Let's Kill All the Animals.

[Psychology of Rights and Wrongs]

What does PETA stand for, again?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, you say?

More like People Eradicating Thousands of Animals.

The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom last week reported that PETA slaughtered fully 95 percent of the stray dogs and cats it “rescued” in 2011.

And that’s par for the cat-killing course: Overall, PETA has killed more than 90 percent of the animals it’s taken in since 2005.

Bottom line: The organization that claims its members would “rather go naked than wear fur” prefers to kill dogs and cats rather than find homes for them.

Yes, making the effort to find homes for stray pets takes time — of which PETA apparently has precious little.

In 2010, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services discovered that fully 84 percent of the strays taken in by PETA were killed within 24 hours.

No wonder: The report concluded that PETA’s headquarters “does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody.”

So, off they go to the gas chamber.

No surprise, though, that the organization is much more adept at fund-raising than it is at finding homes for kittens and puppies.

PETA’s annual budget is $37 million, “most,” it claims, coming from tax-deductible contributions from 2 million members.

But that is also considerably supplemented by foundation support: PETA has received some $18.7 million over the last three years from organizations like game-show host Bob Barker’s DJ&T Foundation.

Certainly PETA loves the outrageous.

Remember when the organization was after the upstate community of Fishkill to change its name to something a tad more ichthyologically sensitive? That pr masterstroke earned it international headlines.

And people certainly took note when PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk proclaimed “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”

Except now, the dog is dead.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/first_let_kill_all_...

[red dog]

Regarding the native/non-native thing, I know many ARZone members have seen this article before. I guess it's necessary to post it again.

[Nath Miles]

Winograd opposes mandatory desexing laws.

red dog said:

[Winograd] wants to see thousands of animals born each year only to die.

That's an outright lie and you know it--he supports sterilization, very much so, and I already explained why he favors a non-punitive approach. You've shown no proof that your alternative would result in fewer births or fewer deaths, and Winograd has produced massive evidence to the contrary. Do you have a personal grudge against Nathan Winograd or some other no-kill supporter? Do you have a stake in maintaining the status quo? Your comments are completely unfounded, and probably libellous.  

[Nath Miles]

Can admins please remove personal attacks. Thank you.

[red dog]

You keep repeating yourself. Why?

Nath Miles said:

Winograd opposes mandatory desexing laws.

red dog said:

[Winograd] wants to see thousands of animals born each year only to die.

That's an outright lie and you know it--he supports sterilization, very much so, and I already explained why he favors a non-punitive approach. You've shown no proof that your alternative would result in fewer births or fewer deaths, and Winograd has produced massive evidence to the contrary. Do you have a personal grudge against Nathan Winograd or some other no-kill supporter? Do you have a stake in maintaining the status quo? Your comments are completely unfounded, and probably libellous.  

[Kerry Baker]

I did some checking up when the Victorian Government made microchipping compulsory, something that I personally am totally opposed to on health grounds.  I rang several shelters and the government department responsible for companion animals in Sydney to find out what had happened in the 7 years they had mandatory microchipping.  Just about every one told me that the major problem is low-income earners.  Several sounded as though they had nothing but disdain for people in the low socio-economic end of the scale.  And one actually said to me and I quote, 'Sometimes they beg us to let them have their pet back, but we don't, because we can't.'

I think the issue, as has been said, is that there needs to be a cheaper and better alternative to the money making that goes on in the pet industry.  It should not be a crime to own a pet, and how ridiculous is it that a person who has lost his or her pet and tracks it down, is by law denied their beloved pet because they can't afford desexing or a tracking device. I can only imagine the pain those people must have felt walking away from a 'shelter' knowing their pet was to be killed because they are poor.  It is totally unnecessary and contradicts what the whole animal management process was supposed to do.  When compulsory registration of cats was brought in to Victoria in the 1980's, it was supposed to pay for feral cat management.  What has happened is that the focus has turned on compliance rather than management, and the problem is just going on.  Information cited in this discussion has said that mandatory desexing has only increased killing for this very reason, it becomes about compliance and no assistance is given to pet owners to pay.  It's OK if you are on a decent wage but pensioners and disabled etc, people who arguably will obtain the most benefit, are priced out of having a pet.  Yes humans have domesticated cats and dogs for centuries, but they are now here living with us so I think needs to be accepted. 

