BAD NEWS at Caboodle Ranch

dgk wrote:

You're likely right, but the timing of it seemed to coincide with a
bill in the Florida legislature that PETA opposed. PETA believes that
any animal living under less than ideal circumstances should be put to
death.

This sounds like a distortion. I don't like PETA either, so I'm not
defending them, but are you sure what you say is true? What do you mean
by "ideal" circumstances? There's a long distance between the ideal
situation and an outright cruel one, much of which is acceptable, at
least to me. You're saying that PETA would reject all of it and prefer
euthanization? If so, they're crazier than I thought they were.

PETA believes that euthanization is better than an animal living in a
no-kill shelter.

They may have a point

I don't agree with that at all. In order to agree with that, you must
think that there is no point to no-kill shelters. Do you believe that?
I would be surprised if you did - most animal lovers favor no-kill.

but the timing of this raid looked like an attempt to stop that bill
from being passed, so it promotes suspicion that there was an agenda
and not just a rescue.

That sounds like a reasonable suspicion to me. I don't think that means
the ASPCA were "in on it", but if PETA managed to convince them that
these cats were in a dire situation, they might have acted, not knowing
that they were playing into PETA's hands.

None of this is meant to say that I have a strong opinion either way
about whether the ASPCA should have conducted this raid. I don't have
enough information to form a strong opinion.

--
Joyce

- Mommy loves you too my sweaty litter baby fire
- Ummm what mom?
- MY SWEET LITTLE BABY GIRL!! sorry honey!
-- damnyouautocorrect.com

On 3/15/2012 3:34 PM, Bastette wrote:
dgk wrote:

You're likely right, but the timing of it seemed to coincide with a
bill in the Florida legislature that PETA opposed. PETA believes that
any animal living under less than ideal circumstances should be put to
death.

This sounds like a distortion. I don't like PETA either, so I'm not
defending them, but are you sure what you say is true? What do you mean
by "ideal" circumstances? There's a long distance between the ideal
situation and an outright cruel one, much of which is acceptable, at
least to me. You're saying that PETA would reject all of it and prefer
euthanization? If so, they're crazier than I thought they were.

PETA believes that euthanization is better than an animal living in a
no-kill shelter.

They may have a point

I don't agree with that at all. In order to agree with that, you must
think that there is no point to no-kill shelters. Do you believe that?
I would be surprised if you did - most animal lovers favor no-kill.

but the timing of this raid looked like an attempt to stop that bill
from being passed, so it promotes suspicion that there was an agenda
and not just a rescue.

That sounds like a reasonable suspicion to me. I don't think that means
the ASPCA were "in on it", but if PETA managed to convince them that
these cats were in a dire situation, they might have acted, not knowing
that they were playing into PETA's hands.

None of this is meant to say that I have a strong opinion either way
about whether the ASPCA should have conducted this raid. I don't have
enough information to form a strong opinion.


PETA is quite open about it's policy of opposing "animal enslavement" -
meaning any situation in which humans have control ("imprisonment") of
any animal. They feel that animals are better off dead than in
captivity and this philosophy is not confined to feed stock animals,
it's how they feel about pets also. They *don't* want to see no-kill
shelters take in animals, they would rather the animals be euthanized -
that's why they are attacking this new bill. People are being confused
by their so-called love of animals and are getting they actual situation
reversed in their minds. But honestly, they see euthanasia as a better
alternative to a no-kill shelter.

--
Hugs,

CatNipped
See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped

See the RPCA FAQ site, created by "Yowie", maintained by Mark Edwards, at:
http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/

Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
On 3/15/2012 3:34 PM, Bastette wrote:
dgk wrote:

You're likely right, but the timing of it seemed to coincide with a
bill in the Florida legislature that PETA opposed. PETA believes
that
any animal living under less than ideal circumstances should be put
to
death.

This sounds like a distortion. I don't like PETA either, so I'm not
defending them, but are you sure what you say is true? What do you mean
by "ideal" circumstances? There's a long distance between the ideal
situation and an outright cruel one, much of which is acceptable, at
least to me. You're saying that PETA would reject all of it and prefer
euthanization? If so, they're crazier than I thought they were.

PETA believes that euthanization is better than an animal living in
a
no-kill shelter.

They may have a point

I don't agree with that at all. In order to agree with that, you must
think that there is no point to no-kill shelters. Do you believe that?
I would be surprised if you did - most animal lovers favor no-kill.

but the timing of this raid looked like an attempt to stop that bill
from being passed, so it promotes suspicion that there was an agenda
and not just a rescue.

That sounds like a reasonable suspicion to me. I don't think that means
the ASPCA were "in on it", but if PETA managed to convince them that
these cats were in a dire situation, they might have acted, not knowing
that they were playing into PETA's hands.

None of this is meant to say that I have a strong opinion either way
about whether the ASPCA should have conducted this raid. I don't have
enough information to form a strong opinion.


PETA is quite open about it's policy of opposing "animal enslavement" -
meaning any situation in which humans have control ("imprisonment") of any
animal. They feel that animals are better off dead than in captivity and
this philosophy is not confined to feed stock animals, it's how they feel
about pets also. They *don't* want to see no-kill shelters take in
animals, they would rather the animals be euthanized - that's why they are
attacking this new bill. People are being confused by their so-called
love of animals and are getting they actual situation reversed in their
minds. But honestly, they see euthanasia as a better alternative to a
no-kill shelter.

We can maybe debate PETA's agenda another time.
Do you believe there was no reason for the ASPA to move in to Caboodle
Ranch?

