Ballan Puppy Farm Protest

[sandgrubber]

Thanks for the links, dogcentric. Interesting stuff.

I guess this all will be slow and difficult to resolve.

Personally, I don't see how an animal that someone loves as a family member can be reduced to 'property' status. It sickens me that the people who are supposedly working for animal rights don't stand up for condemned animals. Maybe that's just me.

You might be interested in a book called "Pawprints of History" by Stanley Cohen (2002).

http://www.amazon.com/Pawprints-History-Course-Human-Events/dp/0743222318/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317845913&sr=1-1

particularly Chapter 11, which deals with the founding of the RSPCA. The original advocate, Richard Martin, started his activities with a duel with a local landlord who shot a friend's dog and managed to get legislation through Parliament in 1822. It goes on to describe the mayhem the ensued when the RSPCA managed to pass laws outlawing cart dogs.

[dog_fan]

Thanks for the links, dogcentric. Interesting stuff.

I guess this all will be slow and difficult to resolve.

Personally, I don't see how an animal that someone loves as a family member can be reduced to 'property' status. It sickens me that the people who are supposedly working for animal rights don't stand up for condemned animals. Maybe that's just me.

You might be interested in a book called "Pawprints of History" by Stanley Cohen (2002).

http://www.amazon.com/Pawprints-History-Course-Human-Events/dp/0743222318/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317845913&sr=1-1

particularly Chapter 11, which deals with the founding of the RSPCA. The original advocate, Richard Martin, started his activities with a duel with a local landlord who shot a friend's dog and managed to get legislation through Parliament in 1822. It goes on to describe the mayhem the ensued when the RSPCA managed to pass laws outlawing cart dogs.

I love my dogs and believe that it is only because we see them as property that we can fully look after their welfare.

If we see animals as having rights then who bears responsibility for them? How do we then have them in our homes? Can we buy anything that has rights? Can we force something that has rights to be contained? Can we force something that has rights not to reproduce? Can we neuter them to stop reproduction without their consent?

Believing animals are property does not need to mean we see them as less worthy or throw away but it does mean that as their owners there are responsibilities placed on us for their welfare.

In a capitalist society a man's property is legally seen as important so to have animals as property gives us the ability to look after them very well.

As an example, if anyone decided they liked my dogs and I can't see who wouldn't :D, and they decide to take them for themselves from my land, because the dogs are my property I can use our legal system help me retrieve them from the thieves. If the dogs are not my property then anyone can come and take them and it would not be seen as theft.

I see my dogs as my property and my responsibility to look after based on the latest animal management practices to ensure their health and welfare is paramount.

[raz]

Great post, dog fan.

If animals had rights according to Ingrid Newkirk and her loonie cronies our dogs would all be roaming free.

[Steve]

But its not even just the debate on whether animals should have rights or not that is really the point - Assume for one minute we said O.K. lets give dogs rights - the rights the loonies want are not even those which are best suited to their species .

Look at what they are rattling on with now under the banner or Oscars law, prisoners for profit ALV . A big part of their goals is to stop other species being treated like their own species or even like our own species .

They want to decide whether a dog can mate, have puppies, enforce them to do what they say is best for them without any basis in science etc.

So we give them the right not to be exploited by humans but take away their right to breed freely without human intervention when ever they want with whatever dog they want because that particular right doesnt' t suit animal rights loonies.

We give them the right to shelter but take away their right to choose the shelter - because the shelter they may choose doesnt suit animal rights loonies.

We give them the right to behave in a way which makes them happy unless of course they choose to hang out in pack and eat other mammals rather than eat with human acceptable manners and shelter in our loungerooms.

We give them the right to exercise and socialiasation but running free with their other dog mates on their own property is out and they only have no right to refuse being dragged around the block with a lead around their necks.

My children have the right to adequate medical treatment but as their parent I have the right to decide whether I will allow them to be vaccinated but as a breeder I have no right to decide I dont want my dogs vaccinated every year if I want to maintain the right to breed.

I can be trusted to keep my children healthy and to decide when they should visit a vet or a dentist but not my dogs . If I dont agree with how someone is living or how they are treating their children I have to follow conventions and laws to bring that to someone's attention and I cant just make up what I think is best for kids and skulk around at night and steal their kids to "rescue them".

But we see animal rights lobbying for the rights of dogs and taking loads of publicity and money to be able to continue that - but never a whimper when family pets are being seized and being put to death because they look like they might be a bad breed. Where are they - why are they camping in ballan and carrying on about what might happen with a breeder when they should be camping on councils doorsteps and yelling about the right of a dog to be presumed innocent .

