Under Cover Pet Shop Assistant On Today Tonight?

[Moselle]

I think it must be a pre-requisite to be a "dickhead" if you want to be the Director of the PIAA.

We have the current PIAA dickhead stating on national television tonight "I would like to see that people can only buy dogs from pet shops and particularly from PIAA stores." and back on 30/3/10 during the 7.30 Report Expose On Dd Puppy Farms we had the previous PIAA dickhead not only supporting puppyfarmers but he also said that "no dogs purchased from petshops end up in shelters" . WTF is it with the idiotic organisation

This man is simply talking shit and I don't doubt that he knows it too! He is only concerned with his wallet and not much else, pathetic bastard!

[SpikesPuppy]

Frankly many pounds don't screen buyers very well???

I know many people who have gotten dogs from RSPCA, Lost Dogs Home, Lort Smith etc with no questions asked!! Just the basics like do you hve a fence, any other pets etc. No home checks (not that I agree with this anyway), no relationship built and half the time breeds are just as mis-represented as pet shop dogs are!!!

I've nothing against giving an unwanted dog a home BUT I think this is also an indusetry that needs a shake up. It's no good telling someone 'save a life- adopt a shelter pet!' when the support and guarantees that an ethical breeder provides are not there!!! And many good hearted but um-knowledgeable people go to their local pound and pick a cute puppy or sad looking adult with no idea or support.

Thefact that my mum was able to adopt a terrified 14week old Dobermann mix for an 11 year old girl is evidence to support this view! Timothy lived a spoiled life with us and there were no major dramas but she was hard work and frankly, it was a mistake (not one I regret but still a mistake).

I don't care where the dog comes from but my issue is the screening done by the sellers and follow up support provided!!!

I don't care if the puppy is sold in a pet shop, shelter or private home, the support and screening must be there. If it was harder to buy a pup from ANYWHERE there would be less unwanted animals.

[SpikesPuppy]

Frankly many pounds don't screen buyers very well???

I know many people who have gotten dogs from RSPCA, Lost Dogs Home, Lort Smith etc with no questions asked!! Just the basics like do you hve a fence, any other pets etc. No home checks (not that I agree with this anyway), no relationship built and half the time breeds are just as mis-represented as pet shop dogs are!!!

I've nothing against giving an unwanted dog a home BUT I think this is also an indusetry that needs a shake up. It's no good telling someone 'save a life- adopt a shelter pet!' when the support and guarantees that an ethical breeder provides are not there!!! And many good hearted but um-knowledgeable people go to their local pound and pick a cute puppy or sad looking adult with no idea or support.

Thefact that my mum was able to adopt a terrified 14week old Dobermann mix for an 11 year old girl is evidence to support this view! Timothy lived a spoiled life with us and there were no major dramas but she was hard work and frankly, it was a mistake (not one I regret but still a mistake).

I don't care where the dog comes from but my issue is the screening done by the sellers and follow up support provided!!!

I don't care if the puppy is sold in a pet shop, shelter or private home, the support and screening must be there. If it was harder to buy a pup from ANYWHERE there would be less unwanted animals.

[Shazzapug]

I thought it was very well done by the young assistant, being the only one to get this footage :D I was disappointed that the only option given was save a dog from the pound.....a reputable registered breeder and where to find one would have been great.

That is the only option if you are an animal rights person. You guys need to know who you are supporting.

Animal rights hero syndrome = no more domestic animals slavery = no more dog breeders = no more dogs.

Only dogs that can be recommended by any self respecting animal rights hero are dogs at the animal shelter. When the last dog is born, mission complete.

Now you can start on stopping people from having having children = no more humans = world a better place.

Easy enough to understand.

Be Green Go Veg !!!

So are you saying she is associated with PETA?

[shortstep]

I thought it was very well done by the young assistant, being the only one to get this footage :D I was disappointed that the only option given was save a dog from the pound.....a reputable registered breeder and where to find one would have been great.

That is the only option if you are an animal rights person. You guys need to know who you are supporting.

Animal rights hero syndrome = no more domestic animals slavery = no more dog breeders = no more dogs.

