Friday, April 13, 2007

More On Critters

Some back and forth on the pet neutering proposal before the Board of Supervisors is starting to show up in the letters to the editor. Eureka resident, James Wasetis, not only seems to support the ordinance, he wants to take it one step further and require licenses for cats.

On the other side of the aisle, Allison Reed, doesn't seem to think much of the idea. She describes herself as pretty much leaning to the left. Seems like this is an issue that can't be identified as either left or right wing.
In related news, from Southern California, another case of animal rescuers being prosecuted for animal cruelty.


At 10:14 AM, Blogger J D Ferguson said...

The part I liked best about the hearing before the BOS on Tuesday was when Sheriff Philp offered to train members of the public so THEY could kill the unwanted / unadoptable animals at the shelter and his people wouldn't have to. Is this proposed ordinance going to be the magic solution to this problem? Of course not. It is just another tool. However, there is not a member of animal control or the animal rescue organizations who does not pray to be out of a job.

At 2:44 PM, Blogger Rose said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 2:46 PM, Blogger Rose said...

You're right that if people had to kill their pets, or thier unwanted offspring, they might think twice before abandoning them, or try harder to find homes for them.

That would be a far better solution than this abominable proposal that you keep saying "Well, it wouldn't mean that they WOULD do this, that they WOULD start peering over your backyard fence..." it just means they COULD, it's just a TOOL.

Well, if you WOULDN'T take it to its logical conclusion, then it is BAD IDEA.

It's a bad idea.

At 8:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe we could feed the carcasses to farmed salmon or mink. I'd bet you could raise a hell of a large alligator on dog meat.With the right law getting passed there could be no feral population whatsoever.

At 8:41 AM, Blogger J D Ferguson said...

Showing real love for your pet

The Times-Standard
Eureka Times Standard
Article Launched:04/14/2007 04:30:10 AM PDT

When the Times-Standard's Editorial Board sat down this week to debate the county's proposed pet sterilization law, the initial mood was to ask, “Why such a draconian move?” But after 20 minutes of back-and-forth, we were startled to find we had turned around 180 degrees, and had come to believe that something must be done to curb the unfettered proliferation of unwanted dogs and cats.

An ordinance proposed by the sheriff's department would require that, with few exceptions, residents would have to spay or neuter their pets or face fines -- and possibly jail time. Our first reactions were that it would be hard to enforce. There were visions of pet police going onto private property, inspecting and removing beloved family pets. The criminalizing of what many see as a “right” to breed one's dog or cat seemed over the line.

But the proposed ordinance has plenty of opportunities for exceptions, such as for registered purebreds or for hunting dogs. The sheriff's department says it doesn't want to harass the average pet owner, but wants tools to track the chronic offender. For instance, jail time only comes into the picture with the fourth violation in a year.

The abandonment of 800,000 pets in California each year is a tragedy, with taxpayers spending $250 million to house them and, if a home cannot be found, eventually kill them. Public awareness campaigns haven't worked in stemming the tide of abandoned pets overflowing animal shelters. Maybe the threat of fines will.

Other counties have similar laws, and a bill has been proposed in the state Legislature as well. Opposed are breeder groups like the National Animal Interest Alliance Trust for the Protection of Animals, Animal Owners and Animal Enterprises. Proponents include state and local animal rescue, veterinary and humane groups. We agree with them that a spay and neuter law is the best way to show love for our animal friends.

At 4:26 PM, Blogger Rose said...

Yes. Spay and neuter your pet. VOLUNTARILY. Because it is a good idea. Because it prevents unwanted kittens and puppies. Because it helps keep them from running off, from spraying in your house, from fighting, saves you the hassle of dealing with the heat cycle.

Make it FREE to get pets spayed and neutered. Beef up your education program. Offer incentives to people who choose to do it.

But do not make it a law, essentially killing off entire bloodlines, an ultimately entire species. Genocide in the name of solving a problem.

I did not realize or even imagine that people who called themselves animal lovers or animal advocates could even conceive of such a thing.

I cannot believe that someone who professes to love animals would deny future generations the right to share their lives with feline and canine companions of all diverse stripes, happy accidents and mutts and all.

Let's ban all animal rights advocates if this is what they stand for. They'll be out of a job anyway if this is successful, as will vets, pet stores... what a sad and sorry existence you want us to accept.

We are the victims of the Animal Shelter's success. People believe that the Shelter is successfully adopting out and rescuing the animals that come in. People DO NOT know that animals are being put to death - and if they do they believe those numbers are way down - so they are bringing their animlas in believing it is the right thing to do.

Maybe if they knew they would make other choices. Try that FIRST. Make the numbers known. Offer a service - allow people to take the animals back if they are not adopted out. Most people would gladly do that rather than have their pets or pet's offspring killed...

And while you are looking for solutions - look at what KINDS of animals are being euthanized - how many pit bulls, for example. Unadoptable pit bulls. What percentage?

Stop the insanity.

At 5:16 PM, Blogger Rose said...

Let's ask the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to chip in and save the day...

"...what does HSUS do with the millions it raises using the furry faces of Fido and Fluffy? In 2002, the multi-million-dollar conglomerate gave less than $150,000 to hands-on humane societies and animal shelters."

They've got the money.

"Despite the words “humane society” on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.

HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a “humane society” in name only. And while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.

...Buried deep within HSUS’s website is a disclaimer noting that the group “is not affiliated with, nor is it a parent organization for, local humane societies, animal shelters, or animal care and control agencies. These are independent organizations … HSUS does not operate or have direct control over any animal shelter.”

There's your problem.

At 5:26 PM, Blogger Rose said...

Their ad campaign reads. "...“Our mission is to encourage adoption in your neighborhood and throughout the country,” reads another HSUS fundraising appeal. “Even though local shelters are trying their best to save lives, they are simply overwhelmed...."

At 5:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's your point Rose? It's like you're arguing with yourself.

At 7:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exactly - Since no one else will try and make sense of her arguments.

At 10:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just remember Rose gets her info here

Founded by Ron Arnold and supported by:
• Coors Foundation
• Georgia Pacific
• Louisiana-Pacific
• MacMillan Bloedel
• Pacific Lumber
• Exxon
• DuPont, Agricultural Products Division
• Boise Cascade
• Seneca Sawmills
• Sun Studs
• Burkland Lumber
• F.M. Kirby Foundation

At 8:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's so nice Rose has learned to cut and paste so she doesn't have to mentally tax herself with thinking through her goofy positions.

At 11:16 AM, Blogger Rose said...

10:49 has the wrong source
This is the source
and if that doesn't work use this one and use the pull down menu for Humane Society of the United States. Richard likes to try to diminish their message which he cannot refute - the sources of funding revealed come form IRS documents.

But the point here is that there is plenty of money being donated, plenty of caring responsible pet owners and animal lovers, and if funding is a problem, there ought to be a solution.

At 3:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bottom line, Rose is irrational and no factual data, however clear and accurate will sway her.

The folks against this law have personal issues concerning reproduction and deep feelings of inferiority. They fear if prevention of "unwanted" life can be compelled, they would never have been born. They are correct and we'd all be better off for it.

At 5:29 PM, Blogger Rose said...

LOL. You are delusional 3:05.


Post a Comment

<< Home