[Nath Miles]

Owning a animal is not a right it is a responsibility. If people cant afford a microchip or the cost of desexing then they should not own a animal. How will they pay for emergency vet treatment? How will they pay for vaccinations? Microchips are only $25-30.

[Kerry Baker]

Nath, the cost of desexing is what we are talking about.  Apologies for diverting the discussion, I didn't intend this to be about microchipping but it was the catalyst for why I rang the shelters.  I agree that owning pets is a responsibility, but since when are wealthy people necessarily responsible?  You are taking the extremely simplistic view that is largely the problem, not the answer.  A point that you have apparently overlooked here is that if there are people who can offer pets that would otherwise be killed a good home, surely we should be assisting them to do so.  Personally I'd much rather have my taxes go towards funding homes for animals than killing children in Iraq.

[red dog]

I don't think you should apologize at all--you've made very valid points! Considering how much the majority of people care about homeless animals and how many people donate time and money to help them, it's shameful that so many are killed because their families can't afford vet care. And do you really mean to say that the animal control centers in Australia couldn't waive their fees and microchip animals for free even if they wanted to? What an insane policy.

Kerry Baker said:

Nath, the cost of desexing is what we are talking about.  Apologies for diverting the discussion, I didn't intend this to be about microchipping but it was the catalyst for why I rang the shelters.  I agree that owning pets is a responsibility, but since when are wealthy people necessarily responsible?  You are taking the extremely simplistic view that is largely the problem, not the answer.  A point that you have apparently overlooked here is that if there are people who can offer pets that would otherwise be killed a good home, surely we should be assisting them to do so.  Personally I'd much rather have my taxes go towards funding homes for animals than killing children in Iraq.

[Kerry Baker]

It is indicative of very poor policy making in government.  The intent is reasonable but the impact is other than I assume was anticipated.  The cost of registration of a desexed cat is around $25 per year, but for an intact animal it can be up to around $100.  It doesn't sound unreasonable, but for a person on a pension for example who may be trying to exist on around $25,000 per year, it is unachievable.  The laws and regulations are written in such a way that shelters have no discretion to give a pet back.  Pay up or it dies.  I think that some councils may have a payment plan for low income earners, but this is not much help to those already struggling.  From my observations ineffective and incompetent government usually involves taking a punitive approach to individuals, rather than community based planning.  It's also a revenue raising avenue, and we already know that governments and those who live off the suffering of animals see no value in an animal that isn't bringing in some money. 

[Nath Miles]

If they cant afford $30 then the reality is they cant afford to care for a animal. Poor people can afford $30 so this isnt about rich vs poor. Why should a shelter release a animal to someone who cannot afford to care for it? That seems ridiculous. You are putting a animal in a situation where it may well suffer or go hungry.

red dog said:

I don't think you should apologize at all--you've made very valid points! Considering how much the majority of people care about homeless animals and how many people donate time and money to help them, it's shameful that so many are killed because their families can't afford vet care. And do you really mean to say that the animal control centers in Australia couldn't waive their fees and microchip animals for free even if they wanted to? What an insane policy.

Kerry Baker said:

Nath, the cost of desexing is what we are talking about.  Apologies for diverting the discussion, I didn't intend this to be about microchipping but it was the catalyst for why I rang the shelters.  I agree that owning pets is a responsibility, but since when are wealthy people necessarily responsible?  You are taking the extremely simplistic view that is largely the problem, not the answer.  A point that you have apparently overlooked here is that if there are people who can offer pets that would otherwise be killed a good home, surely we should be assisting them to do so.  Personally I'd much rather have my taxes go towards funding homes for animals than killing children in Iraq.

[Nath Miles]

Kerry,

Multiple times each week I visit open door shelters. Each time I am there I always see people surrendering pets for ridiculous reasons.

