If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message ... On 2005-02-15, -L. penned: The following link details state-by-state, the applicable laws. http://www.api4animals.org/47.htm Thanks for sharing this link. Colorado's section disturbs me. It says: Exemptions: Farming, rodeos, veterinary care. Does that mean that farmers can overwork, underfeed, etc. their farm animals without any sort of legal repercussion? I hope not. New Jersey's laws disturbs me: "Exemptions: Farming, exhibitions, equestrian teams, pet shops." That implies pet shops and show breeders are exempt from prosecution if they: "tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, carries in a cruel manner, abandons a sick or disabled animal, cruelly beats or otherwise abuses, needlessly mutilates, or kills a living animal." WTF? What's interesting is "needlessly mutilates" is a *felony* which should clearly include declawing, tail docking and ear cropping. All these procedures are indeed needless since *none* of them benefit the cat or dog. Phil |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Phil P. wrote: "-L." wrote in message oups.com... Phil P. wrote: snip Does a millionaire who spends $50,000 on veterinary care love his cat more than a grocery clerk who can old spend $500? Do you see the utter stupidity of your question? I don't think it's a stupid question - merely a hypothetical one. Its an assine hypothetical question because it implies a set dollar amount on how much our pets are worth to us and how much money a person is willing and/or able to spend to save their pet's life. It's a question of practicality. Nobody has unlimited resources. Even the richest can lose everything. When you have nothing, how are you supposed to care for yourself, let alone an animal? Sure, you can say "I will never be in that situation" but the truth is, you don't know - no one does. We all have limits - "We"? Don't include me in your "we". Then why did you reply thusly when I asked you if you had a limit?: "Of course I have a limit! I just don't know what it is because I've never reached it and I seriously doubt I ever will." That's different than "not having a limit". You've just never been in a circumstance where you've had a limit. Therein lies one of the reasons why the question is assine. Some of us don't set a limit on how much we'll spend to save our cat's life. Many people don't think they do - but when push comes to shove, they end up *having* to have a limit. It becomes their own survival or their cat's survival. Of course, most of us will never reach that point, would sacrifice everything, etc. Hypothetical question: Are you saying you would starve yourself to death to keep your cats alive (assuming you had no other options)? How would that serve them? I don't know why equating love with spending money entered the equation. Why? Because the question implies that a person who is willing and/or able to spend more than another person is willing to spend to save his pet's life, loves and/or values his pet more than a person who is not willing and/or able to spend as much. It didn't imply that to me at all. It's merely a question of priorities, resources, practicality, what-ifs, hypotheses... -L. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"-L." wrote in message oups.com... Monique Y. Mudama wrote: On 2005-02-15, -L. penned: The following link details state-by-state, the applicable laws. http://www.api4animals.org/47.htm Thanks for sharing this link. Colorado's section disturbs me. It says: Exemptions: Farming, rodeos, veterinary care. Does that mean that farmers can overwork, underfeed, etc. their farm animals without any sort of legal repercussion? I hope not. What it ususally means is that the enforcement isn't there - that they can bascially do whatever the heck they want and the cops don't persue it. Farms are regulated by the Humane Farming Act though. Rodeos are more of a problem. And what the heck is up with the vet exemption? Probably to exempt vets from prosecution for declawing, docking and cropping because all those procedures are clearly needless mutilations because they do not benefit the cat or dog. NJ doesn't exempt vets - which gives an idea: I'd like to see how far I could prosecute a vet who declaws cats. If nothing else, the publicity might up a few people to the heinousness of the barbaric procedure. Phil |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-02-15, KellyH penned:
Yep. The vet our shelter works with does often talk people out of euthanizing and instead surrender to us. They give us 50% off on vetting. Also, why does the OP feel vets need to give stuff away? Most vets I know are not rich. And whether or not they're rich is really irrelevant, imo. I have a real problem with anyone who tells anyone else how to spend their money and time, or castigates them for not spending money and time on the right things. Is it fair that some people make millions of dollars for lip-synching catchy lyrics while others barely make subsistance to teach inner-city kids? Well, no. But that still doesn't mean it's anyone's business how either of them spend their resources. I think we're all painfully aware that there are more needs in the world than any one of us, or possibly even all of us, can address. We have poverty, starvation, animal and child cruelty, and horrific natural disasters -- and that's just in the US! The same is going on, often on a much greater scale, in other countries around the world, plus war, oppression, genocide ... people who think contraception is evil ... and then there are more subtle causes, like civil liberty and the right to free speech ... We all have to draw our lines. I'm not Mother Theresa, and I'm not going to sacrifice all of my worldly possessions to help everyone else. I'm just not that generous. I try to do what is right; I give money to the causes I can, I donate what I can, I freecycle so that my stuff doesn't end up in a landfill. And where I choose to draw that line is entirely up to me. -- monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-02-15, Mary penned:
