.ac.uk (B A Cragg) wrote:
>
> >Extinction is neither good or bad it just is. It might be good or bad when
> >viewed from a human perspective but we are just one species and pretty
> >irrelevant.
> >In the course of geological time more species of plants and animals have
> >become extinct than are currently alive, that must make it quite a
> >commonplace event.
>
> One would consider it part of the evolutionary process, wouldn't one?
>
> Dale Anderson
Not when it doesn't have to happen. Have you seen the new Life magazine
about all the species being saved from extinction because of a team of people
doing research to prevent this from occuring.
Have you ever heard of the Sphinx macaw? There is only one left in the
wild. One of the most beautiful birds on the planet. Thank goodness for
breeders that have some to continue the species.
Gwen
al raff
g watson wrote:
>
> > > Actually it is PETA who insults the intelligence of animal lovers by
> > > feigning a public concern for companion animals while less publicly
> > > working for their total extermination.
>
> Especially when they go around pretending to advocate animal rights! When
> in fact animals have no rights because if they did I doubt very seriously if
> any of them would opt to be spayed and neutered! Would you? Of course
> everyday. Do any of these people opt to be spayed and neutered? Again of
> course not. Why because humans have rights. Animals don't if they did they
> would not allow spaying and neutering.
>
> Bottom line PETA is not an advocate for animal rights or even for animal
> cause. They are just one more organization ripping people off!
>
> Gwen
g watson
Vicki Russell wrote:
>
> In article <3326a4c6...@news1.inter.nl.net>, M.Ju...@inter.nl.net (Martin & Corine Judkins) says:
>
> >Many shelters already have such strict
> >adoption laws that the average couple, both working a job, has =no=
> >chance of adopting a cat from a shelter in many places.
>
> I ran into this adoption law 12 years ago when I went to get a dog from
> my local shelter. Since I worked and could not spend "quality" time
> with the animal - I was refused to adopt. I was very upset that the
> dog I wanted was due to be "put down" in a couple of days. I ended
> up saving a 2 week old puppy from being "put down" and nursed her
> by bottle. She is now 12 years old, spoiled rotten, and very happy
> even though I work.
And here is ONE of the real reasons sooo many animals are being put down
each year. It is this adoption criteria that the Human Society and SPCA have
taken that most people don't qualify for. It is the sad truth. They would
rather kill dog/cat than let many people have them. Which is directly related
to some of the things PETA has imposed on the pet world as it is today.
So glad you were able to find a dog and loved it for 12 long years and I'm
sure amny more to come. This is a sad story because the dog you had
wanted originally probably ended up dead. To think he could have had
twelve long wonderful years with a wonderful companion. SAD SAD SAD!
Gwen
g watson
Diane E. Emery wrote:
>
>
> Working and showing your dog proves he/she can do what the breed was bred
> to do. There are German Shepherds out there that run from there own
> shaddow, wouldnt herd sheep if their lives depended on it, etc. I am not
> a big fan of conformation showing but it allows an individual to know that
> their dog fits the criteria of the breed...that it is the right height,
> ears erect, teeth all there, and tons of other things that are judged.
> *Working* a dog is more important, in my mind. Stamina, willingness to
> work, ability to do the job asked of it, etc. are all measured. Working
> and showing your dog makes sure you are breeding an animal that correct
> according to the breed standard (in the GSD case, it was written back in
> the late 1800's by the founder of the breed) Also, all animals entered
> into shows have to show proof of vaccination. No proof, no show.
Proof of vaccination does not mean Fido will not get parvo for Fido next
door! Parvo vaccine is not really a vaccine but a preventative. What vaccine
that is truly a vaccine needs to be given twice a year?
As for all these so called human criterias of a breed that is the whole
problem in a the nutshell. The right height? Who cares? Are we as humans
the right height? Do we have the right teeth? What gives us the right to
impose these ideas and ideals on these breeds?
I just can not for the life of me see the need for this except for glory and
fame. The shows do need to be stopped. I do not support or like PETA but
this is one issue that does need to cease. We do not need to continue to breed
animals for some perfect stock.
Why not just clone if you want perfection? They can do that now you know?
That will be the next step. Cloning race horses. Perfect show dogs. Perfect
beef. We need to get a grip on why we think something should have to llok
a certain way to be considered worthy.
Gwen
Diane E. Emery
In article <332951...@utig.ig.utexas.edu>, g watson
<gw...@utig.ig.utexas.edu> wrote:
snip arguement Re: showing dogs
>
> I just can not for the life of me see the need for this except for glory and
> fame. The shows do need to be stopped. I do not support or like PETA but
> this is one issue that does need to cease. We do not need to continue to
breed
> animals for some perfect stock.
snip again
> Gwen
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but every person has
a different reason for wanting a dog, and not ALL dogs fit every
situation. Police would not use a poodle as a guard dog, nor would
hunters use a collie to retrieve fallen fowl in the marsh. Every dog
breed was developed for a reason (I believe Chihuahuas were bred to be
'bed warmers' if I remember correctly...) and everyone looks for different
characteristics when searching for the right dog. By breeding a dog 'to
standard' you are making sure that YOUR German Shepherd looks the same and
will work the same as the German Shepherds of 100 years ago. To you, this
may not be important, but when you train your labrador to retrieve, you
know he'll retrieve, because its in his blood, all his ancestors
retrieved. Trust me, I know poorly bred labs who could care less about
retrieving anything. As I said, to each their own opinion...
Diane
g watson
Daniel and Rebekah wrote:
>
> I think that they are being responsible and obviously care about
> animals. Animals should be loved and cared for. If this included spaying
> and neutering to stop over population then so be it. I have had my
> three cats fixed, not because I am cruel but because I am caring and
> responsible for their well-being.
>
> Rebekah. yu13...@yorku.ca
This is very true. We as caring and concerned people should ahve our
animals spayed and neutered. It is cruel to not spay and neuter. Yes you are
responsible and caring but you aren't carrying Animal rights with your
name or cause.
Animals don't have rights. They don't vote they don't pass amendments. If
people wanted to they could have public burnings of animals. Other animals
aren't going to rise up in the streets and have demonstrations for their
rights. No, "so called animal rights" advocates will do this but not the
animals themselves. Animals don't pass laws for theirselves or tell one
another we need to demand Science Diet!
The issue is PETA claims to be an animal rights organization. This is simply
not true. They may in some ways have animals best interest at heart but they
are so far off in left field that they scare reasonable people away. In many
waysm they are hurting animal welfare causes by their extemists positions.
They certainly do more harm than good when it comes to helping
endangered species issues.
So yes the bottom line is always spay and neuter your furry friends for their
sake.
Gwen
Gwen
R. Estes
> I do not think showing animals with the over
> abundance of aniamls is a good thing.
Is breeding animals when there is an overabundance of animals a good
thing?
When I was ready to get a cat, I thought about going to a breeder. I had
never been to an animal shelter before. I figured (quite wrongly) that
few of the animals would be good enough quality to be pets. I was
shocked. There were lots of BEAUTIFUL and FRIENDLY dogs and cats and
rabitts and pet rats. It was so hard to find just the right cat. Me and
mty friend just could not believe how wonderful they were. I wanted a
kitten but the person there gave me the lecture about how hard these
older cats are to adopt out. I felt guilty and choose an 8 year old.
That was one of the best decisions I ever made. Murfy is so COOL!! I
even had to go through the psychological B.S. personality profile, ect,
ect, ect....with the wierdo-fanatic-volunteers at the shelter. However it
was worth it! I mean just because the people who I delt with were
socially inept, did not mean that their hearts were not in the right
place. So for $50 I got an awsome companion, all neutered and checked out
by an DVM.
So, my question is...WHY breed animals when there are SO MANY wonderful
ones just waiting to be adopted into a loving home???