Nothing logical here for me.

[sandgrubber]

<br />Great post, dog fan. <img src='http://www.dolforums.com.au/public/style_emoticons/default/clap.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />If animals had rights according to Ingrid Newkirk and her loonie cronies our dogs would all be roaming free.<br />

it's ok to rip out a car's radiator or a computer's hard drive, but not ok to pull out something from a dog's guts. I've met people who take on a second job to pay their vet bills. You don't do that for a mere possession.

As Steve pointed out, 'rights' is not all or nothing. You have to be a loonie to want full freedom for dogs. Freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom to choose a mate and raise a family . . . those are not meaningful rights for dogs. But most people would agree that they have a right not to be treated with extreme cruelty and that owning a dog involves a duty of care. Saying dogs are more than chattels one is not signing on with the animal lib agenda. I think the very special place dogs have in many of our lives should give them a status higher than that of a possession. The Law should give some standing to the affection people feel for the animals that share and enrich their lives.

Edited October 5, 2011 by sandgrubber

[Steve]

<br />Great post, dog fan. <img src='http://www.dolforums.com.au/public/style_emoticons/default/clap.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> <br /><br />If animals had rights according to Ingrid Newkirk and her loonie cronies our dogs would all be roaming free.<br />

My dogs are more than possessions to me. In my book, it's ok to rip out a car's radiator or a computer's hard drive, but not ok to pull out something from a dog's guts. I've met people who take on a second job to pay their vet bills. You don't do that for a mere possession.

Slaves didn't have equal rights, but if I remember my history correctly, slaves have had some rights in many slave-holding societies. Saying dogs are more than chattels one is not signing on with the animal lib agenda. I think the very special place dogs have in many of our lives should give them a status higher than that of a possession.

Sorry if they have a higher status than a possession it prevents me having the ability to own them - not acceptable.

However, laws which are bought in to ensure they get basic care and attention or I loose my right to own them is good by me.

That way we talk about my rights and not the dog's

Same as Im able to drive a car on the raod if I ensure it is roadworthy and I follow road laws. Its neat I have a right and a responsibility to ensure I keep that right .

Edited October 5, 2011 by Steve

[Erny]

But its not even just the debate on whether animals should have rights or not that is really the point - Assume for one minute we said O.K. lets give dogs rights - the rights the loonies want are not even those which are best suited to their species .

Look at what they are rattling on with now under the banner or Oscars law, prisoners for profit ALV . A big part of their goals is to stop other species being treated like their own species or even like our own species .

They want to decide whether a dog can mate, have puppies, enforce them to do what they say is best for them without any basis in science etc.

So we give them the right not to be exploited by humans but take away their right to breed freely without human intervention when ever they want with whatever dog they want because that particular right doesnt' t suit animal rights loonies.

We give them the right to shelter but take away their right to choose the shelter - because the shelter they may choose doesnt suit animal rights loonies.

We give them the right to behave in a way which makes them happy unless of course they choose to hang out in pack and eat other mammals rather than eat with human acceptable manners and shelter in our loungerooms.

We give them the right to exercise and socialiasation but running free with their other dog mates on their own property is out and they only have no right to refuse being dragged around the block with a lead around their necks.

My children have the right to adequate medical treatment but as their parent I have the right to decide whether I will allow them to be vaccinated but as a breeder I have no right to decide I dont want my dogs vaccinated every year if I want to maintain the right to breed.

I can be trusted to keep my children healthy and to decide when they should visit a vet or a dentist but not my dogs . If I dont agree with how someone is living or how they are treating their children I have to follow conventions and laws to bring that to someone's attention and I cant just make up what I think is best for kids and skulk around at night and steal their kids to "rescue them".

But we see animal rights lobbying for the rights of dogs and taking loads of publicity and money to be able to continue that - but never a whimper when family pets are being seized and being put to death because they look like they might be a bad breed. Where are they - why are they camping in ballan and carrying on about what might happen with a breeder when they should be camping on councils doorsteps and yelling about the right of a dog to be presumed innocent .

Nothing logical here for me.

Excellent post, Steve . And not to take away from anything you've said throughout, but I highlighted the part that really needs emphasis (IMO).

ETA: And just to come in behind you again regards the "animal rights" and "chattels" discussion .... I feel more confident of having the right to protect my dog under the "chattels" law than I would under "animal rights" concept. Although in Victoria, it is hard to feel confident about anything 'dog' at the moment .

Edited October 6, 2011 by Erny

[raz]

The Law should give some standing to the affection people feel for the animals that share and enrich their lives.

