When laws are enacted based on emotion, and not on necessity, there are often unintended consequences. If you are a proponent of the new dog law, was it your intention that hobby breeders "put down" older dogs just to keep the numbers down? I think not. I think it was your intent that breeder would stop having young dogs. Well, one unintended consequence may just be fewer older dogs.
Here is a question that was posed on a list the other day from a hobby breeder in PA. "Where does that leave us who have Hobby Kennels who are not commercial.... . We breed for show. What should we do with our older dogs who add to the numbers but have lived here for 10 to 15 years? They are neutered, should we put them down to reduce our numbers? They have a right to live out their lives the way they were used to living."
No matter what your good intention (you person who insisted that Numbers of dogs are the manner for which Kennels should be defined)- all actions come with consequences. For one, the consequence of feeling pressure to keep the number of dogs within some arbitrary number (determined not by the person is is actually caring for the dogs, but by someone else who is judging that person by the number of dogs they have) is fewer older dogs.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
Good Pet colum gets bad comments from a Law Maker
This good article was pulished in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette
Pet Tales: Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice
Thursday, November 13, 2008
By Linda Wilson Fuoco, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A puppy is coming to the White House! Official confirmation of this came on election night and during the president-elect's first press conference Friday.
"Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House," president-elect Barack Obama said during his victory speech in Chicago.
Those little girls beamed and smiled as they appeared with their parents on that historic night. I'm guessing that at their age (Malia is 10 and Sasha is 7), the puppy is the best part of the election victory.
Won't it be wonderful to have young children in the White House again? Amy Carter lived part of her childhood there, but we didn't see too much of her.
It's been decades since the Kennedy era brought two young children and a menagerie of pets to the presidential residence, including a pony named Macaroni and a Welsh terrier named Charlie.
Now thousands of individuals and dozens of organizations are weighing in on what kind of canine the Obama family should choose, and where they should obtain the soon-to-be-high-profile puppy.
Animals rights and animal welfare groups are lobbying for adoption from a shelter or a rescue organization that finds new homes for dogs whose owners are unable or unwilling to continue caring for them. Those groups include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Humane Society of the United States, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Best Friends Animal Society.
Those organizations and animal shelters across the country generally urge people to give a second chance, and a new home, to adult dogs that may otherwise be euthanized.
Puppies are a relatively rare and precious commodity in the shelter and rescue world. There is often a waiting list for puppies, especially purebred puppies. But when your daddy's the president, you can probably move to the top of the adoption list.
The soon-to-be first family has expressed an interest in a purebred pup because one of the girls has allergies. Some breeds, including poodles and some of the terrier breeds, have hair, rather than fur, that is less likely to cause an allergic reaction.
The bottom line is this: The Obama family, like all pet-seeking families, needs to find the pet that will fit their lifestyle, needs and desires. It sounds like they have been doing some research and giving this a lot of thought. When they pick their puppy and bring it into their new home, I hope everyone respects their decision and is happy for Malia and Sasha.
We all have the right to choose the pet we want. And those who have their heart set on a puppy should not be condemned for getting one, even if the puppy comes from a "responsible" breeder.
PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder. They say that when someone buys a puppy from a breeder, a shelter dog is euthanized. That's not necessarily true because some people don't want to adopt from a shelter, for whatever reason.
Some animal rights groups and individuals say that all breeding should stop. If they get their way, there would be no more dogs or cats in 15 or 20 years.
What is a responsible dog breeder? Here's my opinion and definition. Their dogs and puppies live in their house, where they are well-socialized and much-loved. Only the best, the brightest and the healthiest dogs are used for breeding. While there's no guarantee that all puppies will live long and healthy lives, many genetic tests can be administered to the adults used for breeding. Dogs that "flunk" should not be bred because they will pass on genetic conditions, including hip and knee problems, to their puppies.
The best breeders don't allow a litter to be conceived until prospective buyers are lined up. Responsible breeders don't make a profit on their puppies because the genetic testing and veterinary care for the breeding dogs and puppies will exceed the price charged for the puppies.
Here's the bottom line: If you take a puppy or dog into your home and care for it until the day it dies, you're part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Linda Wilson Fuoco can be reached at lfuoco@post-gazette.com or 412-263-3064.