I also think that shelters and such would really do best if they kept a
closer watch on who they hire and have as vomluteers and HOW these
people interact with the public because it is easy to turn off good
potential people to adopt animals.
g watson
Diane E. Emery wrote:
>
> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but every person has
> a different reason for wanting a dog, and not ALL dogs fit every
> situation. Police would not use a poodle as a guard dog, nor would
> hunters use a collie to retrieve fallen fowl in the marsh. Every dog
> breed was developed for a reason (I believe Chihuahuas were bred to be
> 'bed warmers' if I remember correctly...) and everyone looks for different
> characteristics when searching for the right dog. By breeding a dog 'to
> standard' you are making sure that YOUR German Shepherd looks the same and
> will work the same as the German Shepherds of 100 years ago. To you, this
> may not be important, but when you train your labrador to retrieve, you
> know he'll retrieve, because its in his blood, all his ancestors
> retrieved. Trust me, I know poorly bred labs who could care less about
> retrieving anything. As I said, to each their own opinion...
>
> Diane
Diane,
Yes I understand all this but the papers of the dogs should be enough. If not
the AKA should be able to find another means besides showing to see that
dogs meet these standards.
Also isn't this similar to what Hitler was trying to do with humans breed the
perfect breed?
You know perfect eye color, perfect height, hair so on. Just do not think it
is right no matter what species you are talking about.
One breed of cat comes to mind when thinking about what these standards
do to some breeds. The persian cat. At one time around 1966 they did have
a longer nose and had a much sweeter face now they look like bull dogs
instead sweet fluffy kitties. These are the kinds of things that happen when
humans decide what perfect is.
I'm so glad in the Bird World these showing standards haven't shown their
ugly faces. I sure hope this never happens. The perfect Blue and Gold
Macaw?
Gwen
g watson
R. Estes wrote:
>
> > I do not think showing animals with the over
>
> Is breeding animals when there is an overabundance of animals a good
> thing?
>
No it is not a good thing. In fact I think it is high time CFA and AKA
started restricting who could have papers. Only the best of the best hsould
be allowed to continue to breed. The proven breeders of each breed that
always win in these show rings. Not just the occasional no and then winners
these animals are flukes and are not of the highest quality.
Yes people do still want certain breeds and should have that right. The
reason there are so many mixed breed animals is because the owners of
these animals are not responsible enough to spay and neuter dogs and cats
that the majority of people do not want. Most people do wnat pedigreed
animals. Not because they are neccessarily better but because of certain
charateristics that these breeds have and another one does not.
A collie certainly doesn't have the same charateristics as a doberman and a
welsh corgi doesn't have same characteristics that a poodle has. Nor does a
persian cat have the same characteristics that a somali has and so on and so
forth. People should not be denied certain breeds because of the people out
their allowing their mixed breeds to breed. Most of this occurs because the
people that get these mixed breeds don't have the money in the first place to
spay and neuter their animals. This is why they got a mixed breed because
they didn't have the $500.00 for a german shepperd. This is the biggest
problem of animal over population. Not repsonsible breeders.
I do think that breeder should quit breeding if thier animals have not been
picked as quality for that breed. They need to become more responsible as
well. But they should not suffer because people with mixedf breeds refuse to
sapy and neuter. Not that mixed breeds aren't usually the cutest anyways!!
Gwen
Gwen
Diane E. Emery
In article <332972...@utig.ig.utexas.edu>, g watson
<gw...@utig.ig.utexas.edu> wrote:
snip
>
> I do think that breeder should quit breeding if thier animals have not been
> picked as quality for that breed.
> Gwen
Exactly!!! Which is why breeders should show and work their dogs...to
prove they are the best of the best and are of breeding quality.
Sharon Talbert
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, R. Estes wrote:
> > I do not think showing animals with the over
> > abundance of aniamls is a good thing.
>
> Is breeding animals when there is an overabundance of animals a good
> thing?
>
> I also think that shelters and such would really do best if they kept a
> closer watch on who they hire and have as vomluteers and HOW these
> people interact with the public because it is easy to turn off good
> potential people to adopt animals.
I feel I must speak up on behalf of shelter staff and volunteers here. It
is very easy to become burned out when every day people are abandoning
their pets at the shelter for the usual reasons ("I'm moving," "I having a
baby," "I just got a burglar alarm," "We got a kitten and the cat doesn't
like it," and on and on). The saddest (to me) are when cheapskates bring
their elderly pets in for "adoption" because they can't be bothered with
geriatric care or with euthanasia by their own vets. It is frustrating
and it is heart-breaking and it wrenches the spirit. This, coupled with
the hard work in dealing with these animals, all too often witnessing or
carrying out their deaths when they do not find a home, makes for a short
fuse sometimes, so even the well meaning members of the public get the
brunt.
On the other hand, some of the Nonprofits do get a bit carried away with
adoption requirements and procedures (I have been accused of this myself).
Worse, sometimes wouldbe clients are treated rather shabbily at these
facilities (I've been so treated myself). The worse case scenario is when
an animal is euthanized while a good home is turned away.
I think in each setting the public becomes "the enemy" in a way. That
doesn't make the occasionally unfriendly behavior right, but it is at
least understandable.
athos
In article <5g7but$2...@eve.enteract.com>, ti...@enteract.com (Tirya) wrote:
> The only thing I might be considered "fanatic" about is that these
> irresponsible idiots who think Fluffy should have a litter "so she can
> know the joy of motherhood" or "so the kids can see the miracle of life"
> should be tied into a sack and drowned. That would at least keep 5 - 8
> helpless animals from suffering the same fate.
>
> Tirya
Very vivid.
How simple life must be for you.
Athos
athos
In article <3326F6...@whatever.net>, don'ts...@whatever.net wrote:
> I would personally be happy if we could just get to a point where we got
> rid of breeds and pet shows.
Your emotional prejudices are showing. Reputable breeders and shows are
not causing any pet overpopulation problem. Try to focus.
> Okay, I wouldn't be happy, I want an end to overpopulation and a situation
> where every animal that needs one has a good home.
> So, yes, just so there is no confusion, I am completely out to abolish
> your hobby/lifestyle/I don't know what it is, as part of a larger
> agenda.
I, personally, am out to abolish emotional, irrational people like you
that react with half a braincell full of facts and a whole lot of good
intentions that then decide they have some deistic right to legislate
every aspect of others' lives. Grow up.
> I want to ask you whether you think about these issues, whether
> you have any agenda beyond complete selfishness.
Ask yourself that question. Personally, I *know* that every act by every
person is always a selfish act. Even altruism has its payoff.
Again, grow up.
> But I can't imagine that you do.
Interesting. Your whole post consists mostly of imagination, yet you
suddenly are suffering such a dearth that you cannot imagine another
person having enough complexity to have more than one motivation.
> Is it really important to you that the world not suffer from lack of siamese
> cats?? do you really think that would have a large negative impact?? or are
> you just into the money and the glory??
Are you for real?
> (like I am really gonna get an honest answer on that one)
Were you abused as a child?
> Pam
> nc...@bitstream.net
Athos
--
Athos
[Civility (n.) 1. the state of being civilized. ]
[ 2. good breeding; politeness; consideration. ]
[ 3. a polite act or utterance. ]
athos
In article <gibson-1203...@rby1-m7.btigate.com>,
gib...@btigate.com (Carla & Steen) wrote:
> In article <papin.2-1203...@ts25-9.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
> pap...@pop.service.ohio-state.edu (Jack D Papin) wrote:
>
> > See PETA people are Hypocrytes! Neutering is CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
>
> You guys donšt get it. PETA is not the only org./group encouraging
> neutering. So the rest of us, who think pet overpopulation, with the
> accompanying euthenizing, animal shelters etc. is an issue of concern
> suddenly have become fanatics??
>
> Steen
Steen, are you paying attention at all?
athos
In article <gibson-1303...@rby1-m2.btigate.com>,
gib...@btigate.com (Carla & Steen) wrote:
> I agree completely with this attitude. Needless suffering bothers me
> immensely, and it angers me when somebody suggests that we should not try
> to stop it, especially, when they are not doing this based on the welfare
> of the animal in question, but solely to get back at some organisation
> they dislike.
Steen, while I agree with the sentiment you have expressed above, I
honestly do not see any evidence that anyone is suggesting that "we should
not try to stop it... solely to get back at some organisation they
dislike."
You are missing the point entirely. (Please consider the possibility.)
> Sorry, but the wild west is GONE. We now live in a society, where
> democracy and popular opinion governs everybodys situation. Popular
> opinion today says that letting pets suffer because there are to many and
> they are easily obtainable, causing a *disposable* attitude towards them,
> is NOT acceptable.
Of *course* not. How you can even bother stating this is a mystery to me
-- when the point is *so* obvious.
> Therefore the comment that PETA is out of the
> mainstream because they support spaying/neutering is WRONG.
You are practicing a very odd form of disinformation here. That point, to
the best of my knowledge, was *never* made. Find a quote or retract.
> Rather, the
> people who support excessive breeding of pets are the ones on the radical
> fringe, and no amount of name calling at PETA will change that.
What is your goal with this weird juggling act?
Pet population control is a fine cause. PETA is bullshit. There is no
connection between the two issues for most people because... pet
population control is good... PETA is bullshit... regardless of their
position on one single issue out of a host of others. Do you understand?
Let it go, Steen. I really don't think you are familiar with PETA at all.
Otherwise, I think you are a member and you are practicing the usual shell
game.
> Maybe you
> need to re-evaluate your position on the basis of being on the radical
> fringe, and see if you would not rather be part of the society. It is
> awfully cold on the outside. I do not say that you have to abandon your
> principles, but rather that you should look at whether your hatred of PETA
> has caused you to take positions that you would not take if PETA did not
> exist.
I think you are putting words in gwatsons... fingers here (again). I don't
think that her position on pet population control is any different from
yours, in spite of her dislike of the PETA agenda on the whole. Your
dissembling is most puzzling though. Either you just don't get it, or you
are ... what?
> To have opinions based on what the other guy says is not the same
> as having opinions based on how you feel about the issue.
Master of The Obvious strikes again.
-Athos
John Mercer
Carla & Steen <gib...@btigate.com> wrote:
---snip---
>
> So now we are comparing self-determining people with pets???
ARAs, like those in PeTA, do. They claim that animals have rights.
Logic 101, Steen: you derive a logical conclusion from your opponent's
premise (animals have rights), and show that it leads to a laughable
contradiction.
> It is exactly BECAUSE they are pets, that their caretakers are
> responsible.
No, not if pets have rights!
---snip---
> In our culture, we have decided that suffering, starvation
> etc. is not desirable for pets, hence animal shelters, spaying/neutering
> campaigns etc. We are not doing this because the pets want this, but
> rather because it is part of what defines our cultural society.
But PeTA's goal is to change this so that animals have rights.
> I agree completely with this attitude.
Me too. PeTA doesn't.
> Needless suffering bothers me
> immensely, and it angers me when somebody suggests that we should not try
> to stop it, especially, when they are not doing this based on the welfare
> of the animal in question, but solely to get back at some organisation
> they dislike.
No, we are pointing out that ARAs are hypocrites. Read carefully:
*If* animals have rights, how can anyone propose to control their
reproductive rights without being a blatant hypocrite?
Are you familiar with the concept of a rhetorical question, Steen?
Please note that I *do not* agree with the premise of the conditional
argument (that's the *if* part).
>
> Sorry, but the wild west is GONE. We now live in a society, where
> democracy and popular opinion governs everybodys situation. Popular
> opinion today says that letting pets suffer because there are to many and
> they are easily obtainable, causing a *disposable* attitude towards them,
> is NOT acceptable.
Agreed by everyone here.
> Therefore the comment that PETA is out of the
> mainstream because they support spaying/neutering is WRONG.
Straw man. Nobody made that argument.
PeTA supports spaying/neutering because they wish to *appear* more
mainstream. Even if they are doing it to achieve extermination of
domestic animals, it is utterly contradictory to their position that
animals have rights.
Are you getting it yet?
> Rather, the
> people who support excessive breeding of pets are the ones on the radical
> fringe, and no amount of name calling at PETA will change that.
Did anyone do that?
> Maybe you
> need to re-evaluate your position on the basis of being on the radical
> fringe, and see if you would not rather be part of the society. It is
> awfully cold on the outside. I do not say that you have to abandon your
> principles, but rather that you should look at whether your hatred of PETA
> has caused you to take positions that you would not take if PETA did not
> exist.
No one has taken a position against spaying/neutering. It simply is
logically inconsistent with PeTA's philosophy of animal rights.
> To have opinions based on what the other guy says is not the same
> as having opinions based on how you feel about the issue.
To logically derive the inconsistency between another guy's philosophy
and his actions demonstrates that:
1) the premise is invalid; or
2) the other guy really doesn't believe in the premise that he espouses;
or
3) the other guy is incapable of logical reasoning; or
4) my choice, all of the above.
Which do you think is true?
--
John Mercer
Scientist
McLaughlin Research Institute
Mike Edgar
In article <3327bd1c...@news1.inter.nl.net>, Martin & Corine
Judkins <M.Ju...@inter.nl.net> writes
>On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:32:33 -0600, Pam <don'ts...@whatever.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Martin & Corine Judkins wrote:
>>your hobby/lifestyle/I don't know what it is, as part of a larger
>>you have any agenda beyond complete selfishness. But I can't imagine
>>that you do. Is it really important to you that the world not suffer
>>from lack of siamese cats?? do you really think that would have a large
>>I am really gonna get an honest answer on that one)
>>
>>nc...@bitstream.net
>>
>
>
>Money and glory... hahaha.. sorry, but I just couldn't help laughing
>at that one. If I were into this for the money, I'd need my head
>looking at.
>
>charged for kittens are about 1/3 of those charged in the US.
>
>I breed one litter per queen per year, I currently have 2 breeding
>girls, one to be spayed shortly.
>
>A litter of 4 will cost me around US$ 1000 to raise. That litter will
>sell for a total of US$ 1200. So my grand profit for one litter is US$
>200, you can really tell I'm into this for the money, can't you.
>
>If I need to visit the vet with the kittens, that entire "profit" will
>be wiped out.
>
>Ok, so much for the money bit.
>
>The glory bit. =What= glory???? I go to shows on average 4 to 5 times
>a year. The quality of Siamese in this country is such that most
>Siamese entered in a show are very good examples of their breed. Once
>in a while I get a Best in Variety or Best in Show and yes, I'm
>extremely pleased when that happens.
>
>be able to conclude anything about me at all, from the fact that I'm a
>breeder. And especially the bit where you accuse me of not thinking of
>anything at all.
>
>suffer no shortage of Siamese cats? And where precisely did I state
>that I thought it would have a large negative impact on the world?
>I've looked over all my other posts and nowhere did I state that.
>
>You see, the problem with you is not that you're out for the welfare
>of animals. You're after CONTROL. You want to be able to tell me how I
>should live my life. You want to be able to legislate my way of life
>so that it suits YOU.
>
>and you so much as touch my nose with a feather and I'll have your arm
>of, metaphorically speaking.
>
>Corine
>Martin's Irish music page:
>http://www.inter.nl.net/users/M.Judkins/martin.html
>Corine's Siamese cattery page:
>http://www.inter.nl.net/users/M.Judkins/astra.html
>ICCSBW homepage:
>http://www1.tip.nl/users/t342406/home.html
If it's not profitable and such an obvious hassle to you, then why do
you do it... ? Do you enjoy Queening it at the shows perhaps.. ?
I was a little concerned and surprised about your threat of violence.
then I noticed the Irish ref' .... no changes there then.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Edgar "the line between human and nonhuman is, like all lines,one
that should be drawn in pencil, so that it can be moved to accommodate
moral evolution and the realization of moral reality." Prof Gary L Francione
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Martens
R. Estes wrote:
[snip]
>
> So, my question is...WHY breed animals when there are SO MANY wonderful
> ones just waiting to be adopted into a loving home???
Because not everyone can find an animal in a shelter which matches their
situation. I can't speak for cats but dogs are bred for specific
characteristics and most dogs are not appropriate for every home.
One of the problems many people have when choosing a dog is that they
don't consider the characteristics of the breed and what fits with
their situation.
You wholly miss the points about PETA. While spay/neuter of most pets
is a good thing to do for many reasons, PETA's ultimate goal is to
eliminate
pets entirely. They use doublespeak to hide that fact and use it
unethically
to collect donations. PETA also claims to be for animal rights. If
animals
have "rights" how can they not have such a basic right as the ability
to reproduce, one of the most basic drives in living beings. PETA also
claims to be against vivisection but is inconsistent when they support
this case of vivisection.