Only dogs that can be recommended by any self respecting animal rights hero are dogs at the animal shelter. When the last dog is born, mission complete.

Now you can start on stopping people from having having children = no more humans = world a better place.

Easy enough to understand.

So are you saying she is associated with PETA?

PETA member, who knows and I did not imply that she was.

She is defined as an animal liberationist. The mission of animal liberationist is fairly consistent however. It is usually just how far they will go and their chosen methods that separate the groups.

Lets take Animal Liberation Victoria, which recently held the rally that many here supported.

This statement is from their web page that is typical mission of animal liberationist.

http://www.alv.org.au/about.php

TO ABOLISH THE PROPERTY STATUS OF ANIMALS

Animal Liberation Victoria endorses an animal rights position which maintains that all sentient beings, regardless of species, have the right to be treated as independent entities, and not as the property of others.

To me this is very clear and straight forward, they seek to end animal ownership. Which in turn means to make domestic dogs extinct.

Maybe to you it means something else? If so can you explain how a domestic dog can be an independent entity and not the property of any human and still exist?

How does this above statement support dog ownership (no can't call it that as right off I have violate their right of not being property)?

Ok how about we call it something else, how about a dog human life sharing existence.

How could this life sharing work and ensure that the domestic dog had the full rights of being an independent entity without ownership?

[Shazzapug]

So one cant protest to Puppy farming, or animal cruelty etc without also supporting the demise of our pets and life partners being our dogs?

[shortstep]

So one cant protest to Puppy farming, or animal cruelty etc without also supporting the demise of our pets and life partners being our dogs?

Look up Animal Liberationist. It is the belief that all animals should be liberated from humans, that no animals should be used by humans for any purpose or owned by humans. Remember PETAs old slogan "We don't wear them, we don't eat them, we don't own them".

So yes they would want to end pet shop sales, but that is not by any means the end of what they want. That is what people often seem to not understand. There is a heck of a lot more going on than just wanting to stop pet shops from selling puppies.

BTW I totally support the boycotting of all shops that sell pups or kittens (which would quickly lead to them not selling puppies or kittens in my opinion and experience).

But I am not an Animal Liberationist and do not support their mission to end dog ownership. I firmly believe that the future existence of dogs is tightly bound to the human right to own dogs. No right to own a dog means the end of domestic dogs. Be clear about this.

[Cosmolo]

Just because a person protests puppy farming or cruelty, does not make them an animal liberationist and does not make them a supporter of ending dog ownership and breeding.

[shortstep]

Just because a person protests puppy farming or cruelty, does not make them an animal liberationist and does not make them a supporter of ending dog ownership and breeding.

Ok then why is she calling herself an animal lilberationist? If you want to ignor that part go ahead, but be clear you are ignoring it.

Do you support the end of dog ownership?

Do you want dogs to have the legal rights of an independent entity with the right not to be owned by a human?

Edited November 13, 2010 by shortstep

[Cosmolo]

I am talking generally. If someone says they are an AL, then they are- but that doesn't mean that every person who shares their view in one area also shares their view in another.

And the answer to your questions are No and No.

[shortstep]

I am talking generally. If someone says they are an AL, then they are- but that doesn't mean that every person who shares their view in one area also shares their view in another.

And the answer to your questions are No and No.

The threat to the existence of domestic dogs by animal liberatist is a very serious issue and not one to over looked in my opinion, even if you might agree with them on one issue.

The statement was made that they did not understand why the animal liberationist did not recommend ANKC breeders. It is important for all to understand the animal liberationist do not approve of any dog breeders and will attempt to stop dog breeders as they do not believe in the right to own dogs.

[fuzzy82]

Lets take Animal Liberation Victoria, which recently held the rally that many here supported.

This statement is from their web page that is typical mission of animal liberationist.

http://www.alv.org.au/about.php

TO ABOLISH THE PROPERTY STATUS OF ANIMALS

Animal Liberation Victoria endorses an animal rights position which maintains that all sentient beings, regardless of species, have the right to be treated as independent entities, and not as the property of others.