First published on November 13, 2008 at 12:00 am
Washington Letters to the Editor
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Lawmaker disagrees with pet columnist
In her Nov. 16 Pet Tales column ("Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice"), Linda Wilson Fuoco missed a great opportunity to reinforce the importance of adopting pets from shelters as opposed to purchasing them from pet stores or breeders. Instead, she used the column to chide those who are encouraging the president-elect's family to adopt their new dog, arguing that either choice is responsible as long as the dog is well cared for. She is wrong.
Ninety-five percent of puppies sold in pet stores come from large-scale breeding operations. These mass breeders produce puppies for profit with little regard for demand, health or any other factor. The notion that ending these mass-breeding operations would lead to the disappearance of dogs and cats within 15 or 20 years is nonsense. The fact is the dog-breeding industry has led to a huge overpopulation of dogs in this country, and many of these dogs eventually end up abused, abandoned or in shelters. People who purchase from pet stores -- even with the best intentions -- support this breeding industry and, therefore, are part of the problem.
Besides saving a dog's life -- nationally, about half the animals in shelters are euthanized because a home cannot be found for them -- adopting a pet from a shelter is the more responsible choice for a number of reasons. Animal shelters evaluate each dog for health, temperament, behavior and other issues and will work with a family to help determine what type, breed and age of dog is right for them. Many shelters also provide adoption counseling and follow-up services, such as training classes and medical assistance. You won't find that at a pet store.
Shelter adoption fees are usually a lot less than the price tag at a pet store, and pets adopted from shelters are much more likely to be vaccinated, de-wormed and spayed or neutered. Finally, plenty of purebred dogs are available for adoption. On average, 25 percent to 35 percent of dogs in shelters are purebreds, so the Obamas and other families should have no problem finding the puppy they desire through adoption.
JAMES E. CASORIO JR.
Editor's note: The writer is a state representative for the 56th District in Westmoreland County and the prime sponsor of House Bill 2525, which placed more stringent regulations on dog kennels and commercial breeders.
Dear James E. Casorio Jr.
Your comments clearly belie your alliance to the very Animal Rights groups which Ms. Fuoco talks about when she stated, “PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder.” Further, your use of the traditional sound-bites that these organizations expound also demonstrates that you feel that not everyone should have a choice in where they get the next family pet.
I am sorry sir, but it is you who is missing the point and it is you who is wrong. First of all, Ms. Fuoco never mentioned Pet Stores as a viable place to purchase a pet. She was very clear that if purchasing a pure-bred dog, it should come from a “responsible breeder”. In your published comments, discussion of “mass breeders” and pet stores- changes the point of her article. You have removed the responsible breeder from the equation and instead only discuss Pet Stores as places to purchase purebred dogs. Again, it reinforces Ms. Fuoco’s statement that animal rights members/organizations say there is no such thing as a “responsible” breeder.
Mr. Casorio, please re-read the article Ms. Fuoco wrote, and pay particular attention to what she says about “responsible breeders”. They do exist, and they are not part of the problem. Mr. Casorio, the problem is abandonment, not overpopulation.
Pet Tales: Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice
Thursday, November 13, 2008
By Linda Wilson Fuoco, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A puppy is coming to the White House! Official confirmation of this came on election night and during the president-elect's first press conference Friday.
"Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House," president-elect Barack Obama said during his victory speech in Chicago.
Those little girls beamed and smiled as they appeared with their parents on that historic night. I'm guessing that at their age (Malia is 10 and Sasha is 7), the puppy is the best part of the election victory.
Won't it be wonderful to have young children in the White House again? Amy Carter lived part of her childhood there, but we didn't see too much of her.
It's been decades since the Kennedy era brought two young children and a menagerie of pets to the presidential residence, including a pony named Macaroni and a Welsh terrier named Charlie.
Now thousands of individuals and dozens of organizations are weighing in on what kind of canine the Obama family should choose, and where they should obtain the soon-to-be-high-profile puppy.
Animals rights and animal welfare groups are lobbying for adoption from a shelter or a rescue organization that finds new homes for dogs whose owners are unable or unwilling to continue caring for them. Those groups include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Humane Society of the United States, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Best Friends Animal Society.
Those organizations and animal shelters across the country generally urge people to give a second chance, and a new home, to adult dogs that may otherwise be euthanized.
Puppies are a relatively rare and precious commodity in the shelter and rescue world. There is often a waiting list for puppies, especially purebred puppies. But when your daddy's the president, you can probably move to the top of the adoption list.
The soon-to-be first family has expressed an interest in a purebred pup because one of the girls has allergies. Some breeds, including poodles and some of the terrier breeds, have hair, rather than fur, that is less likely to cause an allergic reaction.
The bottom line is this: The Obama family, like all pet-seeking families, needs to find the pet that will fit their lifestyle, needs and desires. It sounds like they have been doing some research and giving this a lot of thought. When they pick their puppy and bring it into their new home, I hope everyone respects their decision and is happy for Malia and Sasha.
We all have the right to choose the pet we want. And those who have their heart set on a puppy should not be condemned for getting one, even if the puppy comes from a "responsible" breeder.
PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder. They say that when someone buys a puppy from a breeder, a shelter dog is euthanized. That's not necessarily true because some people don't want to adopt from a shelter, for whatever reason.
Some animal rights groups and individuals say that all breeding should stop. If they get their way, there would be no more dogs or cats in 15 or 20 years.
What is a responsible dog breeder? Here's my opinion and definition. Their dogs and puppies live in their house, where they are well-socialized and much-loved. Only the best, the brightest and the healthiest dogs are used for breeding. While there's no guarantee that all puppies will live long and healthy lives, many genetic tests can be administered to the adults used for breeding. Dogs that "flunk" should not be bred because they will pass on genetic conditions, including hip and knee problems, to their puppies.
The best breeders don't allow a litter to be conceived until prospective buyers are lined up. Responsible breeders don't make a profit on their puppies because the genetic testing and veterinary care for the breeding dogs and puppies will exceed the price charged for the puppies.
Here's the bottom line: If you take a puppy or dog into your home and care for it until the day it dies, you're part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Linda Wilson Fuoco can be reached at lfuoco@post-gazette.com or 412-263-3064.
First published on November 13, 2008 at 12:00 am
Washington Letters to the Editor
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Lawmaker disagrees with pet columnist
In her Nov. 16 Pet Tales column ("Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice"), Linda Wilson Fuoco missed a great opportunity to reinforce the importance of adopting pets from shelters as opposed to purchasing them from pet stores or breeders. Instead, she used the column to chide those who are encouraging the president-elect's family to adopt their new dog, arguing that either choice is responsible as long as the dog is well cared for. She is wrong.
Ninety-five percent of puppies sold in pet stores come from large-scale breeding operations. These mass breeders produce puppies for profit with little regard for demand, health or any other factor. The notion that ending these mass-breeding operations would lead to the disappearance of dogs and cats within 15 or 20 years is nonsense. The fact is the dog-breeding industry has led to a huge overpopulation of dogs in this country, and many of these dogs eventually end up abused, abandoned or in shelters. People who purchase from pet stores -- even with the best intentions -- support this breeding industry and, therefore, are part of the problem.
Besides saving a dog's life -- nationally, about half the animals in shelters are euthanized because a home cannot be found for them -- adopting a pet from a shelter is the more responsible choice for a number of reasons. Animal shelters evaluate each dog for health, temperament, behavior and other issues and will work with a family to help determine what type, breed and age of dog is right for them. Many shelters also provide adoption counseling and follow-up services, such as training classes and medical assistance. You won't find that at a pet store.
Shelter adoption fees are usually a lot less than the price tag at a pet store, and pets adopted from shelters are much more likely to be vaccinated, de-wormed and spayed or neutered. Finally, plenty of purebred dogs are available for adoption. On average, 25 percent to 35 percent of dogs in shelters are purebreds, so the Obamas and other families should have no problem finding the puppy they desire through adoption.
JAMES E. CASORIO JR.
Editor's note: The writer is a state representative for the 56th District in Westmoreland County and the prime sponsor of House Bill 2525, which placed more stringent regulations on dog kennels and commercial breeders.
Dear James E. Casorio Jr.
Your comments clearly belie your alliance to the very Animal Rights groups which Ms. Fuoco talks about when she stated, “PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder.” Further, your use of the traditional sound-bites that these organizations expound also demonstrates that you feel that not everyone should have a choice in where they get the next family pet.
I am sorry sir, but it is you who is missing the point and it is you who is wrong. First of all, Ms. Fuoco never mentioned Pet Stores as a viable place to purchase a pet. She was very clear that if purchasing a pure-bred dog, it should come from a “responsible breeder”. In your published comments, discussion of “mass breeders” and pet stores- changes the point of her article. You have removed the responsible breeder from the equation and instead only discuss Pet Stores as places to purchase purebred dogs. Again, it reinforces Ms. Fuoco’s statement that animal rights members/organizations say there is no such thing as a “responsible” breeder.
