You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #42: The answer begins with the breeding - as it does with cats and dogs [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
42. The answer begins with the breeding - as it does with cats and dogs
Edited on Mon Nov-28-11 05:47 PM by bread_and_roses
If we were serious about animal welfare, and not just making ourselves feel better with a donation to the humane society, for instance, then there would be strict control on breeding, and it would be very expensive to breed. This would actually be easier with horses, who rarely breed "accidentally." Fees would be applied at every stage of transaction on pet/companion/entertainment (ie, "working" as racehorses and Eventers etc. for horses - a % of the "take" and/or prize $$ designated for retirement/humane death) animals. Require humane euthanasia and make that cheap - use part of the fees collected to subsidize. Use fees to subsidize sufficient "animal cops" to monitor. Put real teeth in animal abuse laws - violators should go to prison and bear steep fines.

Although the horse problem is dwarfed by the - I think last I read 4-6 million dogs/cats destroyed in the US every year - the roots are the same. All the pleas in the world that people "be responsible," all the donations rationally possible to the ASPCA, the Humane Society, whatever, would not solve that problem - anymore than donating to retirement facilities solves the unwanted TB racehorse problem, however well-intentioned those working in that arena. It has to be solved at the source.

Just as in - CA I think it was - breeders would scream like banshees and campaign ferociously against such laws. They defeated a law there that would have put a serious dent in the population of unwanted dogs. Some love, from those who proclaim themselves as loving and responsible. Just don't touch their wallets.

All of those measures would have to be fleshed out, of course. Or smarter people than I can come up with better ones. But I think you can at least see what I mean when I write "wrong question." I think the right question is how do we prevent the situation.

And for those championing the return of horse slaughter in the US, I suggest you take a look at the research that caused people to champion its banning so vigorously - and no, most of us were not naive about the possible outcomes. Interesting to me that all the abuses that are being used to justify a return to slaughter were happening while we had slaughter as well. But somehow that little fact doesn't seem to matter in the minds of those so happy to see the return.

edit for grammar
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC