In yesterday's blog I posted the tax return information from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The reason for this is to highlight that the HSUS is not officially affliated with any local animal shelters and humane societies. While very little of their overall budget does actually go toward care of dogs and cats, most of their millions that are donated annually go towards supporting their political agenda. Most of their political agenda is aimed towards stopping life-saving research involving laboratory animals.
This research is necessary to find cures and vaccines for fatal diseases. Case in point, tuberculosis (TB) is the leading killer of humans throughout the world. This disease is the final nail in the coffin of billions that are living with HIV and AIDS in poverty stricken countries. There is no vaccine for TB and no effective cure. This disease can lie dormant in your body for years before it takes its opportunity to infect you. Usually this opportunity comes when your immune system is already compromised, like from HIV. In most 1st world countries, TB is not a huge problem. This is due to proper public health education, better sanitation of drinking water and waste, and through adequate testing and quarantine. And yet, TB is the biggest killer in the world.
Currently there is research ongoing using laboratory animals to find a vaccine for TB. There is also research being conducted on the antibiotic-resistant strains of TB that have recently popped up around the world. This research is very close to finding a vaccine to protect all people from TB. This research would not be possible without the use of the humble laboratory mouse. Mice are used as research models for TB because they are easily reproduced, have quick generation times, have naturally short lifespans, are capable of genetic manipulation, and have immune systems that react to TB in the exact same way that a human's immune system does. The laboratory mouse is the perfect analog to the human. Without these mice, millions will continue to die fromTB and millions more will continue to get infected every day.
Wouldn't you rather use a mouse for research than watch millions of people die? The HSUS doesn't think so. They would like to stop animal testing in all research. By stopping the use of animals as research models, they would effectively terminate all research that is centered around infectious diseases. Disease research can not operate without a suitable animal model. There is no way around it. For more information on this topic and more information about the HSUS, please read "Animal Research Wars" by Michael Conn.
Here's my recommendation: If you would like to donate to the care of animals in shelters, donate to your LOCAL shelter. Local animal shelters are always looking for donations of money, animal feed, kitty litter, and volunteer time. Don't donate to the HSUS which uses most of its budget for political agendas and inflated salaries. Do donate to your local shelter which uses all of its budget to care for animals in your community.
While I do not support my local humane society's "no kill" policy, I do support my local humane society. The humane society was on call at 2am when my dog got hit by a car on the local highway. They waited until we could get there and take our dog home. It was raining and cold and they sat by the side of the road comforting my dog until I could get there. I will never forget that act of kindness by employees of the humane society. This was a service they didn't need to do but did so because of their heartfelt care for the animals of the community. I donate to them every year. I give them boxes of dog biscuits when I have too many for my two dogs to eat. I give them leftover kitty litter when I have extra. I also donate money when I have some to spare.
Please donate to your local animal shelter. Don't donate to the HSUS unless you are fully aware of their agenda.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
From Americans For Medical Progress News Service Digest - 1/4/10
"A hat tip for the enterprise reporting by Center for Consumer Freedom in its analysis of the 2008 tax return submitted by the Humane Society of the United States. Among the troubling points CCF found in the HSUS report:
HSUS reported spending almost $20 million on "campaigns, legislation and litigation.
HSUS collected over $86 million in contributions and spent more than $24 million on fundraising.
HSUS paid 41 of its employees over $100,000 in 2008, including CEO Wayne Pacelle, who earned more than $250,000 in salary and benefits.
Nevertheless, the HSUS total grant allocation was less than $4.7 million, with nearly half of that going to a lobbying group responsible for California's Proposition 2 initiative. CCF calculates that the HSUS gave only a little more than $450,000 - just half of one percent of its total budget - in grants to organizations providing hands-on care to dogs and cats.
This report by Center for Consumer Freedom, and a link to the HSUS 2008 tax return, may be found at http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4062-unpacking-the-hsus-gravy-train "
"A hat tip for the enterprise reporting by Center for Consumer Freedom in its analysis of the 2008 tax return submitted by the Humane Society of the United States. Among the troubling points CCF found in the HSUS report:
HSUS reported spending almost $20 million on "campaigns, legislation and litigation.
HSUS collected over $86 million in contributions and spent more than $24 million on fundraising.
HSUS paid 41 of its employees over $100,000 in 2008, including CEO Wayne Pacelle, who earned more than $250,000 in salary and benefits.