Mr. Casorio, please re-read the article Ms. Fuoco wrote, and pay particular attention to what she says about “responsible breeders”. They do exist, and they are not part of the problem. Mr. Casorio, the problem is abandonment, not overpopulation.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Abandonment is not just a dog and cat issue
By Cadie Pruss, Humanitarian and animal lover
See how people are! When the behaviors become intolerable, just give the beast to a shelter (or the Hospital). No, I am not talking about dogs- I am talking about CHILDREN.
THANK YOU NEBRASKA. You have clearly demonstrated that if it is made legal, people will even give up THEIR OWN KIDS. On July 18, 2008 legislation was passed in the State of Nebraska (Bill 158) "For an Act relating to children; to prohibit prosecution for leaving a child at the hospital; .....
Section 1. No person shall be prosecuted for any crime based solely upon the act of leaving a child in the custody of an employee on duty at a hospital licensed by the State of Nebraska. The hospital shall promptly contact appropriate authorities to take custody of the child." Well there you have it.
Nebraska Lawmakers had NO IDEA that people would ABANDON "children"- they were thinking BABIES! "Safe Haven" laws have been enacted in 47 states and Puerto Rico. The focus is on Newborns, but poor Nebraska- their well-intentioned lawmakers didn't want to appear to be protecting 2 day old babies, but not 3 day old babies, so they made their law a little vaguer than other States.
From July 24 (when the law was enacted) to October 31, 24 children- NONE of them Newborns- were abandoned in Nebraska hospitals. Parents from three other states have traveled great distances to abandon their children without prosecution. One of those abandon children was 17 YEARS old!! Don't worry- it will soon be illegal in Nebraska too. Lawmakers will be meeting November 14 to revise the law and set an age limit (tired of your children?, moving?, can't pay for college?- better abandon them quickly- time is running out!)
Answer quick now: Wayne Parcel is to shelter dogs as ______________ is to children in the welfare program?
Don't know? Yeah- me either.
Seriously- MILLIONS of dollars are donated to support HSUS. THOUSANDS of people give small amounts of money at a time to "help homeless dogs and cats". What are those same people doing for unwanted children? I am not talking about the $5 you gave to "feed the starving child in Africa"- I am talking about the children right here in our country who are doomed to poverty, jail, drugs, crime, and other social problems because they were not wanted or cared for.
You want to make a difference for People AND animals- lets talk about RESPONSIBILITY! Abandonment is NOT responsible. We don't talk about "having babies" as irresponsible (unless you are an Animal Rights activist talking about people who breed animals). The act of bringing new life is not what is irresponsible. The act of no longer caring for that life is what is irresponsible. Abandonment of all kinds is Irresponsible- animals or people. That is the TRUE and ONLY issue.
Caring for people makes for a "Humane Society".
Sources:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/09/father-leaves-n.html
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/10/31/abandon.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/22/nebrasks-safe-haven-law-a_n_120757.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2203780/entry/0/
See how people are! When the behaviors become intolerable, just give the beast to a shelter (or the Hospital). No, I am not talking about dogs- I am talking about CHILDREN.
THANK YOU NEBRASKA. You have clearly demonstrated that if it is made legal, people will even give up THEIR OWN KIDS. On July 18, 2008 legislation was passed in the State of Nebraska (Bill 158) "For an Act relating to children; to prohibit prosecution for leaving a child at the hospital; .....
Section 1. No person shall be prosecuted for any crime based solely upon the act of leaving a child in the custody of an employee on duty at a hospital licensed by the State of Nebraska. The hospital shall promptly contact appropriate authorities to take custody of the child." Well there you have it.
Nebraska Lawmakers had NO IDEA that people would ABANDON "children"- they were thinking BABIES! "Safe Haven" laws have been enacted in 47 states and Puerto Rico. The focus is on Newborns, but poor Nebraska- their well-intentioned lawmakers didn't want to appear to be protecting 2 day old babies, but not 3 day old babies, so they made their law a little vaguer than other States.
From July 24 (when the law was enacted) to October 31, 24 children- NONE of them Newborns- were abandoned in Nebraska hospitals. Parents from three other states have traveled great distances to abandon their children without prosecution. One of those abandon children was 17 YEARS old!! Don't worry- it will soon be illegal in Nebraska too. Lawmakers will be meeting November 14 to revise the law and set an age limit (tired of your children?, moving?, can't pay for college?- better abandon them quickly- time is running out!)