The Law gives standing to the fact that I OWN my dogs - as it should. My obligation to provide for their welfare is totally different to the issue of whether or not they have Rights. They dont have Rights anymore than my fridge does. My ownership gives me the Rights over them. The day they get to decide what they eat, when they get vet treatment, if they get to keep their balls and kill the neighbours' cats etc is the day I no longer have Rights over them.

Edited October 6, 2011 by raz

[Alyosha]

People seem to miss the basic point that humans have the right to own animals, and the responsibilty for providing for that animl's needs rest with humans. We place them in environments where it is impossible for them to provide for their own needs and comforts, so we must provide them.

No-one here will debate that. But the term animal rights implies passing some responsibilty back at the animal. All responsibility for them belongs to humans - we need to provide for their every need - because they have no rights. We are their providers and their spokespersons because they cannot ever be that for themselves, and tehy mostly wouldn't want to!

[Erny]

That is exactly what we are meaning, Alyosha - you wrote that very well and it explains it so much clearer than I have managed.

[Steve]

People seem to miss the basic point that humans have the right to own animals, and the responsibilty for providing for that animl's needs rest with humans. We place them in environments where it is impossible for them to provide for their own needs and comforts, so we must provide them.

No-one here will debate that. But the term animal rights implies passing some responsibilty back at the animal. All responsibility for them belongs to humans - we need to provide for their every need - because they have no rights. We are their providers and their spokespersons because they cannot ever be that for themselves, and tehy mostly wouldn't want to!

yep

[dog_fan]

People seem to miss the basic point that humans have the right to own animals, and the responsibilty for providing for that animl's needs rest with humans. We place them in environments where it is impossible for them to provide for their own needs and comforts, so we must provide them.

No-one here will debate that. But the term animal rights implies passing some responsibilty back at the animal. All responsibility for them belongs to humans - we need to provide for their every need - because they have no rights. We are their providers and their spokespersons because they cannot ever be that for themselves, and tehy mostly wouldn't want to!

I totally agree with you.

Edited to add. We have also bred them to a type some of which may be incapable of providing for their own needs even if they were given that chance.

Edited October 6, 2011 by dog_fan

[k9angel]

People seem to miss the basic point that humans have the right to own animals, and the responsibilty for providing for that animl's needs rest with humans. We place them in environments where it is impossible for them to provide for their own needs and comforts, so we must provide them.

No-one here will debate that. But the term animal rights implies passing some responsibilty back at the animal. All responsibility for them belongs to humans - we need to provide for their every need - because they have no rights. We are their providers and their spokespersons because they cannot ever be that for themselves, and tehy mostly wouldn't want to!

So well said Alyosha.

[sandgrubber]

People seem to miss the basic point that humans have the right to own animals, and the responsibilty for providing for that animl's needs rest with humans. We place them in environments where it is impossible for them to provide for their own needs and comforts, so we must provide them.

No-one here will debate that. But the term animal rights implies passing some responsibilty back at the animal. All responsibility for them belongs to humans - we need to provide for their every need - because they have no rights. We are their providers and their spokespersons because they cannot ever be that for themselves, and tehy mostly wouldn't want to!

So well said Alyosha.

Well said, but not correct as a matter of law. Having rights does not pass responsibilities back. A 2 yr old child has lots of rights, but no responsibilities. Some argue that the unborn have rights. A dying person or someone with serious brain injury has rights, but is incapable of taking responsibilities, and therefore not be held responsible by the law.

Human owners have responsibility because they vest in animals rights to some minimal standard of care. Animals have rights because people recognise a responsibility to meet certain standards of care.

[toy*dog]

i read that ANKC is now stating that they want a law brought in that RSPCA need to test their dogs for PRA, HD and other genetic problems to ensure the public is getting a healthy dog. so thats the start of a small step.

Genuine question : Does this mean that any dog in a shelter showing any sign of (eg) HD doesn't get a chance to be re-homed? If that's the case, I don't agree with this. The animals from shelters are mandatorily desexed so it is not as though it is a genetic issue that will be able to be passed on. There are people out there who would like to look after dogs for as long as the dog is happy and able to live with some quality in its life. This is OT to the vein of the thread and I do not intend to swerve away from that as there is some very good intelligent and informative conversation going on here. (I love the questions Steve fires off .... really raises slants on things that many of us might not have seen unless challenged for the answers. Steve.) If there is a simple answer to my question though, there may not be a need to start a new thread on this and so, if no-one minds, I'll leave this here in anticipation of the answer.

Thanks in anticipation.