“Im going on holiday”

“I have put new carpet in my house”

“It costs to much to feed the animal”

“Ive decided to go and live overseas for a year”

“It wont stop having puppies”

I support the laws we have; I feel we need more laws. I am a strong advocate for laws that make it an offence to own an undesexed animal.

Getting back to the issue of Peta, it is my understanding Peta believe if they can’t find a good home for an animal they will not rehome the animal. They also believe that over population of animals exists (which it does) and that the current situation is unsustainable and the breeding must stop.

Kerry Baker said:

It is indicative of very poor policy making in government.  The intent is reasonable but the impact is other than I assume was anticipated.  The cost of registration of a desexed cat is around $25 per year, but for an intact animal it can be up to around $100.  It doesn't sound unreasonable, but for a person on a pension for example who may be trying to exist on around $25,000 per year, it is unachievable.  The laws and regulations are written in such a way that shelters have no discretion to give a pet back.  Pay up or it dies.  I think that some councils may have a payment plan for low income earners, but this is not much help to those already struggling.  From my observations ineffective and incompetent government usually involves taking a punitive approach to individuals, rather than community based planning.  It's also a revenue raising avenue, and we already know that governments and those who live off the suffering of animals see no value in an animal that isn't bringing in some money. 

[Kerry Baker]

Nath, you are confusing separate issues.  I agree that people who dump their pets for trivial reasons are deplorable.  But it is not the same thing as having a pet picked up by a ranger and unable to afford to get it out.  Since when did poverty become a crime?  The ones who dump are most likely on reasonable salaries and will just go out and get some new pet because it's 'cute' and do the same thing when it reaches adulthood.

And it isn't just $30.  It is the cost of desexing, microchipping and registration, more like $150-200.  A big impost on a low income person.  I think we ought to be helping these people not taking away from them.  At Melbourne Central where I work there is a woman who sells the Big Issue who has a beautiful ginger cat she takes with her everywhere that is happy to be with her and accept pats from passers by and snuggle in the little case and blanket she has for it.  I chatted with her one day and she said she tried leaving it home with her partner, but the cat yowled all day until she came home.  It just wishes to be with her and is he joy.  It is healthy and happy, and my experience of low income people is that they sacrifice a lot for their beloved pets.

On a different note, where are the animal rights in your argument?  Why should these innocent victims of the system lose their lives if there are people who would give them a loving home?  What you are suggesting is perpetuating the disrespect and cruelty that is the reason why these animals get there in the first place.  I get that you don't like cats, but even your reasons demonstrate a lack of awareness of what they are about.  Your arguments are misleading and closer to cruelty than rights. Think about it.

Nath Miles said:

Kerry,

Multiple times each week I visit open door shelters. Each time I am there I always see people surrendering pets for ridiculous reasons.

“Im going on holiday”

“I have put new carpet in my house”

“It costs to much to feed the animal”

“Ive decided to go and live overseas for a year”

“It wont stop having puppies”

I support the laws we have; I feel we need more laws. I am a strong advocate for laws that make it an offence to own an undesexed animal.

Getting back to the issue of Peta, it is my understanding Peta believe if they can’t find a good home for an animal they will not rehome the animal. They also believe that over population of animals exists (which it does) and that the current situation is unsustainable and the breeding must stop.

Kerry Baker said:

It is indicative of very poor policy making in government.  The intent is reasonable but the impact is other than I assume was anticipated.  The cost of registration of a desexed cat is around $25 per year, but for an intact animal it can be up to around $100.  It doesn't sound unreasonable, but for a person on a pension for example who may be trying to exist on around $25,000 per year, it is unachievable.  The laws and regulations are written in such a way that shelters have no discretion to give a pet back.  Pay up or it dies.  I think that some councils may have a payment plan for low income earners, but this is not much help to those already struggling.  From my observations ineffective and incompetent government usually involves taking a punitive approach to individuals, rather than community based planning.  It's also a revenue raising avenue, and we already know that governments and those who live off the suffering of animals see no value in an animal that isn't bringing in some money.