Answer quick now: Wayne Parcel is to shelter dogs as ______________ is to children in the welfare program?
Don't know? Yeah- me either.
Seriously- MILLIONS of dollars are donated to support HSUS. THOUSANDS of people give small amounts of money at a time to "help homeless dogs and cats". What are those same people doing for unwanted children? I am not talking about the $5 you gave to "feed the starving child in Africa"- I am talking about the children right here in our country who are doomed to poverty, jail, drugs, crime, and other social problems because they were not wanted or cared for.
You want to make a difference for People AND animals- lets talk about RESPONSIBILITY! Abandonment is NOT responsible. We don't talk about "having babies" as irresponsible (unless you are an Animal Rights activist talking about people who breed animals). The act of bringing new life is not what is irresponsible. The act of no longer caring for that life is what is irresponsible. Abandonment of all kinds is Irresponsible- animals or people. That is the TRUE and ONLY issue.
Caring for people makes for a "Humane Society".
Sources:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/09/father-leaves-n.html
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/10/31/abandon.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/22/nebrasks-safe-haven-law-a_n_120757.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2203780/entry/0/
Pet Friendly Ordinance
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/PetFriendlyGuide.pdf
This is a link to a 26 page guide to constructing successful "Pet Friendly ordinances".
It is well done and much needed. If you find your local community thinking about changing any of the local pet ordinances- then you need to print this out and go meet with your local folks.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/NAIAModeDoglLaw.pdf
This is a link to a Model Animal Control Law. If your state is thinking about revising the dog laws, print this out and make a personal visit to your local Congressmen to discuss this Model Law.
These are some useful tools. GOOD LUCK
This is a link to a 26 page guide to constructing successful "Pet Friendly ordinances".
It is well done and much needed. If you find your local community thinking about changing any of the local pet ordinances- then you need to print this out and go meet with your local folks.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/NAIAModeDoglLaw.pdf
This is a link to a Model Animal Control Law. If your state is thinking about revising the dog laws, print this out and make a personal visit to your local Congressmen to discuss this Model Law.
These are some useful tools. GOOD LUCK
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Great Idea- Be Proactive!
http://www.ncraoa.com/OliverBook.html
Be proactive. Send a book and letter with one click and a small ($10) donation.
Daniel Oliver’s book, “Animal Rights: The Inhumane Crusade” is a definitive expose of the animal rights movement, leaders, and the organizations that will stop at nothing to eliminate the human use of animals for clothing, food, entertainment, and research. Daniel Oliver is a research associate at the prestigious Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C. where he edits the monthly newsletter Alternatives in Philanthropy.
NCRAOA will mail the book to the legislator of your choice and include a standard cover letter with your name.
Fill in your legislator's name in the space below and proceed thru PayPal to make payment. Credit card options available.
Be proactive. Send a book and letter with one click and a small ($10) donation.
Daniel Oliver’s book, “Animal Rights: The Inhumane Crusade” is a definitive expose of the animal rights movement, leaders, and the organizations that will stop at nothing to eliminate the human use of animals for clothing, food, entertainment, and research. Daniel Oliver is a research associate at the prestigious Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C. where he edits the monthly newsletter Alternatives in Philanthropy.
NCRAOA will mail the book to the legislator of your choice and include a standard cover letter with your name.
Fill in your legislator's name in the space below and proceed thru PayPal to make payment. Credit card options available.
Do your REALLY want to help animals? Support NAIA
The NAIA Trust is a nonprofit 501 (c) 4 organization established under the Internal Revenue Code to promote responsible animal care and ownership and reasonable laws, policies and regulations to protect animals and the people who care for them.
NAIA Trust provides information about animals and animal husbandry, animals in education and entertainment, scientific advances in animal and human medicine, wildlife management, hunting and fishing and pet ownership. It also sounds the alarm about threats to animals and to the human-animal bond caused by people who mistreat animals and by animal rights and environmental zealots. NAIA Trust counters the effects and misinformation of radicals in the animal rights and environmental movements through education, legislation and the courts.
The Trust also advances the well-being of animals and the rights of responsible animal owners by promoting reasonable animal control laws that target irresponsible owners while protecting humane practices by
helping animal owners defeat existing or pending laws that unjustly restrict or ban breeds and species, unfairly limit the number of animals an owner can keep, limit the responsible breeding of pets, place exorbitant fees on maintaining intact dogs and cats, codify pet guardianship as an alternative to ownership, or place restrictions on ownership that are impossible to meet
urging passage of strong laws that target vandalism, harassment, arson, bombing, and other types of domestic terrorism committed in the name of animal rights and environmentalism
The NAIA Trust needs your support to fulfill its mission on behalf of animals, animal owners, and professionals. Please browse our position statements, and, if you like what you see, join now. For more information, contact patti@naiatrust.org.