Nevertheless, the HSUS total grant allocation was less than $4.7 million, with nearly half of that going to a lobbying group responsible for California's Proposition 2 initiative. CCF calculates that the HSUS gave only a little more than $450,000 - just half of one percent of its total budget - in grants to organizations providing hands-on care to dogs and cats.
This report by Center for Consumer Freedom, and a link to the HSUS 2008 tax return, may be found at http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4062-unpacking-the-hsus-gravy-train "
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
"No Kill" Is Not Equal To "No Suffering"
Here's a subject that has been weighing on my mind for quite some time.
I have a real problem with "Humane" Societies. I put "humane" in quotes because I find that some of them are very, very far from that. My problem is not with all of them, my problem is with the "no kill" ones. While I believe that every animal deserves a good chance at a good life, there are some animals that are either too sick, too frail, or too mean to be kept alive. As human caretakers of our animal counterparts, we are responsible for their lives, their welfare, and their deaths. If we are to continue to produce animals for our own goals, we have to take responsibility for that -- all of that, even death.
I recently spoke with someone who worked at a Humane Society in a big city. She worked there for many years and loved her job very much. When she started there, it was a shelter that took in animals from all over the city and its suburbs. Many of those animals went to new homes with very happy new owners. Some of those animals were humanely euthanized due to being very sick, very old, or very unadoptable (usually only the biters). She saw lots of cats come through the door with feline leukemia, feline AIDS, and feline distemper. These diseases have no cure and the cat slowly suffers a painful death. These diseases are also highly communicable to other cats. She had to put down many of these cats in order to keep the healthy cats at the shelter from getting very sick. No one wanted to adopt a sick cat. The dogs also came in with many diseases and uncurable problems. She carefully evaluated each case and only put down the animals that would not get better with treatment. A veterinarian worked closely with her and they both tried every option available before choosing euthanasia. Money was not a factor when it came to surgeries or treatments. If the animal had a chance to get better, it was given that chance.
Eventually the shelter changed directors. The new director decided that it must become a "no kill" shelter because that looked better to the media. He did not allow any euthanasia of sick or dying animals in order to keep the numbers of euthanasia deaths low for the year end reports.
The woman told me about a puppy that came in with heart failure. It had a birth defect that was not fixable. The puppy was suffering horribly as its organs started to fail. It was dying a slow and agonizing death. The director would not allow the woman to put the puppy out of its misery. The puppy died after 22 hours of painful heart failure. Medicine was given to relieve the pain, but you could see in its eyes that it was suffering horribly.
Even though the euthanasia numbers were low at the shelter because of the new "no kill" policy, the adoption numbers plummeted. The shelter could no longer take in animals from the surrounding suburbs. Before the shelter would take adoptable animals from overcrowded suburban shelters and bring them to the city where they had a very good chance of finding a new home. Now the shelter is full of sick cats and sick dogs. The surrounding shelters in the suburbs are also completely full. No one wants to adopt a sick animal. Basically this good shelter that gave great animals a second chance turned into a nursing home for unwanted animals.
This is a great example of what can happen when shelters decide that "euthanasia" is a bad word. Another example that I want to think about is what happens to the animals that can't be taken into the shelters because the shelters are already too full. Where do people turn when they have an animal that they don't want or can't take care of any more and no one will take it? This is why there are so many stray and abused animals around. People that can't take care of them will dump them somewhere. Or they will become empathetic and starve the animal until it goes away. Annual vaccinations and veterinarian checkups cost lots of money. Pet food costs lots of money. When the choice is between feeding a pet you don't want anymore and feeding your family, what will you choose? I am not saying that this happens to every pet that is turned away from the shelter, but it does happen to some.
I think we all need to reevaluate how we view humane euthanasia and "no kill" shelters. I would like to see a return of responsible animal husbandry that includes positive breeding programs, responsible spay/neuter decisions, and euthanasia when necessary. If we continue to flood the world with undesirable animals, soon there won't be any room for us. If we continue to put animal rights above animal welfare, we will be hastening our own means to our own end.
I have a real problem with "Humane" Societies. I put "humane" in quotes because I find that some of them are very, very far from that. My problem is not with all of them, my problem is with the "no kill" ones. While I believe that every animal deserves a good chance at a good life, there are some animals that are either too sick, too frail, or too mean to be kept alive. As human caretakers of our animal counterparts, we are responsible for their lives, their welfare, and their deaths. If we are to continue to produce animals for our own goals, we have to take responsibility for that -- all of that, even death.
I recently spoke with someone who worked at a Humane Society in a big city. She worked there for many years and loved her job very much. When she started there, it was a shelter that took in animals from all over the city and its suburbs. Many of those animals went to new homes with very happy new owners. Some of those animals were humanely euthanized due to being very sick, very old, or very unadoptable (usually only the biters). She saw lots of cats come through the door with feline leukemia, feline AIDS, and feline distemper. These diseases have no cure and the cat slowly suffers a painful death. These diseases are also highly communicable to other cats. She had to put down many of these cats in order to keep the healthy cats at the shelter from getting very sick. No one wanted to adopt a sick cat. The dogs also came in with many diseases and uncurable problems. She carefully evaluated each case and only put down the animals that would not get better with treatment. A veterinarian worked closely with her and they both tried every option available before choosing euthanasia. Money was not a factor when it came to surgeries or treatments. If the animal had a chance to get better, it was given that chance.
Eventually the shelter changed directors. The new director decided that it must become a "no kill" shelter because that looked better to the media. He did not allow any euthanasia of sick or dying animals in order to keep the numbers of euthanasia deaths low for the year end reports.
The woman told me about a puppy that came in with heart failure. It had a birth defect that was not fixable. The puppy was suffering horribly as its organs started to fail. It was dying a slow and agonizing death. The director would not allow the woman to put the puppy out of its misery. The puppy died after 22 hours of painful heart failure. Medicine was given to relieve the pain, but you could see in its eyes that it was suffering horribly.
Even though the euthanasia numbers were low at the shelter because of the new "no kill" policy, the adoption numbers plummeted. The shelter could no longer take in animals from the surrounding suburbs. Before the shelter would take adoptable animals from overcrowded suburban shelters and bring them to the city where they had a very good chance of finding a new home. Now the shelter is full of sick cats and sick dogs. The surrounding shelters in the suburbs are also completely full. No one wants to adopt a sick animal. Basically this good shelter that gave great animals a second chance turned into a nursing home for unwanted animals.
This is a great example of what can happen when shelters decide that "euthanasia" is a bad word. Another example that I want to think about is what happens to the animals that can't be taken into the shelters because the shelters are already too full. Where do people turn when they have an animal that they don't want or can't take care of any more and no one will take it? This is why there are so many stray and abused animals around. People that can't take care of them will dump them somewhere. Or they will become empathetic and starve the animal until it goes away. Annual vaccinations and veterinarian checkups cost lots of money. Pet food costs lots of money. When the choice is between feeding a pet you don't want anymore and feeding your family, what will you choose? I am not saying that this happens to every pet that is turned away from the shelter, but it does happen to some.
I think we all need to reevaluate how we view humane euthanasia and "no kill" shelters. I would like to see a return of responsible animal husbandry that includes positive breeding programs, responsible spay/neuter decisions, and euthanasia when necessary. If we continue to flood the world with undesirable animals, soon there won't be any room for us. If we continue to put animal rights above animal welfare, we will be hastening our own means to our own end.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Winter!
By now I am sure the entire country has been innudated with the frosty white stuff. I hear it's even snowing in Texas! It finally started to snow up here and I am ready for it. Well, not ready, but I knew it was coming sooner or later (I mean, I do live in the Adirondacks!).
Monday it snowed a little. There was about 2 inches on the ground. Not enough to ski in, but enough that it blanketed everything. Yesterday it was sunny and the snow stayed around. I put the girls out in the pasture. They weren't very happy about that. I had to laugh when the young girls came bounding out of the barn only to just about flip over when they hit the brakes at the door before they hit the white stuff. It was hilarious! They didn't know what to do at all. I shoved them outside anyways and figured they better get to know the snow on a sunny day than on a not so pleasant day.
I knew that the weather man was calling for more snow so last night I ran around and got everything ready for the onslaught. I put the electronet away for the winter. The snow smooshes it and renders it useless so I rolled it up and put it away. I then moved the bucks to the cow shed for the winter. They had been living outside in the back pen. With the snow and cold I figured they might like living the remainder of the time inside the 10' X 12' lean-to shed rather than in an open pen. I even drug their sleeping box all the way from their pen to the shed so they could have an extra sheltered spot to sleep in at night. Aren't I thoughtful? Then I had to clean the chicken house. Until it gets cold enough for the floor of the chicken house to freeze, the floor gets really messy with 15 chickens in a 5' X 5' barn. Once there is snow on the ground they won't step on foot out of the chicken house, even though I leave their door open all the time. They make a mess of the water dish and spill it all over so I wind up cleaning out their house every week. Once the floor freezes I can just keep throwing new shavings on top of the frozen ones until the spring. Oh well, it comes with the territory.