Not true at all, we built the ALV website, we also built the oscar's law website, and we know them personally. They are not against keeping animals as pets as all. In fact, all of the dogs saved from puppy mills are either kept by volunteers from ALV themselves (as pets), or rehomed as pets.

That statement obviously refers to the general attitude towards animals.

Edited November 13, 2010 by fuzzy82

[SpikesPuppy]

But animals ARE property. Like it or not, it's a fact. They are bought and sold, they are registered, they are subject to certain rules and regulations like a car.

I OWN my dogs. That doesn't mean I don't see them as part of the family but I still own them.

What kind of wording would Animal Liberation prefer to be used instead of 'owner'??

[Rusky]

No home checks (not that I agree with this anyway),

why not ?

Edited November 13, 2010 by Rusky

[mita]

Lets take Animal Liberation Victoria, which recently held the rally that many here supported.

This statement is from their web page that is typical mission of animal liberationist.

http://www.alv.org.au/about.php

TO ABOLISH THE PROPERTY STATUS OF ANIMALS

Animal Liberation Victoria endorses an animal rights position which maintains that all sentient beings, regardless of species, have the right to be treated as independent entities, and not as the property of others.

Not true at all, we built the ALV website, we also built the oscar's law website, and we know them personally. They are not against keeping animals as pets as all. In fact, all of the dogs saved from puppy mills are either kept by volunteers from ALV themselves (as pets), or rehomed as pets.

That statement obviously refers to the general attitude towards animals.

I'm just mulling this over, so only first thoughts. Maybe adding one word about animals' position could make a difference...'not just as the property of others'. OK, even as I wrote that, I'm thinking, 'Yes but that makes for a vague definition & the law doesn't handle well, vague definitions!' (As in the carnage that followed the Qld BSL law that referred to 'pitbull types'.)

So maybe there's a way of qualifying animals as 'property' which also gives them some individual redress & protection. Maybe like the way children can be afforded separate legal representation.

There's already a welfare aspect that can overtake the property aspect re animals, in that under cruelty laws, animals can be seized by authorities. Perhaps that welfare aspect could have added to it, a component of the animal having some independence under the law.

I understand that a specialist in animal law at Griffith University, Steven White, has produced an argument for this. His paper:

'Companion Animals - Members of the Family or Legally Discarded Objects?', (2009) 32 UNSW Law Journal, 852-878.

I'm no lawyer, so. as I said, just mulling it over. Going this route, could either protect animals more OR create an almighty confusing legal mess.

On different slant, I wish there was a follow-up program telling the public about better ways (for owners & dogs) of getting puppies. The lass in the program referred to shelters & pounds. But the public needs to know how to get purebred dogs from decent registered breeders. With examples showing how to go about that & the enormous advantages in doing so.

Edited November 14, 2010 by mita

[fuzzy82]

While I don't have a problem referring to myself as my pets' owner, I can kind of see where ALV is coming from.

We are also in charge of our children, we make decisions for them, we get to do stuff to them that our kids don't want to do, discipline, sending them to their rooms, taking them to the dr etc, but we are not our kids' owners, they are a separate entity that is in our care. Maybe that is how ALV wants pets to be regarded?

I'm not sure what the Aussie rules/laws say about animals, because I am originally from Europe, but in the country I'm from the law clearly states that all animals are separate entities that have value regardless of how much they are worth to humans, and are to be treated accordingly. But pets are still regarded as property according to the law.

Edited November 14, 2010 by fuzzy82

[OSoSwift]

We are also in charge of our children, we make decisions for them, we get to do stuff to them that our kids don't want to do, discipline, sending them to their rooms, taking them to the dr etc, but we are not our kids' owners, they are a separate entity that is in our care. Maybe that is how ALV wants pets to be regarded?

As much as I love my dogs they are dogs, not little people not children.

What is the problem with seeing them as being owned??? MAybe I am just slow but surely you can have legislation where an animal is owned but still needs to be cared for treated properly??? Like I say I might be missing something here.

The day my dog can hold a conversation, make a decision on what is in it's best interests and learn that doing dangerous stuff can hurt it, then I may start to think of them up their with children.

