asal Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) I wonder what the story is about the greyhounds that Baird was suppose to have a media presentation with? Seems like they didn't want the media to talk to the man at all since they were all moved inside. There really shouldn't be outrage that the RSPCA will euth quite a high number of them, they have been saying that from the outset of the announcement. People can't see the forest for the trees. --Lhok Well Im not outraged but why is it better for the R.... to take them and put them down when the breeders are perfectly capable of taking them to their own vets and doing the same thing? That wasn't what I was meaning, the outrage part was because of the comment section of the link. I also think that breeder/trainer/owner should be allowed to made decisions for their own dogs in that regard. --Lhok except for the fact that obviously they are not allowed to make decisions for their own dogs now. look at the outrage of the disclosure of the mass grave of less than 100 dogs in was it five years? It read shot or bludgened, if every one had been shot then there should have been no cause for outrage, well unless its now only the ..... allowed to shoot/euth stock anymore. its euth when they pull the trigger if you arent aware of that. no mass outraged at the 58,000 or so yearly put down by the r.... even to my awful maths that over 300,000 dogs? dont even look at the cats. although they incinerate them at yagoona, read somewhere many end up in land fill from other branches. doesn't compute when looked at from that angle all to much but look on the bright side. thousands less dogs born and bred to be loved by the vast majority of their owners and perfect result for peta. I'm sitting on the fence with this debate BUT I can tell you what DOES compute - 15% euth rates nationally (RSPCA published dog figures) vs 58% (Greyhound Australasia estimated dog figures). Yes there are other issues. so nuke the lot ? NO thought or care of the thousands who don't end up in those stats or those who love and care for them. nuke em too on the grounds of the greater good? whats really doing my head in is nuke the greyhounds to protect them even if it means so protected they die. yet its fine to dump 4 dingos onto an island hoping they euthanasia/sounds so much nicer (than tear them to bits doesn't it?) all the feral goats there and what is their reward? they will die due to a late release implant Edited July 23, 2016 by asal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted July 23, 2016 Author Share Posted July 23, 2016 Like Gruf I think this is a poor resolution BUT I'm sick to death of RSPCA euth stats being twisted and re-twisted. Argue the case with facts not something somebody said somewhere. It's the same with the report - everywhere on FB people say it's full of lies. Fine - tell me which part of the report and back it up. Most people haven't even bothered to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Like Gruf I think this is a poor resolution BUT I'm sick to death of RSPCA euth stats being twisted and re-twisted. Argue the case with facts not something somebody said somewhere. It's the same with the report - everywhere on FB people say it's full of lies. Fine - tell me which part of the report and back it up. Most people haven't even bothered to read it. How are RSPCA stats being twisted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pjrt Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 If the RSPCA rehomed more dogs likely many of them would have fickle temperaments and likely end up in trouble with other animals or humans. Not saying that some of the dogs leaving their shelters now don't but if they started lowering their home able standards people would soon be complaining about the junk status dogs they rehome. There are also only so many homes to go around for working mixes, Staffy crosses...,.and greyhounds. That might be because there are too many of them perhaps. It is not the RSPCA fault that some people are dipshits that breed too many puppies. So I'm not angry about RSPCA euth rates whatever they are. I'm angry at the dipshit breeders and owners that don't take responsibility for their dogs. And I'm perplexed why the Greyhound people have their right to humanely dispose of their dogs taken away It all sucks lemons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted July 23, 2016 Author Share Posted July 23, 2016 Like Gruf I think this is a poor resolution BUT I'm sick to death of RSPCA euth stats being twisted and re-twisted. Argue the case with facts not something somebody said somewhere. It's the same with the report - everywhere on FB people say it's full of lies. Fine - tell me which part of the report and back it up. Most people haven't even bothered to read it. How are RSPCA stats being twisted? For a start it would be more appropriate to discuss euth % rather than raw numbers. And discuss dog numbers rather than all animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossumCorner Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Is this new? I hadn't seen it til today - says 2012 but only just come to notice (ABC News). http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-22/greyhound-trainer-allegedly-uses-cattle-prod-on-dog/7653462 .... why do we need the RSPCA to be getting loads of money and the replacement for choices that any dog owner has the right to make ? Don't know - but I do feel those in the industry have abrogated any "rights" by their actions and/or by turning righteous blind eye to the entrenched cruelty. People shit all over the RSPCA. They are not the ones causing the problem. Sure maybe they could do a better job mopping up other people's shit, but ultimately it is other people's shit they're left to mop up. Agree to this totally - (some for and against in the three-page spread about the Bulla horses in this morning's Sun: anything keeping people aware is welcome). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Like Gruf I think this is a poor resolution BUT I'm sick to death of RSPCA euth stats being twisted and re-twisted. Argue the case with facts not something somebody said somewhere. It's the same with the report - everywhere on FB people say it's full of lies. Fine - tell me which part of the report and back it up. Most people haven't even bothered to read it. How are RSPCA stats being twisted? For a start it would be more appropriate to discuss euth % rather than raw numbers. And discuss dog numbers rather than all animals. The stats I've seen were solely euth rates not numbers of dogs in shelters. I haven't checked them but the source was cited as annual reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted July 23, 2016 Author Share Posted July 23, 2016 Like Gruf I think this is a poor resolution BUT I'm sick to death of RSPCA euth stats being twisted and re-twisted. Argue the case with facts not something somebody said somewhere. It's the same with the report - everywhere on FB people say it's full of lies. Fine - tell me which part of the report and back it up. Most people haven't even bothered to read it. How are RSPCA stats being twisted? For a start it would be more appropriate to discuss euth % rather than raw numbers. And discuss dog numbers rather than all animals. The stats I've seen were solely euth rates not numbers of dogs in shelters. I haven't checked them but the source was cited as annual reports. I was responding to asal saying "no outcry over 58,000 dogs" and my point is that it is 15% of annual intake nationally. Not 58% like the Greyhounds. No one likes euth'ing animals. I certainly don't. But I do see some of the dogs that make it through behavioural assessments and there are a number that should never have been adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Like Gruf I think this is a poor resolution BUT I'm sick to death of RSPCA euth stats being twisted and re-twisted. Argue the case with facts not something somebody said somewhere. It's the same with the report - everywhere on FB people say it's full of lies. Fine - tell me which part of the report and back it up. Most people haven't even bothered to read it. How are RSPCA stats being twisted? For a start it would be more appropriate to discuss euth % rather than raw numbers. And discuss dog numbers rather than all animals. The stats I've seen were solely euth rates not numbers of dogs in shelters. I haven't checked them but the source was cited as annual reports. I was responding to asal saying "no outcry over 58,000 dogs" and my point is that it is 15% of annual intake nationally. Not 58% like the Greyhounds. No one likes euth'ing animals. I certainly don't. But I do see some of the dogs that make it through behavioural assessments and there are a number that should never have been adopted. 15% of what? All euthanasias nationally or 15% of RSPCA intake? And the 58% of greyhounds is 58% of what? Greyhounds born? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoofnHoof Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 I wonder what the story is about the greyhounds that Baird was suppose to have a media presentation with? Seems like they didn't want the media to talk to the man at all since they were all moved inside. There really shouldn't be outrage that the RSPCA will euth quite a high number of them, they have been saying that from the outset of the announcement. People can't see the forest for the trees. --Lhok Well Im not outraged but why is it better for the RSPCA to take them and put them down when the breeders are perfectly capable of taking them to their own vets and doing the same thing? Apparently many aren't since the discovery of mass graves etc. A bullet is only humane if it's well aimed, and a bludgeoning certainly isn't humane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 I wonder what the story is about the greyhounds that Baird was suppose to have a media presentation with? Seems like they didn't want the media to talk to the man at all since they were all moved inside. There really shouldn't be outrage that the RSPCA will euth quite a high number of them, they have been saying that from the outset of the announcement. People can't see the forest for the trees. --Lhok Well Im not outraged but why is it better for the RSPCA to take them and put them down when the breeders are perfectly capable of taking them to their own vets and doing the same thing? Apparently many aren't since the discovery of mass graves etc. A bullet is only humane if it's well aimed, and a bludgeoning certainly isn't humane. Mass graves dont prove anything except that they chose one spot to bury them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted July 23, 2016 Author Share Posted July 23, 2016 I wonder what the story is about the greyhounds that Baird was suppose to have a media presentation with? Seems like they didn't want the media to talk to the man at all since they were all moved inside. There really shouldn't be outrage that the RSPCA will euth quite a high number of them, they have been saying that from the outset of the announcement. People can't see the forest for the trees. --Lhok Well Im not outraged but why is it better for the RSPCA to take them and put them down when the breeders are perfectly capable of taking them to their own vets and doing the same thing? Apparently many aren't since the discovery of mass graves etc. A bullet is only humane if it's well