If you wish to do some good for animals, donate money to a local shelter
not to PETA or HSUS, two of the most unethical organizations around.
-M
David Bold
Chuck Narad wrote:
>
> > Indeed. The action and result would also be the same if we kill sick humans
> > when they become a burden to functional people. In both cases, the value of
> > the animal or sick person is, or would be, solely based on the utility of
> > that being to others. In the case of sick humans, euthanasia only becomes
> > conceivable if it is in the benefit of the human involved. Killing healthy
> > animals simply because human society is done with them is not euthanasia
> > but utility killing. Calling it euthanasia is simply muddying the waters.
>
> fine, I'll go along with "utility killing" if you prefer. from the
> point of view of the animal, however, it still dies.
Indeed. Euthanasia is about individuals and implies rights. When one
chooses euthanasia as a human, in a sense one is abrogating one's right
to the protection of the state from the tyranny of the majority. In a
utilitarian world, an individual might be swamped by the demands of the
majority and might be compelled to sacrifice one's own interests in
favour of the majority. Rights protect some aspects of the individual
from such as situation. Hence rights and utilitarianism form a sort of
dialectical contradiction in modern society allowing society interests
and individual interests to co-exist. Euthanasia is a dangerous
situation for collections of individuals since it tends to weaken the
rights of individuals and thus the dialectical contradiction unless it
can be justified as a benefit to the individual concerned, not just on
balance of probabilities but as near to a certainty as possible. In
practice, terminal illnesses where extreme suffering or the blatant loss
of human dignity might lead to a moral justification for the abrogation
of rights. However, it is the interests of the individual right-holder
that is the sole concern of the specific decision whether on instruction
from the right-holder or perhaps on his behalf in situations where
consent cannot be given. The controversy surrounding euthanasia is
partly, I suggest, due to the conflict between the individual's right to
choose his death and the society's indirect duty to its members to
protect rights irrespective of whether or not individual members choose
abrogation of such rights.
Outside of the concept of utility killing as identified above, euthanasia
of animals is a matter of confusion, in my opinion, because it might come
from two sources, the possible rights of animals and the indirect duty
not to cause unnecessary suffering to animals. For the purposes of this
comment, I'll take the two source to be the same in terms of the basic
motive and the resulting action ie. the animal dies as painlessly as
possible and the welfare interests of the animal are served on its behalf
with as near to a certainty as possible. This is perhaps so because the
possible rights of animals are unlikely to be compromised by this
decision.
Utility killing is a different matter altogether because the welfare
interests of the animal are not the sole concern of the specific decision
but are weighed along side the tyranny of the majority raised earlier such
that the animal's usefulness or value to others is significant. If the
cost of care or the resources needed exceed some threshold then a
utilitarian decision is made to kill the animal whether or not the
individual interests of the animal justify such killing. This is markedly
different to euthanasia and why I think the term does not apply in these
cases. I make the distinction as a matter of philosophy rather than as a
value judgement (at least I hope I do) so that we do not fool ourselves
into believing that we act solely in the interests of the animal by using
a word usually associated with that idea.
Incidentally, utility killing of humans happens in modern societies too I
suggest during wars and conflicts. In such cases, soldiers abrogate their
rights in favour of unit or country interests, which probably explains the
psychology of basic training to break down the individual and perhaps the
cases of altuism where soldiers sometimes deliberately sacrifice their
lives to save their unit. Utilitarian decisions are made by the generals
to sacrifice units for higher purposes irrespective of the welfare
interests of the soldiers in those units.
> "kills the results of a human reneging of responsibility" seems like
> a strange rationalization, from my perspective.
Rationalisation of what? I'm not sure what you mean here.
To explain my quoted phrase, I envisage a hypothetical social contract
where humans include certain animals in their society to provide specific
functions, such as companionship or work, and the animals gain care and
membership in exchange. A symbiotic relationship results. When animals
end up in animal shelters and are killed as a matter of utility rather than
welfare interest then I think this social contract has been broken at the
individual relationship level and higher.
I suspect that when dogs become part of a family, the human adoptor becomes
the pack leader and the family the pack. Failure to provide leadership or
to provide a pack environment is a failure of responsibility in my opinion.
In a similar manner, I suspect that domestic cats who are raised in a family
are changed such that the cat may be adult and behave in some situations as
an adult but retains aspects of the kitten mentality where the adoptor is
the mother. Again, failure to look after the kitten in the cat is a failure
of responsibility in my opinion. These animals are usually incapable by
nature to survive in a state of nature as a result of our domestication of
individuals and especially of breeds.
At a higher level, I think the institution of keeping animals as members of
our family units implies a societal duty to regulate the care, reproduction,
and support services in some ways similar to that of looking after our own
dependent members of the family such that utility killing should be an
unusual event if this duty is recognised.
[I entertain the concept rather than hold the belief of what I've written
above and I offer it as an exploration of the subject with the status of
opinion. Caveat emptor.]
David.
Raymot
In article <3327bd1c...@news1.inter.nl.net>, M.Ju...@inter.nl.net
says...
>
>On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:32:33 -0600, Pam <don'ts...@whatever.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Martin & Corine Judkins wrote:
>>So, yes, just so there is no confusion, I am completely out to abolish
>>your hobby/lifestyle/I don't know what it is, as part of a larger
>>agenda. I want to ask you whether you think about these issues, whether
>>you have any agenda beyond complete selfishness. But I can't imagine
>>that you do. Is it really important to you that the world not suffer
>>from lack of siamese cats?? do you really think that would have a large
>>negative impact?? or are you just into the money and the glory?? (like
>>I am really gonna get an honest answer on that one)
>>
>>Pam
>>nc...@bitstream.net
[from previous letter]
>I breed Siamese (I don't just breed, I only breed Siamese), because I
>have a deep love for the breed. The very first Siamese I ever saw took
>my breath away. They are elegant, intelligent creatures, capable of a
>level of interaction with humans that I have found in no other breed.
[...]
>You see, the problem with you is not that you're out for the welfare
>of animals. You're after CONTROL. You want to be able to tell me how I
>should live my life. You want to be able to legislate my way of life
>so that it suits YOU.
>
>So let me tell you something, your rights end where my nose begins,
>and you so much as touch my nose with a feather and I'll have your arm
>of, metaphorically speaking.
>
>Corine
Damn right too!
The best thing that people like Pam <don'ts...@whatever.net>
can do is to make sure that they themselves are neutered to
avoid overpopulation. (Although I'd grant that this type of
non-compassionate person is often unsuccessful in finding
someone to breed with).
I would not have two delightful Siamese/Tonkinese cats
now (qv below) if it weren't for breeders, and my life
would be poorer for it.
Raymot
=======
Brisbane, Australia.
rmot...@powerup.com.au
Catpage: http://www.powerup.com.au/~rmottare/cat2.htm
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Kirk Haines
nl.net> <332900...@flash.net> <emery-14039...@128.249.96.60>
<332942...@utig.ig.utexas.edu> <emery-14039...@128.249.96.60> <332951...@utig.ig.utexas.edu> <emery-14039...@128.249.96.60> <33296C...@utig.ig.utexas.edu>:
Distribution:
g watson (gw...@utig.ig.utexas.edu) wrote:
:
: Also isn't this similar to what Hitler was trying to do with humans breed the
: perfect breed?
Gee, we've invoked Hitler. That usually means that the rest of the
conversation will immediately descend into incoherenet flaming and
ranting. Meet my killfile...*PLONK*
Michelle
Flutist
Kattz
On 13 Mar 1997 00:14:37 GMT, oshc...@dimensional.com (Kirk Haines)
wrote:
>I have nothign against spaying and neutering most pet animal in an effort
>to reduce the surplus population, but PETA also advocates putting out of
>business breeders who are trying to improve the breeds they work with, and
>breed out the defects caused by careless puppy-mill style breeding.
>
>Michelle
>Flutist
Actually some breeders are creating defects. Haven't you seen those
cats with the smushed-up faces. Plus they took normal looking Siamese
and turned them into tall skinny skeletons.
+
How about those cats that require out-crossing to maintain the breed
and stop defects from appearing ( Manx and Curl-Ear Cats and who knows
how many others ). If they are lucky there might be 2 kittens in a
litter that is show-quality ( and others that aren't --- surplus
population ). And then there is the Spynx -- UGly.
+
I have no opinion on PETA. I just prefer cats with normal faces, ears
and tails, soft-thick-long-hair, sweet disposition -- and a loud purr.
I used to have one like that. I think she had some ragdoll in her.
Now I have a extremely-sheddy-thin-long-hair Siameezy Calico who
thinks I am a ladder in her quest for ever-higher-ground with a purr I
can only hear if I put my ear against her body and very loving,
especially when she wants to eat.
The Kattz Meow
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Marina/1278/
mailto:ka...@geocities.com
Martin & Corine Judkins
On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 09:52:39 GMT, ka...@geocities.com (Kattz) wrote:
>Actually some breeders are creating defects. Haven't you seen those
>cats with the smushed-up faces. Plus they took normal looking Siamese
>and turned them into tall skinny skeletons.
Whoa. Hold your horses here. There's a difference between an animal
that has a defect, and an animal that doesn't look the way you would
like it to look!
Siamese have always been oriental type cats with a tubular body. Their
body confirmation is simply different from that of the average HHP. In
their country of origin that tubular body is also a feature.
>How about those cats that require out-crossing to maintain the breed
>and stop defects from appearing ( Manx and Curl-Ear Cats and who knows
>how many others ). If they are lucky there might be 2 kittens in a
>litter that is show-quality ( and others that aren't --- surplus
>population ). And then there is the Spynx -- UGly.
Whoa again! Here you see breeders taking responsibility for the fact
that they have to be careful of who to breed to whom in order to
ensure that the kittens are healthy and all of a sudden you're holding
that against them?????
NO KITTEN IS SURPLUS!! A responsible breeder breeds for HEALTH FIRST,
CHARACTER SECOND, LOOKS THIRD!
Ok, so you think the Sphynx is ugly. How does your opinion of how it
looks make it having a defect???
>I have no opinion on PETA. I just prefer cats with normal faces, ears
>and tails, soft-thick-long-hair, sweet disposition -- and a loud purr.
So define normal. The cat you describe wouldn't survive in the climate
where I grew up, her coat would probably kill her. I grew up in the
Far East, where oriental type cats are the norm, with a single coat
and a long tubular body.
Martin & Corine Judkins
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 15:44:44 +0000, g watson <gw...@utig.ig.utexas.edu>
wrote:
>No it is not a good thing. In fact I think it is high time CFA and AKA
>started restricting who could have papers. Only the best of the best hsould
>be allowed to continue to breed. The proven breeders of each breed that
>always win in these show rings. Not just the occasional no and then winners
>these animals are flukes and are not of the highest quality.
I quote: "the proven breeders of each breed that always win in the
showring". First of all, in order for an animal to become a proven
breeder it needs to have been bred.
Second of all, breeding is not just about looks. For instance, my
favourite girl here, is a Siamese cat that would qualify for AKC
registration. She's =not= a good Siamese if you compare her to the
standard. Her ears are too high up on her head, her eyes are too
round, her muzzle too short, her colour too muddy.
However, this girl consistently gives me good-looking kittens that do
well in the shows, is very healthy (only time she goes to the vet is
when she needs her shots, or like yesterday when she decided to eat
her blanket) and has a wonderful disposition.
Now, by your reasoning I should not have bred this girl. However, I
know the lines behind my cats, I know how they pass on certain
characteristics and I know what line to use.
>I do think that breeder should quit breeding if thier animals have not been
>picked as quality for that breed. They need to become more responsible as
>well. But they should not suffer because people with mixedf breeds refuse to
>sapy and neuter. Not that mixed breeds aren't usually the cutest anyways!!
No, I totally disagree with you there. That would mean, for instance,
that in cat-breeding, only the cats that =LOOK= the best would be
allowed to breed. And you can have a cat that consistently wins in the
show-ring, but has bad health and a bad temperament.
We breed for three things, they are, in order of importance:
Health
Character
Looks
The only things assesible in a show is Looks. So in cat-breeding, if
only cats that were successful in the showring were allowed to breed,
we would be focusing on the =LEAST= important trait.
Cheers, Corine
Brian Henderson
M.Ju...@inter.nl.net (Martin & Corine Judkins) wrote:
>Whoa. Hold your horses here. There's a difference between an animal
>that has a defect, and an animal that doesn't look the way you would
>like it to look!
But these animals, particularly some of the more extreme himilayans,
have health problems brought about by their breed, including breathing
problems, eye infections, blindness, etc. The same is true of some
dog breeds, and other breeds of dog and cat bring about other genetic
problems and are injurious to the health and well-being of the
animals.
And people are still breeding them.
>NO KITTEN IS SURPLUS!! A responsible breeder breeds for HEALTH FIRST,
>CHARACTER SECOND, LOOKS THIRD!
Um... doesn't always work that way. In fact, with serious breeders
(if such a thing really exists) killing the excess is a common and
accepted practice. I know that when I was breeding rats for show, all
the other breeders would sit around and talk about breeding for
characteristics that showed up in 10-25% of the kittens and then they
would routinely culled the vast majority of the litter, just so they
wouldn't have to deal with it.
-Brian
Brian Henderson
em...@bcm.tmc.edu (Diane E. Emery) wrote:
<snipperoo>
>I cant speak for this particular breeder, but responsible breeders, who
>health test their stock, show their animals, etc. do it for the love of
>the breed. I dont breed now but one day, maybe, when I have the time,
>money, commitment, and space, I would love to breed German Shepherds.
>And you can bet they will be health tested, worked in Schutzhund, shown in
>conformation, etc. I love the breed. THAT is the only reason to breed,
>not so that Fluffy can get it on with Fido to fulfill some 'need' or to
>show kids the mirical of life or to make a few bucks. Only because you
>are dedicated to the breed.
I can't speak for all breeders, but as a former breeder of pedigreed
rats and mice, I did it, not so much because I love the breed, but
because it is something I can take pride in, producing high quality
animals that do take home prizes and do have the highest degree of
conformation to the standard. Dedication to a breed standard is sort
of a silly thing if you don't really enjoy what you're doing or are
not personally fulfilled by it.
But you have to be a responsible breeder, and not breed because it
makes you money (like a lot of people I see) or because you like a
particular breed, problems be damned. When the first tail-less rats
became available, I refused to get involved because they had major
problems with spinal deformities. A lot of people were breeding them,
either for money or for 'love of breed' and producing a lot of animals
that either ultimately had to be put down or which had miserable
lives.
Sort of like many breeds of dog and cat who have to put up with
physical ailments just because some idiot thought they looked cute
that way.
-Brian
Christine A. Owens
g watson wrote:
>
> Diane E. Emery wrote:
> >
> > I cant speak for this particular breeder, but responsible breeders, who
> > health test their stock, show their animals, etc. do it for the love of
> > the breed. I dont breed now but one day, maybe, when I have the time,
> > money, commitment, and space, I would love to breed German >Shepherds. And you can bet they will be health tested, worked in >Schutzhund, shown in conforma
> >
>
> Yes this is true that the only reason for a breeder to breed a paritcular
> breed is for the love of that breed. But why do we need to show that breed
> and give it championship marks best of this and that? You can breed a breed
> and not have to show it. I do not think showing animals with the over
> abundance of aniamls is a good thing. Not to mention the health risks of the
> animals when being shown. Sure Fido or kitty in the cage next door should
> be and is supposed to be vaccinated but that doesn't guarantee anything.
>
> Why do think at cat shows the breeders never allow you to touch them? Or
> put feather toys near their cages? Thee do this in the attempt to prevent the
> spreading of diseases. It is also very stressful for the animal to go through
> the showing process.
>
> So when you do breed do your animals a favor and not show them.
I don't do cat shows, so I couldn't say. But, I do show the dogs. Stressful? Possibly
to some animals; but then, I wouldn't show one of them. [It wouldn't show well.] When
the show crate comes out the dogs are in a frenzy. [Oh boy, a show trip! Yea, team!]
Every animal at an AKC-sponsored show is to be properly vaccinated [and, they can, and
do, ask to see the certs.]