Erny

i was meant to answer this ages ago but got way laid with a bitch going into labour and having sleepless nights for the last few. sorry to hijack this thread everyone is talking about rights now.

so what if a dog does get HD and its been obtained from a shelter and it cost thousands of dollars to rectify, who pays? the shelter? or you. and watching my poor auntie's rotties go through this and as they got older it got to the stage where she had to put the dog down. these dogs were not bred by a breeder who tests their dogs just bred the rotts as lovely pets. if the shelter dog ends up with PRA which can be detected through tests when they get them in, who pays for that when the dog slowly goes blind and diagnosing it and vet fees etc etc.???? all shelter dogs are desexed so are not breeding dogs we all know that but some of them are victims those poor dogs of negligent people who thought they'd breed a lovely litter of puppies not stopping to think of those puppies lives in the future without testing their dogs they are breeding to give those pups a good quality of life. then they go to an owner who watches the dogs virtually die with a disease that could have been prevented 9 times out of 10 if the "breeder" and i use that term very loosely had of done tests, done a bit of research, (how much can you do on a cross bred dog mind you) then mostly its not perfect mother nature, but mostly these things can be avoided.

for me its all about the dogs having a good quality of life able to enjoy good health and a long healthy life. and yes you do take a certain lottery with shelter dogs but buying the dog and sometimes now they are around $400 for a mutt of any description from the local pound or shelter with all shots, and all work done.....i think you have a right to expect that its at least had all health checks that they can possibly do, so you don't have any surprises and forking out thousands of dollars on your acquired pet in years to come from a herediatary disease.

i mean if you beloved pet does fall ill you are going to spend that money to make them better, i would in a heart beat on my rescue bitsa( but because none of these tests were carried out on him like HD or anything else i don't know if he will be 100% healthy - just take it as it comes. like everyone else does with shelter and.or rescue dogs of no description.

[Steve]

Toy dog No matter how much a breeder tests their dogs they can still breed dogs with HD .And whats more there is lots and lots of science to show that genetics only plays a part in it all.Any dog especially dogs of larger varieties can and do get HD. Some breeds would be diagnosed with HD but with dogs with low scores in comparison to the rest of the breed - its still HD and they are still used for breeding - but even more note worthy is only a couple of breeds have to be scored anyway. Are we seriously going to push for rescue to test when most breeders still dont test? Do we test every single dog for everything? How does rescue know what breed is in the dog to know what to test for?

If we are going to start to carry on about recue dogs and who is accounatble the same thing has to be held as is done any transaction.that is to the best of the breeders/ rescues knowledge the dog is not in ill health. If sometime after a sale the dogs develops any condition which the breeder or the rescue could not know existed after that then its an owner issue. They can eliminate that risk by insuring them. The insurance company covers them as long as the condition is not diagnosed prior to activation of the policy. That should tell you heaps in itself.

Im sorry but in all honesty for anyone to be calling for rescue to be health testing past the basics which can be picked up in a vet check not only does it make us appear crazy it also opens us up for more crap. What do you test a puppy for before it goes home?

[Steve]

Well said, but not correct as a matter of law. Having rights does not pass responsibilities back. A 2 yr old child has lots of rights, but no responsibilities. Some argue that the unborn have rights. A dying person or someone with serious brain injury has rights, but is incapable of taking responsibilities, and therefore not be held responsible by the law.

Human owners have responsibility because they vest in animals rights to some minimal standard of care. Animals have rights because people recognise a responsibility to meet certain standards of care.

You can say it anyway you want but realistically having rights does pass responsibilities back. A baby has the right to eat a healthy diet but if it stops eating whether its aware of the consequences of that or not , whether its does that intentionally or not someone will forget all about the baby's right to eat and start to feed in via a tube.

I knew someone once who was devlopmentally disabled who had the right to all manner of things until he stabbed his sister 48 times - and his rights vanished pretty quickly to a point where over time he lost more and more and more of his rights.The last time I saw him he was locked in a small room with a straight jacket on and supervision by 2 adult males 24 hours a day. Each time he showed he wasnt able to be responsible with one thng it was removed from him.

He had the right to watch telly until he threw it at a youth worker. He had a right to feed himself until he threw plates and food and tried to use anything that came into his reach as a weapon.He lost his right to exercise when he would do a bolt each time to outrun the youth workers to kill one of the other residents. Eventually he was drugged to a point where he stared blankly and shuffled his feet as he walked from one side of a locked room to another. Now you may not want to call that being able to be responsible but still having rights but most dogs Ive known have more rights than that boy had last time I saw him.

Bout the only thing I could see that was different was that a human can decide to put a dog down but this kid was destined to a long miserable life because he couldnt be responsible but still had the right to live.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Steve