aimed, and a bludgeoning certainly isn't humane. Mass graves dont prove anything except that they chose one spot to bury them. Actually there was a forensic report done on how the animals were euth'd. Dogs lined up in groups of 2,3 or 4. Killed by gunshots or blunt force trauma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 I wonder what the story is about the greyhounds that Baird was suppose to have a media presentation with? Seems like they didn't want the media to talk to the man at all since they were all moved inside. There really shouldn't be outrage that the RSPCA will euth quite a high number of them, they have been saying that from the outset of the announcement. People can't see the forest for the trees. --Lhok Well Im not outraged but why is it better for the RSPCA to take them and put them down when the breeders are perfectly capable of taking them to their own vets and doing the same thing? Apparently many aren't since the discovery of mass graves etc. A bullet is only humane if it's well aimed, and a bludgeoning certainly isn't humane. Mass graves dont prove anything except that they chose one spot to bury them. Actually there was a forensic report done on how the animals were euth'd. Dogs lined up in groups of 2,3 or 4. Killed by gunshots or blunt force trauma. Oh come on just because they want to say they have evidence that some were killed inhumanely that's no reason to take away someone else's right to humanely kill them or have someone of their choice do it if they want. I was at the vet about a year ago and a grey trainer came in with 8 dogs in his dog trailer to be PTS BY THE VET and when it was done they took the bods home to bury them because its cheaper than having the vet dispose of the bodies. I was at a breeders house once who killed her's by locking them in a crate and not feeding them or giving them any water - does that mean we should all have our rights taken off us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoofnHoof Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Given their reputation for behaving ethically I can see why you'd want to give them the benefit of the doubt... The reality is that any industry which does not behave ethically as a whole unit will have its rights taken away. No it's not fair for those who do the right thing but in this day and age lack of decisive action against those who do the wrong thing is viewed as complicity. It's all well and good to say that it takes time to change but how long should they be given? How many lives must be lost in cruel circumstances before it's too many? How much suffering is acceptable during the "transition period"? You are braver and wiser than I if you can quantify such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Given their reputation for behaving ethically I can see why you'd want to give them the benefit of the doubt... The reality is that any industry which does not behave ethically as a whole unit will have its rights taken away. No it's not fair for those who do the right thing but in this day and age lack of decisive action against those who do the wrong thing is viewed as complicity. It's all well and good to say that it takes time to change but how long should they be given? How many lives must be lost in cruel circumstances before it's too many? How much suffering is acceptable during the "transition period"? You are braver and wiser than I if you can quantify such things. It only takes a heartbeat to take away people's rights - people who have never shown any sign of being party to any of this - thats 80% of them and how do you justify them having the right to find them new homes or sell them interstate rather than killing them as better for the dogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asal Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Given their reputation for behaving ethically I can see why you'd want to give them the benefit of the doubt... The reality is that any industry which does not behave ethically as a whole unit will have its rights taken away. No it's not fair for those who do the right thing but in this day and age lack of decisive action against those who do the wrong thing is viewed as complicity. It's all well and good to say that it takes time to change but how long should they be given? How many lives must be lost in cruel circumstances before it's too many? How much suffering is acceptable during the "transition period"? You are braver and wiser than I if you can quantify such things. It only takes a heartbeat to take away people's rights - people who have never shown any sign of being party to any of this - thats 80% of them and how do you justify them having the right to find them new homes or sell them interstate rather than killing them as better for the dogs? can only wonder if its a case of don't care, as long is its not your rights that have been signed away. Then the fat would fly but those unaffected will just look on and say they brought it on themselves then too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asal Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Given their reputation for behaving ethically I can see why you'd want to give them the benefit of the doubt... The reality is that any industry which does not behave ethically as a whole unit will have its rights taken away. No it's not fair for those who do the right thing but in this day and age lack of decisive action against those who do the wrong thing is viewed as complicity. It's all well and good to say that it takes time to change but how long should they be given? How many lives must be lost in cruel circumstances before it's too many? How much suffering is acceptable during the "transition period"? You are