Lynnie is talking about the sickly saccharine rec.pets.cats.anecdotes, only surpassed in its creepy party-line sweetness by the very icky rec.pets.cats.community where they post in baby tale. *Gag* That is about her speed, as she can dish it out but she just can't take it. God forbid there be one place on the net where civility is encouraged. -- monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"-L." wrote in message ups.com... Phil P. wrote: "-L." wrote in message oups.com... Phil P. wrote: snip Does a millionaire who spends $50,000 on veterinary care love his cat more than a grocery clerk who can old spend $500? Do you see the utter stupidity of your question? I don't think it's a stupid question - merely a hypothetical one. Its an assine hypothetical question because it implies a set dollar amount on how much our pets are worth to us and how much money a person is willing and/or able to spend to save their pet's life. It's a question of practicality. Nobody has unlimited resources. Even the richest can lose everything. When you have nothing, how are you supposed to care for yourself, let alone an animal? Sure, you can say "I will never be in that situation" but the truth is, you don't know - no one does. We all have limits - "We"? Don't include me in your "we". Then why did you reply thusly when I asked you if you had a limit?: "Of course I have a limit! I just don't know what it is because I've never reached it and I seriously doubt I ever will." That's different than "not having a limit". You've just never been in a circumstance where you've had a limit. Therein lies one of the reasons why the question is assine. Some of us don't set a limit on how much we'll spend to save our cat's life. Many people don't think they do - but when push comes to shove, they end up *having* to have a limit. It becomes their own survival or their cat's survival. Of course, most of us will never reach that point, would sacrifice everything, etc. Hypothetical question: Are you saying you would starve yourself to death to keep your cats alive (assuming you had no other options)? How would that serve them? I don't know why equating love with spending money entered the equation. Why? Because the question implies that a person who is willing and/or able to spend more than another person is willing to spend to save his pet's life, loves and/or values his pet more than a person who is not willing and/or able to spend as much. It didn't imply that to me at all. It's merely a question of priorities, resources, practicality, what-ifs, hypotheses... -L. And therefore a useless waste of energy. What my mother called "borrowing trouble." For those who do not have enough to occupy their minds with, let's imagine car crashes. What if. Ugh. Get a life. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"-L." wrote in message ups.com... Phil P. wrote: "-L." wrote in message When you have nothing, how are you supposed to care for yourself, let alone an animal? Then the person shouldn't have a pet. Simple. snipped non sequitur |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"Connie" wrote in message ... I don't know, if standards were set for people to have cats, ie financial criteria and others, then perhaps the number of irresponsible owners would go down in number, and there would not be as many strays and orphans, and un-altered strays. Now I am not saying that only "poor" people are irresponsible, but I do know alot of people who get free kittens out of the newspaper and don't alter them because they can't "afford" it. However, with that said, it would take additional criteria as well. Excellent point. One of the reasons why I strongly oppose free kittens and pups and why we have a substantial adoption fee is to eliminate or at least reduce the number of adoptives who can't or won't afford at least basic veterinary care and environmental enrichment. If people are willing and able to spend $100-$200 for a pet, they're less likely to treat the cat as a disposable item. I'm sure many of us have heard of assholes who didn't want to spend $300 for veterinary care for a "$30 cat". The worst part of animal rescue is some of the people we have to deal with. Phil |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message ... On 2005-02-15, Mary penned: Lynnie is talking about the sickly saccharine rec.pets.cats.anecdotes, only surpassed in its creepy party-line sweetness by the very icky rec.pets.cats.community where they post in baby tale. *Gag* That is about her speed, as she can dish it out but she just can't take it. God forbid there be one place on the net where civility is encouraged. -- Civility? Heh. Whatever you want to call it. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... You are practicing 'backwards' thinking here. Why blame pet owners? Why not instead blame VETS and animal organizations for not doing more and properly organized pro bono/sliding scale work??? Most vets *already* subsidize neutering *themselves* as their contribution to alleviating the overpopulation problem! For example, ovariohysterectomy is a *major* abdominal surgery that involves the removal of entire organs. Many if not most vets perform the surgery for less than just the anesthetic costs alone for just about any other surgery. There are some vets, however, that do charge full surgical and anesthetic fees for neuters. Many are in affluent areas. Most animal organizations do in fact offer low cost veterinary care. However, pet ownership is not considered a necessity - unless a pet is prescribed by a doctor. There are low cost animal clinics for low-income pet owners, so I don't know what more you can ask for - other than free veterinary care - which I doubt will ever happen. Phil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Really OT!] Price Estimate Help | Jeanne Hedge | Cat anecdotes | 33 | August 25th 04 02:07 PM |
veterinary drugs in UK - where can I get in EEC at reasonable price ? | icarus | Cat health & behaviour | 6 | June 14th 04 04:52 PM |