Now the only things left to do before it gets really cold is put the Christmas lights up around the barn and move the rabbits from the outside hutch to cages in the goat barn. Right now the rabbits are fine living in the outside hutch. They have warm nest boxes and plenty of hay. Once it gets to -5F or less I will move them inside to stay warm.
Winter is wonderful, isn't it?
Monday it snowed a little. There was about 2 inches on the ground. Not enough to ski in, but enough that it blanketed everything. Yesterday it was sunny and the snow stayed around. I put the girls out in the pasture. They weren't very happy about that. I had to laugh when the young girls came bounding out of the barn only to just about flip over when they hit the brakes at the door before they hit the white stuff. It was hilarious! They didn't know what to do at all. I shoved them outside anyways and figured they better get to know the snow on a sunny day than on a not so pleasant day.
I knew that the weather man was calling for more snow so last night I ran around and got everything ready for the onslaught. I put the electronet away for the winter. The snow smooshes it and renders it useless so I rolled it up and put it away. I then moved the bucks to the cow shed for the winter. They had been living outside in the back pen. With the snow and cold I figured they might like living the remainder of the time inside the 10' X 12' lean-to shed rather than in an open pen. I even drug their sleeping box all the way from their pen to the shed so they could have an extra sheltered spot to sleep in at night. Aren't I thoughtful? Then I had to clean the chicken house. Until it gets cold enough for the floor of the chicken house to freeze, the floor gets really messy with 15 chickens in a 5' X 5' barn. Once there is snow on the ground they won't step on foot out of the chicken house, even though I leave their door open all the time. They make a mess of the water dish and spill it all over so I wind up cleaning out their house every week. Once the floor freezes I can just keep throwing new shavings on top of the frozen ones until the spring. Oh well, it comes with the territory.
Now the only things left to do before it gets really cold is put the Christmas lights up around the barn and move the rabbits from the outside hutch to cages in the goat barn. Right now the rabbits are fine living in the outside hutch. They have warm nest boxes and plenty of hay. Once it gets to -5F or less I will move them inside to stay warm.
Winter is wonderful, isn't it?
Friday, November 6, 2009
Breeding Season
Just when I thought that everything would move along calmly and easily this year, the goats have to remind me that I should never assume anything.
This year I have two bucks that I want to breed to two does. One buck is a Toggenburg baby that was born on the farm last spring. The other buck is a Nubian that I purchased for full price from a nice farm a couple of hours away. I had high hopes for these boys. The Toggenburg is going to be bred to Lucy and the Nubian is going to be bred to Pepper. This is the way it has to be because I refuse to crossbreed Nubians to anything other than Nubians. I have to breed these boys to these girls.
Last week Lucy came into heat. I put her in with the bucks to see what they would do. The Togg buck was very, very interested in her. The Nubian could have cared less. I let the Togg play for a little while and then put Lucy back in her pen. I was not ready to have Lucy bred for real that day. She should come back into heat in three weeks and that is when I will put her back in with the Togg for real.
Yesterday Pepper came into heat. She was screaming and dribbling and generally losing her mind (as does tend to do this time of year). I put her in with the boys and watched carefully. The Togg was very interested and the Nubian ran away. I pulled the Togg out so that he wouldn't get too excited. I left Pepper and the Nubian in together. I watched and watched and only saw the Nubian run away from Pepper and not try to breed her at all. He was terrified of her and she wasn't even being her normal, bossy self. She was turning on the charm as best she could and he wasn't falling for it.
I am very sad because my Nubian buck is not interested in his girlfriend. I hope that he decides that he wants to be a male and wants to breed the girls. If he doesn't do his job, I don't know what I will do with him. I don't want to keep him around if he isn't productive and I don't want to pay to have him neutered at this point. I can't sell him as a buck if I know that he won't breed and I can't get the money I put into him if I sell him as a wether. Also I don't know where to get another Nubian buck in a hurry.
How come it is never easy?!