The whole POINT of showing dogs is to pick the parents of the next generation. Serious
show people don't breed non-champions. If only champion dogs were bred, there wouldn't
BE an animal over-population problem.
Chris Owens
Mary Kolencik
> The fact is the only thing they care about is removing all animals from
> mankinds hands.
I believe that even this is an incorrect fact. I believe the only thing
PETA cares about is making money. How much money does PETA take in
every year, and what do they spend it on? Who controls the money, and
just exactly what do the people who control the money do with it?
What is their lifestyle like?
Mary
Tirya
g watson (gw...@utig.ig.utexas.edu) said...
> Diane E. Emery wrote:
> Why not just clone if you want perfection? They can do that now you know?
> That will be the next step. Cloning race horses. Perfect show dogs. Perfect
> beef. We need to get a grip on why we think something should have to llok
> a certain way to be considered worthy.
You could clone a racehorse, sure, but don't expect him to be able to run
in any races in the United States. From The Jockey Club's "Rules and
Requirements of the American Stud Book", Rules for Registration,
Bloodtyping and Parentage Verification, Section V, Rule 1, Letter D:
"D. Any foal that is the product of either Artificial Insemination or
Embryo Transfer (see Glossary of Terms) is not eligible for registration.
To be eligible for registration, a foal must be the result of a stallionÕs
natural service with a broodmare (which is the physical mounting of a
broodmare by a stallion), and a natural gestation must take place in, and
delivery must be from, the body of the same broodmare in which the foal
was conceived. "
Complete text available at: http://www.jockeyclub.com/rules/index.html
The owner of Cigar fully expects the Jockey Club to add rules banning
cloning outright in the near future.
Tirya
--
ti...@enteract.com http://www.enteract.com/~tirya NO JUNK EMAIL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I get my kicks ABOVE the waistline, Sunshine!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin & Corine Judkins
>M.Ju...@inter.nl.net (Martin & Corine Judkins) wrote:
>
>>Whoa. Hold your horses here. There's a difference between an animal
>>that has a defect, and an animal that doesn't look the way you would
>>like it to look!
>
>But these animals, particularly some of the more extreme himilayans,
>have health problems brought about by their breed, including breathing
>problems, eye infections, blindness, etc. The same is true of some
>dog breeds, and other breeds of dog and cat bring about other genetic
>problems and are injurious to the health and well-being of the
>animals.
>
>And people are still breeding them.
No, let me correct you there. =Some= Persians have health problems.
Just like =some= moggies have health problems.
>>NO KITTEN IS SURPLUS!! A responsible breeder breeds for HEALTH FIRST,
>>CHARACTER SECOND, LOOKS THIRD!
>
>Um... doesn't always work that way. In fact, with serious breeders
>(if such a thing really exists) killing the excess is a common and
>accepted practice. I know that when I was breeding rats for show, all
>the other breeders would sit around and talk about breeding for
>characteristics that showed up in 10-25% of the kittens and then they
>would routinely culled the vast majority of the litter, just so they
>wouldn't have to deal with it.
Sorry, but with cat breeding that is simply not true. Culling because
a kitten doesn't have the correct characteristics is a practice that
is despised by all responsible cat breeders. Kittens do not get culled
because they do not show specific traits. Kittens that do not show
specific desired traits get -=sold as pets=, with a spay/neuter
contract.
In The Netherlands, you get pedigrees through the registering
association. It is mandatory to:
a) register a litter within 2 weeks of birth
b) register all individual kittens within 8 weeks of birth.
There is no way you can tell if a newborn kitten is going to grow up
to be show-quality. It is, at 8 weeks old, with most breeds
practically impossible to tell if it is going to grow up to be
show-quality.
I find it rather disconcerting that obviously rat-breeders are so
callous as to routinely cull animals that do not show certain desired
characteristics and I think it is a loathsome practice.
Martin & Corine Judkins
>If it's not profitable and such an obvious hassle to you, then why do
>you do it... ? Do you enjoy Queening it at the shows perhaps.. ?
>I was a little concerned and surprised about your threat of violence.
>then I noticed the Irish ref' .... no changes there then.
Do I enjoy queening what at the shows? Obviously you've never been to
a show in The Netherlands, nobody "queens it", because amongst those
regularly attending (and like I said, I don't attend regularly, 4 or 5
times a year at the most, whilst there are about 24-30 shows a year),
prizes get divided pretty equally, since the quality of Siamese is so
stable and well spread.
As for the "Irish ref", I'm Dutch, my husband is Welsh, so I'm afraid
there's nothing much there for you to stick your teeth in. Obviously
you also missed my remark "metaphorically speaking".
Mike Edgar
In article <5g7but$2...@eve.enteract.com>, Tirya <ti...@enteract.com>
writes
>Carla & Steen (gib...@btigate.com) said...
>> In article <papin.2-1203...@ts25-9.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
>> pap...@pop.service.ohio-state.edu (Jack D Papin) wrote:
>>
>> > See PETA people are Hypocrytes! Neutering is CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
>>
>> You guys donšt get it. PETA is not the only org./group encouraging
>> neutering. So the rest of us, who think pet overpopulation, with the
>> accompanying euthenizing, animal shelters etc. is an issue of concern
>> suddenly have become fanatics??
>
>irresponsible idiots who think Fluffy should have a litter "so she can
>know the joy of motherhood" or "so the kids can see the miracle of life"
>should be tied into a sack and drowned. That would at least keep 5 - 8
>helpless animals from suffering the same fate.
>
>Tirya
I volunteer for the sack tying if someone will send me some string.
Before I do it however, I will insist that these litter-bugs work in our
RSPCA, NCDL (National Canine Defence League) and others for a month, so
they get to see the real picture, ... not just the selfish "fluffy" self
indulgent one.
Stay cool Tirya
Regards
car...@rain.org
:nl.net> <332900...@flash.net> <emery-14039...@128.249.96.60>
Distribution:
Daine said...
: I cant speak for this particular breeder, but responsible breeders, who
: health test their stock, show their animals, etc. do it for the love of
: the breed. I dont breed now but one day, maybe, when I have the time,
: money, commitment, and space, I would love to breed German Shepherds.
: And you can bet they will be health tested, worked in Schutzhund, shown in
: conformation, etc. I love the breed. THAT is the only reason to breed,
: not so that Fluffy can get it on with Fido to fulfill some 'need' or to
: show kids the mirical of life or to make a few bucks. Only because you
: are dedicated to the breed.
I think sometimes we are all on the same side, but are so angry at
the pet overpopulation problem that we end up fighting each other. There
are unethical breeders and breeders that are very ethical. Let's stop
making black and white statements and get to the real issue......look at
the pounds, most of the dogs in there are NOT pure bred dogs. No
repuatable breeder would breed mutts.
I personally think PETA needs to stop making all or nothing
radical solutions. This will just anger just about everyone.
I personally think we need to educate the public, get high school
programs going to help and volunteer in the shelter. They could even do a
psychlogy assignment in training and operant conditioning. Expose people
to what happens when they THINK Fifi should be bred. GET THE COMMUNITY to
join together and work together and stop this darn fighting!
--
Take Care,
Christy
(car...@rain.org)
Mary Kolencik
> But that point aside, I happen to be pretty amenable to the idea that
> *all* animals should be spayed and neutered.
I am not amenable to that at all.
> It would seem that your concern is that it would be impossible
> to run a breeding program and charge hundreds of dollars for these
> kittens you care so much about.
What a stupid statement.
> I would personally be happy if we could just get to a point where we got
> rid of breeds and pet shows.
I would not be happy.
> The
> whole idea that a siamese is worth (what?? I have no idea - $200? 800?)
> when a tabby can't even find a home is completely abhorrent to me.
Before you start making judgements about breeders and their $$ motivations,
perhaps you should get some "idea" of what you're talking about.
In the US, pedigree Siamese kittens from responsible breeders (and by responsible
I mean those who have vaccinated the kittens, wait til they're 3+ months
old, keep accurate pedigree information, register the kittens, breed for
health first and foremost) cost between $250 and $350. That's not enough
to cover the breeder's cost, and doesn't even make a tiny dent in the cost of
showing. I know I'm never going to make any money breeding cats, so I made
sure my own financial situation was good enough before I ever started.