On 3/16/2012 3:19 PM, Christina Websell wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/15/2012 3:34 PM, Bastette wrote:
dgk wrote:

You're likely right, but the timing of it seemed to coincide with a
bill in the Florida legislature that PETA opposed. PETA believes
that
any animal living under less than ideal circumstances should be put
to
death.

This sounds like a distortion. I don't like PETA either, so I'm not
defending them, but are you sure what you say is true? What do you mean
by "ideal" circumstances? There's a long distance between the ideal
situation and an outright cruel one, much of which is acceptable, at
least to me. You're saying that PETA would reject all of it and prefer
euthanization? If so, they're crazier than I thought they were.

PETA believes that euthanization is better than an animal living in
a
no-kill shelter.

They may have a point

I don't agree with that at all. In order to agree with that, you must
think that there is no point to no-kill shelters. Do you believe that?
I would be surprised if you did - most animal lovers favor no-kill.

but the timing of this raid looked like an attempt to stop that bill
from being passed, so it promotes suspicion that there was an agenda
and not just a rescue.

That sounds like a reasonable suspicion to me. I don't think that means
the ASPCA were "in on it", but if PETA managed to convince them that
these cats were in a dire situation, they might have acted, not knowing
that they were playing into PETA's hands.

None of this is meant to say that I have a strong opinion either way
about whether the ASPCA should have conducted this raid. I don't have
enough information to form a strong opinion.


PETA is quite open about it's policy of opposing "animal enslavement" -
meaning any situation in which humans have control ("imprisonment") of any
animal. They feel that animals are better off dead than in captivity and
this philosophy is not confined to feed stock animals, it's how they feel
about pets also. They *don't* want to see no-kill shelters take in
animals, they would rather the animals be euthanized - that's why they are
attacking this new bill. People are being confused by their so-called
love of animals and are getting they actual situation reversed in their
minds. But honestly, they see euthanasia as a better alternative to a
no-kill shelter.

We can maybe debate PETA's agenda another time.
Do you believe there was no reason for the ASPA to move in to Caboodle
Ranch?

No, unfortunately. Forgetting all the "evidence" - I just don't think
it's logistically possible for one man and a few sporadic volunteers to
care for 600 - 700 cats - they breed too quickly, things deteriorate too
fast, illnesses spread in the blink of an eye. I don't know all the
facts about this so I can't state this categorically, it's just my opinion.

Now, for as to how it was handled? I don't know if they needed a "raid"
or if that only made things worse. Could they have just "stepped in"
and offered help? Was Craig really committing fraud? I just don't
know. I just hope both sides of this get to air their stories told. I
also hope against all hope that the seized animals are given some sort
of chance at life in a forever home, but sadly, I don't think that will
happen... they'll be kept in small cages until the trial (a year of more
away if we go by the current justice agenda), and then that most of them
will be euthanized.

--
Hugs,

CatNipped
See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped

See the RPCA FAQ site, created by "Yowie", maintained by Mark Edwards, at:
http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/

Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net

On Mar 15, 9:52*am, CatNipped wrote:
They're not allowing any adoptions because the cats themselves are
"evidence" in the cast against Craig. *That's the part that makes me sick.

Me too- I am not going to comment on the case as I don't know the
facts but surely if a cat is in a bad condition and with feeding etc
turns into a cat with good condition and ready to go to a new home
then frankly they're no longer "evidence"- "Bring forth exhibit A"
clerk of the court holds up a carrier containing a healthy
cat ,,,supposedly a starving sickly animal.... They could use
"before"and "after" photos and let the cats be rehomed

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...

We can maybe debate PETA's agenda another time.
Do you believe there was no reason for the ASPA to move in to Caboodle
Ranch?

No, unfortunately. Forgetting all the "evidence"


let's not forget the evidence. No way. It was a great idea but it failed,
and he should have sought help somehow before it got so bad that the ASPA
had to move in. It's good job they did, IMO.
Whether the remaining cats will get euthanised is not clear but that's what
can happen if you take on too many and fall short of even basic care.

Yes, of course, we'd like to save them all. We can't and the sooner people
realise this the less the Caboodle Ranch type of debacle will happen.
Tweed

CatNipped wrote:

They're not allowing any adoptions because the cats themselves are
"evidence" in the cast against Craig. That's the part that makes me sick.

Hasn't anyone heard of a camera??

--
Joyce

A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going
somewhere. -- Groucho Marx

On 3/17/2012 7:02 PM, Bastette wrote:
CatNipped wrote:

They're not allowing any adoptions because the cats themselves are
"evidence" in the cast against Craig. That's the part that makes me sick.

Hasn't anyone heard of a camera??


Not only is justice blind, it's deaf and dumb as well.

--
Hugs,

CatNipped
See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped

See the RPCA FAQ site, created by "Yowie", maintained by Mark Edwards, at:
http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/

Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net

On Mar 17, 7:02*pm, Bastette wrote:
CatNipped wrote:

* They're not allowing any adoptions because the cats themselves are
* "evidence" in the cast against Craig. *That's the part that makes me sick.

Hasn't anyone heard of a camera??

--
Joyce

If the laws are anything like here, yes, each cat would be ID'ed and
photographed. I'm
sure there the area plus the cats were videoed also. Just my HO, but I
don't believe
the cats will be held as evidence until the trial is over. That could
be well over a year.
They don't necessarily have to hold them as evidence. That decision is
pretty much up to the DA and judge.
Craig will be responsible for
all costs of vetting and boarding as part of the sentence if he's
found guilty so I'm sure they'll push for
him to relinquish ownership, which would make it even easier to start
adopting out the healthy cats.
The good news here is that this has received so much media attention.
And I think the publicity will
certainly help their chance of getting adopted into good homes. We can
hope so.

Also *only* my HO, but I would venture a guess that many of those cats
have already been put down.

Sherry