Animal rights is WRONG - Page 2

Originally Posted by bookworm

I have to say I would be in favor of ALMOST anything that would get more pet owners to spay and nueter. True that responsible pet owners are not creating colonys of semi feral cats to starve and fallprey to disease, but sadly we are in the minority.
Driving home after an evening shift there is a small creek on my street, and it's low banks house countless cats. It's almost eerie to see all the glowing eyes in my headlights.
I have taken in and tamed and altered so many, but haven't even made a dent. Pretty depressing.
I just don't see where the extremist groups, well meaning as they may have started out, are providing an acceptable alternative. I wish someone could though.

Originally Posted by otto

I throw away the begging letters I get from HSUS. I don't like their shock tactics, for one thing. I know the abuse is rampant, I don't need it shoved in my face. All that does is make me even more against giving them any money.

I am not cut out for rescue or foster work, but when I have a little extra money, I like to give it personally. I mean, to someone I know, who does the kind of work I don't have the stomach for. Because those people are my heros.


This is a terrific thread. I really like this forum. It seems people can have differing view points without a lot of name calling and flaming. That says a lot about a board in general, you know?

Originally Posted by ebrillblaiddes

Parents can make pretty much all those decisions for their kids (the breeding thing doesn't really apply...I hope...) so I don't see how being referred to as a cat guardian instead of a cat owner would change my right to take care of my cats as I see fit as long as it doesn't cause harm.

Originally Posted by ut0pia

But the responsible owners are the ones who already DO spay and neuter so they won't even be affected by the laws.
As far as breeders, I think there should be a license to be a breeder...

Originally Posted by ebrillblaiddes

What counts as a breeder, though? If someone takes in a pregnant stray and sells the kittens to cover expenses, is that a breeder? What about accidental breeding because of not getting females spayed soon enough (suppose they go to a vet that doesn't believe in pediatric spay), is that person a breeder? If someone feeds a feral colony and doesn't manage to TNR every cat, but they catch and rehome some of the kittens, does that make them a breeder?

None of those sound like breeder behavior to me, and banning them would create a huge burden on normal pet care (as well as probably being impossible to enforce), but defining them as non-breeder situations would create enough loopholes for unethical types.

Originally Posted by strange_wings

The closest thing to a domestic cat is other subspecies of felis silvestris, which the house cat (f. silvestris catus) is actually sometimes considered a subspecies of.
Bobcats are of the lynx genus, which is completely different.


I don't get everyone going on about being a "guardian". It must be some empty feel good word like so many others that people attach sentimental meaning to. An animal is an animal, not a child. Respect them for being the animals they are. Would anyone want some government agency being able to come in and look at your home and declare your care unfit because you're not providing the most expensive food? Because you didn't buy some $300+ cat tree? Because some of you don't follow the one litter box for every cat + 1 rule? Or, and this one actually exists in some areas thanks to AR, because you have more than the predetermined set limit of two or three cats? (this one is particular is against breeders)

My cats are my cats, plain and simple. Just like my reptiles are mine. They are my property. If I wished to transfer said property to someone else, for whatever reason (lots of people here rehome cats, before anyone tries to twist this into meaning something else), that's my prerogative and no one else's.
Things should be kept as they are, what basic laws that protect animals from cruelty and neglect should be enforced whenever possible, and no more stupid AR pushed bills are needed. The funding wasting on these bills would be better spent elsewhere.

Cat and dog owners rarely see a lot of these bills. But as a reptile owner I see that there are always some being pushed to take away peoples rights to keep their reptile pets. Thankfully, a recent crazy one pushed by HSUS didn't go through with it's original wording. Fun little bit of info, during a conference to work on HR2811 HSUS provided little facts or science and instead argued using emotional rhetoric, USARK presented the facts and by doing this got support to amend the bill so that it didn't ban all pythons.
Goofy emotional rhetoric tends to be a problem which clouds most peoples judgment on many things, unfortunately.

Currently the exotic and reptile groups are out there fighting for your rights to your pets, and it would be nice if the dog and cat owners realized this threat and added support and funds to the effort.

Thankfully the majority of the people on here do realize that AR groups are harmful. But I bet most don't know current bills they're pushing ATM. And if anyone did, would you write your congressman not to limit or ban ownership of exotics, reptiles, birds, or rodents? or would it fall under the radar as not being important because it didn't involve house cats?

Originally Posted by ut0pia

Yes I think the word owner is too harsh and implies that animals are objects that can be owned..
that's why I don't like it. I would prefer guardian...

Originally Posted by ebrillblaiddes

Yeah...it's like...if I see a cat on the property, living on what it pulls out of the dumpster or catches of local wildlife, and it's steadily getting bulgier and bulgier over the course of a couple months...I am going to try to catch her, so that I can keep her from making another litter after that and so the kittens get a proper non-feral start in life...and then I am going to have to try to rehome her and the litter when they're old enough...and I just might charge an adoption fee, to defray my expenses in raising them and make sure they're considered valuable by their new humans...and frack anyone that says I need a "breeder license" for that. I would need several bags of kitten food, and to clean out my clothes closet for an isolation room until mamacat's bloodwork comes back clean (it has a light and an air conditioning vent, not ideal but it wouldn't suck for a day or two), and the common sense to stick her in the carrier and go to the vet if the delivery gets squirrelly, not the scale of setup that would go into a humane commercial breeding operation or the knowledge about feline genetics that it would take to breed a better mousetrap.

Originally Posted by AmberThe Bobcat

Boy, us exotic people are fighting and fighting hard. I get this all the time though. Well, no one should keep those cats, but it seems ok for these same people to keep their domestic cats. What these people do not realize and I say it time and time again, is that these AR groups only start with exotics, because it is easier to convince people that they should be banned. But, that is not where they want to stop. As we say in one exotic group I belong to, the motto is: First it's exotics, then domestics. When it comes to exotics, such as the cats I keep, I do agree with FAIR regulations. Regulations that fully support responsible ownership and regulations that are NOT so strict, that they are nothing more than a ban hidden as regulations. There should NEVER be a ban...period.

Originally Posted by bookworm

Well, thank you OP for this thread. I feel very stupid right now, but at least better educated. HSUS and The American Humane Society are not the same group, are they? I'll put my glasses on and read the fine print before I send off a donation next time.