braver and wiser than I if you can quantify such things. It only takes a heartbeat to take away people's rights - people who have never shown any sign of being party to any of this - thats 80% of them and how do you justify them having the right to find them new homes or sell them interstate rather than killing them as better for the dogs? can only wonder if its a case of don't care, as long is its not your rights that have been signed away. Then the fat would fly but same scenario here, those unaffected will just look on and say hey they brought it on themselves then too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoofnHoof Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 80% of people doing the right thing leaves 20% of people doing the wrong thing and not enough being done by anyone to fix that, I don't justify anything but to me if a problem is so endemic that to effectively address it would decimate the industry to a point that it is no longer viable as an industry (as indicated by the report) then it's not really surprising that it was decided they are not capable of self regulation. Clearly the public and the community has decided that the industry's actions (or lack thereof) are unjustifiable, so to them at least 20% of participants doing the wrong thing is the line in the sand. Said it before and I will say it again, the writing has been on the wall for a long time, for ALL animal industries. When you are part of a community you have rights taken away all the time, everyone has the right to apply for a drivers license, they lose that right when they show they are not capable of the responsibility. Same thing is now happening at an industry level. The question is not, why should good people have their rights taken away, but why should good people keep their rights when they do nothing about the bad ones? Everyone in the industry knew about the "bad eggs", as a whole they had the power to stop it but didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoofnHoof Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Given their reputation for behaving ethically I can see why you'd want to give them the benefit of the doubt... The reality is that any industry which does not behave ethically as a whole unit will have its rights taken away. No it's not fair for those who do the right thing but in this day and age lack of decisive action against those who do the wrong thing is viewed as complicity. It's all well and good to say that it takes time to change but how long should they be given? How many lives must be lost in cruel circumstances before it's too many? How much suffering is acceptable during the "transition period"? You are braver and wiser than I if you can quantify such things. It only takes a heartbeat to take away people's rights - people who have never shown any sign of being party to any of this - thats 80% of them and how do you justify them having the right to find them new homes or sell them interstate rather than killing them as better for the dogs? can only wonder if its a case of don't care, as long is its not your rights that have been signed away. Then the fat would fly but same scenario here, those unaffected will just look on and say hey they brought it on themselves then too. As someone who owns and loves animals I do care very much, and I worry that my right to own them wil be taken away, but that doesn't negate the reality, nor does it make it ok for others to abuse animals while I sat back. I do what I can but it takes a majority, so I try to convince people that this is all our responsibility. Each of us every time we hear about someone doing the wrong thing but are afraid to speak up because they are more powerful, they are more respected, but they are the ones who will bring us all down so now is the time to act against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Given their reputation for behaving ethically I can see why you'd want to give them the benefit of the doubt... The reality is that any industry which does not behave ethically as a whole unit will have its rights taken away. No it's not fair for those who do the right thing but in this day and age lack of decisive action against those who do the wrong thing is viewed as complicity. It's all well and good to say that it takes time to change but how long should they be given? How many lives must be lost in cruel circumstances before it's too many? How much suffering is acceptable during the "transition period"? You are braver and wiser than I if you can quantify such things. It only takes a heartbeat to take away people's rights - people who have never shown any sign of being party to any of this - thats 80% of them and how do you justify them having the right to find them new homes or sell them interstate rather than killing them as better for the dogs? can only wonder if its a case of don't care, as long is its not your rights that have been signed away. Then the fat would fly but same scenario here, those unaffected will just look on and say hey they brought it on themselves then too. As someone who owns and loves animals I do care very much, and I worry that my right to own them wil be taken away, but that doesn't negate the reality, nor does it make it ok for others to abuse animals while I sat back. I do what I can but it takes a majority, so I try to convince people that this is all our responsibility. Each of us every time we hear about someone doing the wrong thing but are afraid to speak up because they are more powerful, they are more respected, but they are the ones who will bring us all down so now is the time to act against them. Okay, give. What are you doing to ensure this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now