NAIA Trust provides information about animals and animal husbandry, animals in education and entertainment, scientific advances in animal and human medicine, wildlife management, hunting and fishing and pet ownership. It also sounds the alarm about threats to animals and to the human-animal bond caused by people who mistreat animals and by animal rights and environmental zealots. NAIA Trust counters the effects and misinformation of radicals in the animal rights and environmental movements through education, legislation and the courts.
The Trust also advances the well-being of animals and the rights of responsible animal owners by promoting reasonable animal control laws that target irresponsible owners while protecting humane practices by
helping animal owners defeat existing or pending laws that unjustly restrict or ban breeds and species, unfairly limit the number of animals an owner can keep, limit the responsible breeding of pets, place exorbitant fees on maintaining intact dogs and cats, codify pet guardianship as an alternative to ownership, or place restrictions on ownership that are impossible to meet
urging passage of strong laws that target vandalism, harassment, arson, bombing, and other types of domestic terrorism committed in the name of animal rights and environmentalism
The NAIA Trust needs your support to fulfill its mission on behalf of animals, animal owners, and professionals. Please browse our position statements, and, if you like what you see, join now. For more information, contact patti@naiatrust.org.
CA: Proposition 2- Even the Vets think it's a bad idea
PRESS RELEASE
Back
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Tom McPheron
Phone: 847-285-6781
Cell: 773-494-5419
e-mail: tmcpheron@avma.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 26, 2008
AVMA issues statement on California Proposition 2
SCHAUMBURG, Ill.
— The largest and most respected veterinary association in the United States is cautioning that the California ballot initiative, Proposition 2, while admirable in its attempt to address the behavioral needs of animals, contains livestock confinement standards that may hurt the animals they are intended to help.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) issued a statement (PDF) today, which, in part, reads: "The AVMA believes Proposition 2, 'Standards for Confining Farm Animals,' is admirable in its goal to improve the welfare of production farm animals; however, it ignores critical aspects of animal welfare that ultimately would threaten the well-being of the very animals it strives to protect."
"Proposition 2 may have negative impacts on animals, consumers and the industry if it's passed," explains Dr. David McCrystle, AVMA Executive Board chair. "We fully agree that more attention needs to be paid to the behavioral and social needs of food animals, and Proposition 2 is laudable in that it attempts to address these needs, but the standards in this ballot initiative fall short in improving animal welfare because they fail to adequately consider other factors. Animal welfare is a complex issue and demands that decisions be based on science, tempered with compassion, and take into account all aspects of welfare. Changing housing standards without consideration of how this may affect other aspects of animal welfare, such as protection from disease and injury, will not be in the animals' or society's best interest."
For more information, please visit www.avma.org.
Back
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Tom McPheron
Phone: 847-285-6781
Cell: 773-494-5419
e-mail: tmcpheron@avma.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 26, 2008
AVMA issues statement on California Proposition 2
SCHAUMBURG, Ill.
— The largest and most respected veterinary association in the United States is cautioning that the California ballot initiative, Proposition 2, while admirable in its attempt to address the behavioral needs of animals, contains livestock confinement standards that may hurt the animals they are intended to help.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) issued a statement (PDF) today, which, in part, reads: "The AVMA believes Proposition 2, 'Standards for Confining Farm Animals,' is admirable in its goal to improve the welfare of production farm animals; however, it ignores critical aspects of animal welfare that ultimately would threaten the well-being of the very animals it strives to protect."
"Proposition 2 may have negative impacts on animals, consumers and the industry if it's passed," explains Dr. David McCrystle, AVMA Executive Board chair. "We fully agree that more attention needs to be paid to the behavioral and social needs of food animals, and Proposition 2 is laudable in that it attempts to address these needs, but the standards in this ballot initiative fall short in improving animal welfare because they fail to adequately consider other factors. Animal welfare is a complex issue and demands that decisions be based on science, tempered with compassion, and take into account all aspects of welfare. Changing housing standards without consideration of how this may affect other aspects of animal welfare, such as protection from disease and injury, will not be in the animals' or society's best interest."
For more information, please visit www.avma.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)