[Steve]

When the Magna Carta was being signed animals and property played a pretty big role. Thats because if an animal is not someone's property then someone else can pick it up and take it home and do pretty much whatever they want with it. It also brings into question the fact that if someone doesnt own it - who is going to be held responsible for it? Easing animal suffering is definitely worthwhile but turning animals into a kind of human is another matter

If you are its guardian rather than its owner it implies equality where ownership implies responsibility. People who own dogs need to be more responsible for them, literally and emotionally—not more equal to them. Guardianship suggests dogs have a right to live their own lives as they wish. This is impossible in our dog-unfriendly world where what the dog does naturally is frowned upon.Rolling in smelly stuff, cocking its leg, having sex,raoming freely, having dust ups with other dogs eating the legs off the furniture are things that as an owner I am expected to be responsible for and I happen to like that. I think being a dog owner is something nice -special and I like them being my property. Social movements are only as effective as their ability to win popular support and usually there is an end goal with small steps to have support offered by thise who would not back the end goal in order to achieve their end.

I am not giving up my right to own my dogs. The signing of the Magna Carta is taught to every kid in the free world because it was such a big deal and it meant we did have the right to own property including our animals and it still is.

[fuzzy82]

When the Magna Carta was being signed animals and property played a pretty big role. Thats because if an animal is not someone's property then someone else can pick it up and take it home and do pretty much whatever they want with it. It also brings into question the fact that if someone doesnt own it - who is going to be held responsible for it? Easing animal suffering is definitely worthwhile but turning animals into a kind of human is another matter

If you are its guardian rather than its owner it implies equality where ownership implies responsibility.

I actually disagree. We are guardians for our children, but they certainly don't get to do whatever they want, and they are certainly not equal to adults. Equal in value, yes, but not equal in standing.

Guardianship implies responsebility just as much as ownership does, maybe even more so because guardianship implies that you have to take care of them and you are responsible for their well-being. Ownership doesn't mean anything. I own my car and if I want to drive it off a cliff I can do so, or set it on fire, or simple fail to get it serviced regularly, or not have it repaired when it needs it. If you fail to have your dog repaired when it needs it it's a criminal offence, so obviously they are more than just property.

[Steve]

When the Magna Carta was being signed animals and property played a pretty big role. Thats because if an animal is not someone's property then someone else can pick it up and take it home and do pretty much whatever they want with it. It also brings into question the fact that if someone doesnt own it - who is going to be held responsible for it? Easing animal suffering is definitely worthwhile but turning animals into a kind of human is another matter

If you are its guardian rather than its owner it implies equality where ownership implies responsibility.

I actually disagree. We are guardians for our children, but they certainly don't get to do whatever they want, and they are certainly not equal to adults. Equal in value, yes, but not equal in standing.

Guardianship implies responsebility just as much as ownership does, maybe even more so because guardianship implies that you have to take care of them and you are responsible for their well-being. Ownership doesn't mean anything. I own my car and if I want to drive it off a cliff I can do so, or set it on fire, or simple fail to get it serviced regularly, or not have it repaired when it needs it. If you fail to have your dog repaired when it needs it it's a criminal offence, so obviously they are more than just property.

A property owner has rights which can not be taken from them without due process of law. Guardians have no such rights.. Guardians can be removed simply relying on testimony from an "interested party." If we are guardians then ultimately its the state who gets to say what will and will not be and they get to make decsions based on life and death, health etc of the animal we are guardians of but not owners of. Wards have the right to sue.

History tells us that if the state is not prepared to accept new responsibilities it delegates them to some outside agency - wonder who that would be?

If we must compare children to dogs which I personally see as pointless then I will say this. I am a mother of 8 children and I have also been guardian appointed by the state to several others. As a mother I make all decsions pertinent to their welfare and upbringing as a guardian I can make no important decisions and everything has to be approved first or I run the risk of having my guardianship removed from me.

Name changes will not make people love animals any more or less. Humans, in the main are a compassionate species and we want what is best for humans and animals alike.If you are a guardian rather than an owner you can't buy or sell and no matter what we do and how we legislate, species will still go extinct, animals will still be eaten and the chosen few will be kept as pets and some people will not change the way they treat them no matter what they are called.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Steve