I do not rely on the money I make from kitten sales to finance the care
of my cats.
So you might ask, Why bother charging anything at all then? I charge $350 for
one reason -- I offer a money back guarentee. This is an incentive to keep
the buyer from dumping the kitten in a shelter. $350 is a sizeable chunk
of money that I'm hoping someone will want back rather than dump the kitten.
Suppose I have to make a choice between a buyer who called me out of the
blue (but meets my criteria) who has the money, and a buyer I know a little
better who has a slight cash problem and can't come up with $350 but wants
a kitten anyway? I pick the better home first and work with the buyer,
accepting payments, or even skipping the $350 altogether. I don't like
giving a kitten to someone just because they cannot afford $350, because
this makes me wonder seriously if they have enough money to provide
the proper care for the cat. But I know there are times when someone
has a temporary cash crunch but could still find a way to pay vet bills
when necessary.
> Also
> the idea that human breeders can come up with better cats and dogs than
> nature left to itself is just ludicrous to me.
Nature came up with the Siamese cat all by herself. I don't think I can ever
do any better. In fact, I think the Siamese cat is the best animal nature
ever created. I just want to help her make more.
> So, yes, just so there is no confusion, I am completely out to abolish
> your hobby/lifestyle/I don't know what it is, as part of a larger
> agenda.
What's totally ludicrous to me is your attitude that you think your views are
right and mine are wrong. Have you read the U.S. Constitution lately?
> I want to ask you whether you think about these issues, whether
> you have any agenda beyond complete selfishness.
Do you have any agenda beyond utter stupidity and complete arrogance?
> are you just into the money and the glory?? (like
> I am really gonna get an honest answer on that one)
Why do you expect an honest answer when you ask such assinine
questions? I expect YOU to do a little research and find out the
facts about what you are condemning before you go around accusing
people of doing something for money and glory. HAH! What glory and
what money? Show me the money!!!!!! Please! I want to know where
the money in cat breeding is.
Mary
Mary Kolencik
g watson wrote:
> Now as far as shows I do wish these would be eliminated. I do have to walk
> on the other side of the fence on this issue. If it weren't for shows their
> would be no real want/need to any particualr breed. It is the showing of
> these breeds that caused the demand.
Let's make a distinction here between the general pet-buying public, and
the show-cat-buying public. Cat shows do NOT increase the need or want for
any particular breed with the pet-buying public. Most of these people have
never been to a show, and will never go to a show. The rest go to a show
simply out of curiosity or to buy a pedigree cat, but they make their mind
up that they want a pedigree cat BEFORE they go to a show.
As for the "showing of these breeds that has caused the demand", that's
pure bunk. If it were true, then every year the public would want one of
whatever breed won best cat. Can you name the breed of last year's CFA Best
Cat and Best Cat in premiership? I can -- American Shorthair and Havanna
Brown. And gee, those two breeds are NOT the most popular breeds. What
are the four most popular breeds in CFA -- Persian, Maine Coon, Siamese,
and Aby. There are not too many Maine Coon, Siamese, and Aby national
winners, and I can't even remember the last Best cat for those breeds
(if there ever has been one for MC and Aby), yet they're pretty darn popular
with the general pet-buying public.
Mary
Mary Kolencik
The amount of ignorance in this thread simply astounds me. I might be
inclined to believe a few of the anti-show or anti-breed arguments if
the people making those arguments knew something of what they are talking
about. But instead, most of you are simply parrotting things you've
heard from other people (or from PETA or like organizations) without
really taking the time to understand just what a cat show is. Those
of you who condemn cat shows -- have you ever TRIED to show a cat?
Enter your house hold pet in a few shows and see what it's like. Try
taking Fluffy to a few TICA shows where you can win titles for HHPS,
and learn how difficult it is. While you're there, try to learn something
from the people showing the pedigree cats. Ideally, I think you should try
to breed a pedigree cat and get that cat a grand title. If you can do
that, you will learn a great deal and perhaps won't make such ridiculous
statements as "Why not just clone if you want perfection?".
> But why do we need to show that breed
> and give it championship marks best of this and that? You can breed a breed
> and not have to show it.
I show cats for fun, PERIOD. You will hear breeders say the shows are necessary
to know how well they're doing in their breeding programs, whether or not
they are breeding cats to a standard, etc... Hogwash. I know better than most
judges which of my Siamese cats meet the Siamese standard, which are better
than the others re meeting the standard, and how my cats compare to those
of other breeders. For many breeders, shows are social. They are places where
breeders can come together and learn from each other, learn about the cats each
other are breeding, raise money for local shelters (oh yes, clubs are non-profit
and many donate more to spay and neuter programs than ALL of PETA). For many
breeders, shows are advertising. If a breeder wants to work with other breeders,
they have to have a way to show them their cats now, don't they? And for
the local shelters, shows are a place where they can take cats for the public
to see for adoption. I don't recall ever being to a show that didn't have a
space full of shelter cats available for adoption.
As for "you can breed a bred and not have to show it", then why breed a breed?
Why make more cats at all? The only reason I breed cats is to have cats to show.
If not for shows, there would be no reason to breed at all. The two are inseparable.
If you condemn one, you condemn both. And of the two, you have no right
whatsoever to condemn shows. I don't know what country you are from, but
in the US, I think you'll have a hard time constitutionally getting rid of
cat shows.
> I do not think showing animals with the over
> abundance of aniamls is a good thing.
One has nothing to do with the other.
> Not to mention the health risks of the
> animals when being shown.
Exhibitors can and do take precautions to decrease whatever "health risk" you're
talking about. I have one cat who has been to over 20 shows (shown himself and
as a cage buddy) and has not come home with any cooties. Of course, there are
cases where cats pick up cooties from other cats at shows, but I take the proper
precautions with my cats (wipe the cage down before putting the cat in, line it
with plastic including the front (I have a nice plexiglass frame for the front
now), clean spectators hands with disinfectant before letting them handle the
cats, etc).
> Why do think at cat shows the breeders never allow you to touch them?
Has it occurred to you that perhaps exhibitors don't want spectators messing
up the cat's grooming?? Go to a show, watch what a Persian exhibitor goes
through grooming their cat, then come back here and tell me you think they
should let everybody touch their cat. I let NO one touch my cats after they're
groomed and ready for a ring. When I bring them back from a ring, if there's
time before the next ring, I'll let a spectator handle the cat (if they dis-
infect first). But NOBODY touches my cat but me once he's groomed for the ring.
And I show a shorthair breed! The longhair breeders go through hell bathing
and primping their cats, and you think they should let just anybody touch
the cats? Sheesh!
> It is also very stressful for the animal to go through
> the showing process.
Now that is without a doubt one of the most stupid statements you've made yet.
Animals who are stressed by the show process are not good show cats. They
don't do well in the ring. Most breeders don't like wasting show fees on cats
that they know won't do well in the ring and will only take a cat that easily
tolerates the show process.
> So when you do breed do your animals a favor and not show them.
And I take just the opposite point of view (based on actual experience). Don't
breed cats unless you intend to show them.
> As for all these so called human criterias of a breed that is the whole
> problem in a the nutshell. The right height? Who cares? Are we as humans
> the right height? Do we have the right teeth? What gives us the right to
> impose these ideas and ideals on these breeds?
>
> I just can not for the life of me see the need for this except for glory and
> fame. The shows do need to be stopped. I do not support or like PETA but
> this is one issue that does need to cease. We do not need to continue to breed
> animals for some perfect stock.
>
> Why not just clone if you want perfection? They can do that now you know?
> That will be the next step. Cloning race horses. Perfect show dogs. Perfect
> beef. We need to get a grip on why we think something should have to llok
> a certain way to be considered worthy.
If you had ever tried to breed an animal to a standard and then show it, you would
realize just how patently ridiculous the above statements are. A standard is an
ideal. Have you ever read a standard? Standards say things like "ears: wide at
the base, set in line with the wedge", not "ears: 1 inch wide at the base, 1.5
inches from base to tip". All standards are open to interpretation, and two
cats can meet a standard equally well yet look totally different. All of my
Siamese cats (all 7 of the pedigree ones) meet the Siamese standard. None have
any disqualifying characteristics (example being a tail kink). 3 of them
meet the standard better than the other 5. Two, in fact, are absolutely perfect
with respect to the standard, yet they look entirely different. And guess
what -- the two best are neutered (well, one will be when he's old enough).