This year I have two bucks that I want to breed to two does. One buck is a Toggenburg baby that was born on the farm last spring. The other buck is a Nubian that I purchased for full price from a nice farm a couple of hours away. I had high hopes for these boys. The Toggenburg is going to be bred to Lucy and the Nubian is going to be bred to Pepper. This is the way it has to be because I refuse to crossbreed Nubians to anything other than Nubians. I have to breed these boys to these girls.
Last week Lucy came into heat. I put her in with the bucks to see what they would do. The Togg buck was very, very interested in her. The Nubian could have cared less. I let the Togg play for a little while and then put Lucy back in her pen. I was not ready to have Lucy bred for real that day. She should come back into heat in three weeks and that is when I will put her back in with the Togg for real.
Yesterday Pepper came into heat. She was screaming and dribbling and generally losing her mind (as does tend to do this time of year). I put her in with the boys and watched carefully. The Togg was very interested and the Nubian ran away. I pulled the Togg out so that he wouldn't get too excited. I left Pepper and the Nubian in together. I watched and watched and only saw the Nubian run away from Pepper and not try to breed her at all. He was terrified of her and she wasn't even being her normal, bossy self. She was turning on the charm as best she could and he wasn't falling for it.
I am very sad because my Nubian buck is not interested in his girlfriend. I hope that he decides that he wants to be a male and wants to breed the girls. If he doesn't do his job, I don't know what I will do with him. I don't want to keep him around if he isn't productive and I don't want to pay to have him neutered at this point. I can't sell him as a buck if I know that he won't breed and I can't get the money I put into him if I sell him as a wether. Also I don't know where to get another Nubian buck in a hurry.
How come it is never easy?!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Animal Cruelty
Today the Supreme Court of the United States is weighing in on whether or not images of animal cruelty should be deemed illegal. I find this to be very important to my life and my livelihood. I live on a farm and I work in animal research. Both of these areas of my life heavily involve decisions about animals and their welfare.
The case to be negotiated by the court today involves images of dogfighting obtained primarily in Japan, where dogfighting is completely legal. While I in no way at all condone dogfighting (I think it absolutely stands as a definition of animal cruelty), I find this case incredibly important. On the one side you have the prosecution which maintains that by defining these videos of dogfighting as illegal, you are violating 1st amendment rights to free speech. Also if these images are defined as illegal, what other images will become banned? Will TV shows about hunting, Western movies where horses get shot as part of the storyline, or educational tutorials on proper butchering techniques also fall in the illegal category? Will we no longer be able to watch anything on the Animal Planet channel because the images of a shark eating a seal are deemed as "animal cruelty" and carry a felony charge?
On the other side you have the defense which believes that these images are equal in cruelty and vulgarity to child pornography and serve no benefit to society. I support their argument that dogfighting movies and images of women in high heels crushing mice and kittens (it's a fetish, believe it or not) are inhumane and cruel. I don't support their push to outlaw other images of "animal cruelty". I think their definition is too large and carries too many implications to be placed upon the Constitution. If let out of the box this idea of outlawing images of cruelty could become dangerous to the ability to farmers to make a living or for animal researchers to find a cure for life-threatening diseases.
I have a hard time supporting an idea that could possibly lead the end to educational images of animal butchering or veterinary services. How are veterinarian students expected to learn about internal animal diseases without the aid of educational images of animals? How are farmers expected to learn to humanely slaughter and butcher their animals without the ability to find images of such processes in books, on television, or on the internet?
While I do believe that there are cruel people in the world that get sick entertainment out of torture and harm to animals, I think that these cases need to be dealt with individually and not with a blanket statement by the Supreme Court as to what "animal cruelty" is defined as.
A few examples to illustrate my point about how the idea of "animal cruelty" has gone too far:
1. In my hometown a man accidentally ran over his dog in his driveway. He immediately realized what he had done and took the dog to the only emergency vet clinic that was open at the time (it was a Saturday afternoon). The dog was in good spirits but was holding it's hind leg up and limping a little. The vet took X-rays and determined that the dog did not have a broken bone. The vet recommended that the dog be given IV fluids for treatment of shock and be kept at the vet's over the weekend for a MRI and monitoring, all at an outrageous expense. The man asked what the MRI and monitoring might determine. The vet said that it would tell if there where ligaments torn or if it was just a deep muscle bruise. If the ligaments were torn then the dog would be showing signs of pain and wouldn't be putting weight on the leg by Monday. If it was a bruise then the dog would get better and would be putting some weight on the leg as the bruise healed. The vet's recommendations would cost the man about $6000. The man decided to take the dog home and monitor himself to see if the dog got better. The vet advised him not to do this, but the man did it anyway. On Monday, the dog was not limping anymore and was putting weight on the leg. The man decided that the dog was fine and didn't need further treatment. Monday afternoon the police showed up with an animal control officer to arrest the man and take the dog. The charge was felony animal cruelty because the man did not follow what the vet had recommended.
I have to ask, since when do vets have the right to decide what is best for our animals? The man cared for the dog enough to take him to the vet immediately but simply did not have the resources to do the extraneous tests the vet recommended. Does this make him a criminal?
2. In my hometown, a woman had a feral cat move into her basement laundry room and have kittens in her basket of towels. Every time the woman came downstairs to do laundry the cat tried to attack her. The cat and kittens were also pooping and peeing all over her basement. She call the animal control officer and asked him to come out and get the cats out of her basement. He came and the mother cat tried to attack him as well. He trapped two of the kittens in a live-trap and was able to relocate them. The mother cat and three other kittens remained in the basement where they continued to terrorize the woman. The woman begged and pleaded with the animal control officer over several weeks to get him to take care of the cats. He came back and when he went in the basement the mother cat attacked his leg. He shot it and the three kittens (who were actually almost full grown cats by this time). He had all the cats tested for rabies, which was luckily negative. The woman was able to use her basement again without fear of attack by a wild animal. The animal control officer was arrested on felony animal cruelty for shooting the four cats.
It was his job to protect the public from animals. He did what he believed was necessary to protect himself and the residents of the house from possibly rabid animals. Now, if it had been a family of skunks he had shot, do you think he would be in jail today?
What I am trying to illustrate is that as a society we have become way too opinionated about what is defined as animal cruelty, animal rights, and animal welfare. I am not an animal rights supporter. I am an animal welfare supporter. There is an enormous difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Animal rights is the belief that animals should be afforded the same basic rights as humans. The problem with this idea is that this means that if a cat kills a mouse, the mouse's family has a right to sue the cat under its the due process right. See how silly this idea is? Animals do not have ethics and morals. Animals are cognisant, thinking beings, but they do not have compassion or beliefs or a moral compass. There are some examples of animals sharing or communicating or showing emotions but does this qualify all animals as having human traits? If I have a pet goat, am I guilty of wrongful imprisonment? I would be if animal rightists got their way.
Animal welfare is the belief that animals are living beings deserving of care and respect. This is my position. I raise animals for food. I slaughter animals to feed my family. This does not mean that I do not treat my animals with the utmost of kindness and dignity up until the end. I love every animal I raise, whether it be a meat rabbit or laying hen or pet cat. I believe that if I am going to take that animal's life to support my own, I am going to give that animal the best life I can. I also give that animal the best death I can. I respect it enough to euthanize it quickly and humanely. I respect its sacrifice enough to value every part of that animal. Nothing goes wasted.
I hope that the Supreme Court will be able to see through this decision enough to decide what is proper for life and livelihood and for my animal's life and livelihood.
The case to be negotiated by the court today involves images of dogfighting obtained primarily in Japan, where dogfighting is completely legal. While I in no way at all condone dogfighting (I think it absolutely stands as a definition of animal cruelty), I find this case incredibly important. On the one side you have the prosecution which maintains that by defining these videos of dogfighting as illegal, you are violating 1st amendment rights to free speech. Also if these images are defined as illegal, what other images will become banned? Will TV shows about hunting, Western movies where horses get shot as part of the storyline, or educational tutorials on proper butchering techniques also fall in the illegal category? Will we no longer be able to watch anything on the Animal Planet channel because the images of a shark eating a seal are deemed as "animal cruelty" and carry a felony charge?
On the other side you have the defense which believes that these images are equal in cruelty and vulgarity to child pornography and serve no benefit to society. I support their argument that dogfighting movies and images of women in high heels crushing mice and kittens (it's a fetish, believe it or not) are inhumane and cruel. I don't support their push to outlaw other images of "animal cruelty". I think their definition is too large and carries too many implications to be placed upon the Constitution. If let out of the box this idea of outlawing images of cruelty could become dangerous to the ability to farmers to make a living or for animal researchers to find a cure for life-threatening diseases.