I'll show them and they'll do great at the shows, but I don't pick which cats
to breed based on how they do (or will do) at shows!
How about YOU getting a grip on what you are saying? You obviously know nothing
about shows, the process of showing an animal, or the purpose of a standard.
You need to get a grip on your ill-informed opinions.
Mary
Mary Kolencik
g watson wrote:
> No it is not a good thing. In fact I think it is high time CFA and AKA
> started restricting who could have papers. Only the best of the best hsould
> be allowed to continue to breed. The proven breeders of each breed that
> always win in these show rings. Not just the occasional no and then winners
Yet another really ridiculous opinion. All breeders should register all of
their cats. A pedigree is the single most important piece of information with
regards to the health of a cat. Without a pedigree, a breeder would have
no idea how related two cats are, whether or not a cat with a genetic problem
exists in the background of a cat they're contemplating breeding, etc.
Registration of all breeding animals is absolutely critical to breeders.
You are confusing *registering* with *exhibiting*. If you knew anything about
exhibiting, you would realize that there is quite a bit of politics involved
with winning "best of the best". And what's really bad is that quite a few
of the "proven breeders" or breeders who consistently win best of the best
care less about their cats than the breeder who occasionally wins. I just
can't figure out what your intent is here.
> I do think that breeder should quit breeding if thier animals have not been
> picked as quality for that breed. They need to become more responsible as
> well.
This is utterly stupid. Do you think those "proven breeders" just fork over
their best cats to new breeders? How do you think new breeders ever are supposed
to become "proven breeders"? The new breeder buys the healthiest stock they
can afford, often having to settle for cats that have good traits but might not
do well on the show bench. They try to choose matings wisely based on which
cats will add what features to the others, and they try to improve with each
successive breeding. It can take years for a new breeder to get to the point
of having winning cats of their own breeding. In the meantime, they need
to get their cats to the shows, get out there and get their names known
by those "proven breeders" so that the "proven breeders" will trust them
with their best cats. Do you think it's as simple as just calling up a
cattery with national winners and saying "I want to breed xxx breed cats,
sell me some very best show quality kittens"? Hah! That's almost as funny
as "breeders are in it for the money".
Mary
Mary Kolencik
Daniel and Rebekah wrote:
> If the parents of these cats
> had been spayed and neutered this murder would never had to have
> happened,
Um, I'm a bit confused here. I thought the cats were murdered because
they hadn't been vaccinated for rabies. That's not their parents fault.
Many states have manditory rabies vaccination laws, and many states
have low cost (even FREE) rabies vaccinations. If somebody could
afford to kill the cats, that somebody could have afforded to vaccinate
them.
Mary
Mary Kolencik
Kattz wrote:
> Actually some breeders are creating defects. Haven't you seen those
> cats with the smushed-up faces. Plus they took normal looking Siamese
> and turned them into tall skinny skeletons.
UFB! Turned them into tall skinny skeletons? Hardly. Anyday, anytime,
you come to my house and tell me these Siamese are skinny skeletons.
You have no idea what you're talking about. As for "normal looking",
I think my show-bench Siamese are perfectly normal looking. We haven't
"turned" them into anything.
> How about those cats that require out-crossing to maintain the breed
> and stop defects from appearing ( Manx and Curl-Ear Cats and who knows
> how many others ).
Sadly, you have a point where the Manx and the Scottish Fold are concerned.
(The Curl is not the same as the Fold and does not have to be outcrossed)
However, Manx breeders simply breed tailless Manx to tailed Manx, which
is not an outcross. So they don't really count. The Folds, however, do
count. Associations should stop recognizing the Scottish Fold until further
study is done and we know exactly why the breed has the problems it does.
But that's the ONLY breed that you have a point over.
> If they are lucky there might be 2 kittens in a
> litter that is show-quality ( and others that aren't --- surplus
> population ).
Actually, a breeder is DAMN lucky if they get one show-quality
kitten in a litter. The others are not surplus! Of the litters I've
had in my home, ALL kittens were at least breeder quality -- meaning
they meet the majority of the standard, but have one or two traits
that would keep them from granding. I'm also averaging one show
quality (meaning no traits that would keep the cat from granding)
in a litter. A breeder quality cat crossed with a cat with complementary
features can produce whole litters of show quality kittens.
> And then there is the Spynx -- UGly.
In your opinion. But if I ever get the chance to meet you, perhaps I'll
think YOU are ugly. Should I actively seek to spay and neuter all of
your relatives?
Mary
Raymot
In article
<Pine.A41.3.95b.97031...@dante11.u.washington.edu>,
es...@u.washington.edu says...
>That was one of the best decisions I ever made. Murfy is so COOL!! I
>even had to go through the psychological B.S. personality profile, ect,
>ect, ect....with the wierdo-fanatic-volunteers at the shelter.
They made you have a course of electroconvulsive therapy just
because you wanted to adopt one of their animals??
Bizarre!
Raymot
=======
Brisbane, Australia
rmot...@powerup.com.au
http://www.powerup.com.au/~rmottare/
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Constance L. Crouch
@smart.net>:
Distribution:
Mary Kolencik (pic...@smart.net) wrote:
: Kattz wrote:
: UFB!
This is a new one on me -- what['s it stand for?
: > And then there is the Spynx -- UGly.
: In your opinion. But if I ever get the chance to meet you, perhaps I'll
: think YOU are ugly. Should I actively seek to spay and neuter all of
: your relatives?
LOL! Indeed! I have a friend who has a darling pair of Sphinxes, named
Napoleon & Illya (dark grey & yellow, respectively), & they are 2 of the
cutest, most lovable kids I've ever had the pleasure to meet.
M.
B A Cragg
332856e8....@news.tdsnet.com> <332946...@utig.ig.utexas.edu>: Dale Anderson wrote:
: >
: > gl...@mail.bris.ac.uk (B A Cragg) wrote:
: >
: > >Extinction is neither good or bad it just is. It might be good or bad when
: > >viewed from a human perspective but we are just one species and pretty
: > >irrelevant.
: > >In the course of geological time more species of plants and animals have
: > >become extinct than are currently alive, that must make it quite a
: > >commonplace event.
: >
: > One would consider it part of the evolutionary process, wouldn't one?
: >
: > Dale Anderson
:
:
: Not when it doesn't have to happen.
As I say above the word 'have' does not really come into it. Things happen
or they don't there is no predefined system for them.
: Have you seen the new Life magazine
: about all the species being saved from extinction because of a team of people
: doing research to prevent this from occuring.
I agree that this is an area which can bring up some personal
contradictions. I, myself belong to an organization which attempts to
establish captive breeding programs for animals close to extinction but I
am never sure whether this is actually worthwhile in a global sense. Taken
to its logical end we will stop evolution by never letting species die
out, never letting them be supplanted by a better addapted variant. If you
were around at the time of the dinosaurs would you have thought they ought
to have been protected and preserved - so preventing the rise of the
mammals?
: Have you ever heard of the Sphinx macaw? There is only one left in the
: wild. One of the most beautiful birds on the planet. Thank goodness for
: breeders that have some to continue the species.
Yes but does it actually matter if it dies out? Unfortunately being
beautiful is a mealticket for conservationist minded general public. There
has not been much outcry about the final removal of the last cultures of
smallpox or of the next proposed erradication program for the polio virus
and the malarial parasite. Who we save from extinction is a bit
human-biased.
Again I repeat what I said above. In geological terms extinctions are not
at all uncommon. Justify your right to interfere with this process.
BAZZA
g watson
Martin & Corine Judkins wrote:
>
> I find it rather disconcerting that obviously rat-breeders are so
> callous as to routinely cull animals that do not show certain desired
> characteristics and I think it is a loathsome practice.
Yes but here is where you are being naive. It is a loathsome practice but
unfortunately this type of thing does go on. Probably no breeder you now
but that doesn't not mean in any way shape or form that it doesn't occur.
Certainly happens in the poulty business. People have ways of being very
callous. If it odesn't fit their means.
>
> Corine
Gwen