I have a hard time supporting an idea that could possibly lead the end to educational images of animal butchering or veterinary services. How are veterinarian students expected to learn about internal animal diseases without the aid of educational images of animals? How are farmers expected to learn to humanely slaughter and butcher their animals without the ability to find images of such processes in books, on television, or on the internet?
While I do believe that there are cruel people in the world that get sick entertainment out of torture and harm to animals, I think that these cases need to be dealt with individually and not with a blanket statement by the Supreme Court as to what "animal cruelty" is defined as.
A few examples to illustrate my point about how the idea of "animal cruelty" has gone too far:
1. In my hometown a man accidentally ran over his dog in his driveway. He immediately realized what he had done and took the dog to the only emergency vet clinic that was open at the time (it was a Saturday afternoon). The dog was in good spirits but was holding it's hind leg up and limping a little. The vet took X-rays and determined that the dog did not have a broken bone. The vet recommended that the dog be given IV fluids for treatment of shock and be kept at the vet's over the weekend for a MRI and monitoring, all at an outrageous expense. The man asked what the MRI and monitoring might determine. The vet said that it would tell if there where ligaments torn or if it was just a deep muscle bruise. If the ligaments were torn then the dog would be showing signs of pain and wouldn't be putting weight on the leg by Monday. If it was a bruise then the dog would get better and would be putting some weight on the leg as the bruise healed. The vet's recommendations would cost the man about $6000. The man decided to take the dog home and monitor himself to see if the dog got better. The vet advised him not to do this, but the man did it anyway. On Monday, the dog was not limping anymore and was putting weight on the leg. The man decided that the dog was fine and didn't need further treatment. Monday afternoon the police showed up with an animal control officer to arrest the man and take the dog. The charge was felony animal cruelty because the man did not follow what the vet had recommended.
I have to ask, since when do vets have the right to decide what is best for our animals? The man cared for the dog enough to take him to the vet immediately but simply did not have the resources to do the extraneous tests the vet recommended. Does this make him a criminal?
2. In my hometown, a woman had a feral cat move into her basement laundry room and have kittens in her basket of towels. Every time the woman came downstairs to do laundry the cat tried to attack her. The cat and kittens were also pooping and peeing all over her basement. She call the animal control officer and asked him to come out and get the cats out of her basement. He came and the mother cat tried to attack him as well. He trapped two of the kittens in a live-trap and was able to relocate them. The mother cat and three other kittens remained in the basement where they continued to terrorize the woman. The woman begged and pleaded with the animal control officer over several weeks to get him to take care of the cats. He came back and when he went in the basement the mother cat attacked his leg. He shot it and the three kittens (who were actually almost full grown cats by this time). He had all the cats tested for rabies, which was luckily negative. The woman was able to use her basement again without fear of attack by a wild animal. The animal control officer was arrested on felony animal cruelty for shooting the four cats.
It was his job to protect the public from animals. He did what he believed was necessary to protect himself and the residents of the house from possibly rabid animals. Now, if it had been a family of skunks he had shot, do you think he would be in jail today?
What I am trying to illustrate is that as a society we have become way too opinionated about what is defined as animal cruelty, animal rights, and animal welfare. I am not an animal rights supporter. I am an animal welfare supporter. There is an enormous difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Animal rights is the belief that animals should be afforded the same basic rights as humans. The problem with this idea is that this means that if a cat kills a mouse, the mouse's family has a right to sue the cat under its the due process right. See how silly this idea is? Animals do not have ethics and morals. Animals are cognisant, thinking beings, but they do not have compassion or beliefs or a moral compass. There are some examples of animals sharing or communicating or showing emotions but does this qualify all animals as having human traits? If I have a pet goat, am I guilty of wrongful imprisonment? I would be if animal rightists got their way.
Animal welfare is the belief that animals are living beings deserving of care and respect. This is my position. I raise animals for food. I slaughter animals to feed my family. This does not mean that I do not treat my animals with the utmost of kindness and dignity up until the end. I love every animal I raise, whether it be a meat rabbit or laying hen or pet cat. I believe that if I am going to take that animal's life to support my own, I am going to give that animal the best life I can. I also give that animal the best death I can. I respect it enough to euthanize it quickly and humanely. I respect its sacrifice enough to value every part of that animal. Nothing goes wasted.
I hope that the Supreme Court will be able to see through this decision enough to decide what is proper for life and livelihood and for my animal's life and livelihood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)