Here in Queensland we are hearing the Animal Welfare Refuges (which they say are full now to overflowing!) appealing to the members of the public to please consider the fate of their "unwanted" pets. Painfully inevitable and becoming so monotonous at this time of the year, as the many selfish holidaymakers dump their animals, rather than pay to put them into care, whilst they themselves are out there living it up, oblivious to the possible pain and suffering these unwanted animals may have to endure, or the "final solution" that many that cannot be placed back in society face as a result of these selfish human acts.

Society has to do something to put a stop to this disgraceful problem!

Maybe every person aquiring a pet for their child or themselves should be compelled to deposit a significant sum of money with the local Council or the like, out of which a "chipping" and "sterlization" fee (unless registered as a breeder!) is deducted.
I would also suggest that if a pet owner decides to "hand in" a pet to avoid payment of "care fees" then that particular person should never again be allowed to own a pet!

Access to Government Veterinary Services should be readily available to some animal owners (along lines similar to Centrelink Concessions) as I believe that the ridiculous outlandish fees applied by Private Veterinarians is one of the greatest deterrents to ongoing animal health Australia wide.

In the long term I believe that unless we can come up with an alternative, we will have no other option than to ban completely the ownership of both Cats and Dogs in all Residential areas, and stricter controls will have to be placed upon all Rural Cat and Dog ownership, to prevent indiscriminate cross-breeding with Dingoes and feralization of unwanted domestic cats.

I would be interested to hear the communities views on these issues, before the situation becomes totally unsustainable?

Cuphandle you have my total support in fact some people should not be allowed children.
My resent hunt for my new mate Sky left me unhappy with the way we treat animals.
Sky will have a mate soon from a dumped group of puppy's, yes dumped yesterday one day old holidays?
Hope they do not enjoy them!
Strange after my search they are Foxys, or at least crossed mum is with them and headed for a new home too.

Cuphandle

This country's record for animal welfare is abominable. Even on National Forum, it is glaringly obvious that posters are indifferent to learning of or debating the subject of sadistic acts perpetrated on other species and those who seek justice for animals are often slandered and ridiculed.

It appears that most people are purely concerned about themselves and their own sensibilities and remain too cowardly to cope with the heinous facts on the ill-treatment of animals.

I have clarified my position on animal neglect many times on OLO, where I continue to recommend a legislated, mandatory short course for all potential animal owners, perhaps run over a period of six weeks and for a considerable fee. Therefore, the retards who take possession of an animal, without accreditation, should incur a prison sentence.

However, State and Federal governments continue to breach Animal Welfare Acts daily. Their endorsement and encouragement of the depraved live animal exports and factory farming is testament to the "see no evil, hear no evil," obscene approach of governments aligned to this industry. Such a good example to set for the retards by our legislators, eh?

In addition, media reports on the abandonment, neglect and/or torture of animals now appears to be a daily occurrence in Australia.

I applaud you for bringing this issue to posters' attention Cuphandle. However, I believe this country will continue to remain a nation of shame.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/17/2120846.htm

http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22964229-3462,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22962873-2,00.html

http://nwtasmania.yourguide.com.au/news/local/general/illegal-trap-causes-animals-cruel-death-pademelons-agony-appalls-residents-pademelon39s-agony-appalls-residents/1150308.html

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2007/12/20/9861_opinion.html

Cuphandle
We too appreciate very much your opening this thread on such an important issue.
We find that many people simply are not aware of the great suffering of Animals mainly due to Government and Industry control of the media.
Its a discrace. Just to give you a example Cuphandle. Not so long ago Australia had a ship load of sheep stuck in dreadful conditions when a ship broke down for a week! without any ventilation!

Did they bring them back to shore and off load them?
No.
It was another Cormo Right HERE in Australia.

The media 'refused' to cover the story Cuphandle. Now if you were a jorno that would be a scoop story after 60 minutes highlighted the cruelty of this evil trade.

One Guy told me= I would loose my jon if I reported on this!!

Dickies idea of funds is a good one but I wouldnt trust my council with the money. I think perhaps the State and Fedral Government could contribute direct tothe elderly living alone or a couple towards vetinary and food cost through vouchers.

That way we could make sure the funds reached the Animals it was intended for and pets really are the answer for our elederly.

That would also enable a 24 hour telphone link up and some people to vist owners and their pets.

What a wonderful programe for both the elderly and the Animals.

The fact is pets should not be brought as toys for kids without very reasonsible parents to teach the kids reasonsibilty towards the Animals Care.

Belly- Good for you. Its seems your little family is growing.
What better gift at Christmass than to give a Animal a good Home.
Well done .

My position is that human beings should not keep animals enslaved as "pets" at all.

It is barbaric. It deprives animals of a life of freedom and dignity amongst their own kind. It also highlights the disturbingly persistent trait that people seem to need to exert control over some form of inferior being, in order to reinforce their own ego.

Keeping pets cannot be justified by intelligent human beings in any terms other than incredibly selfish and self-indulgent.

Try it for yourself.

On what grounds do you believe that human beings are justified in owning animals?

1. "On what grounds do you believe that human beings are justified in owning animals?" (Pericles)

All my animals are refugees - abandoned and ill-treated by other humans. Compassionate humans have a responsibility to care for these animals.

2. "It also highlights the disturbingly persistent trait that people seem to need to exert control over some form of inferior being, in order to reinforce their own ego."

My animals, or anyone elses, are not "inferior being(s)."

I do not "exert control" over my animals. They have been guided into adopting good behaviour traits and my strategies have been similar to those I used when raising small children.

The animals in my possession (some are ugly) have as much freedom as they desire. I have complete confidence my animals are civilised and will never attack another animal or human - one dog I have had for 12 years.

In addition, all their needs are met and as a result, I am much healthier by being encouraged by my four-legged friends to go "walkies" daily, accompanied by my cat and occasionally, the neighbours' dogs.

3. "Keeping pets cannot be justified by intelligent human beings in any terms other than incredibly selfish and self-indulgent."

The term "incredibly selfish and self-indulgent" could also apply to those who have 3 TV's in their homes, a couple of videos, a rowdy motor-bike to disturb the neighbours or those who leave the AC on all day whilst at work, loud music blaring day and night, a flash car and a boat on the never never plan, a penchant only for the cute puppy in the window and a complete indifference to anyone or other animals in need.

Perhaps it is you who is "incredibly selfish and self-indulgent," Pericles and the much poorer for it?

Not convinced, dickie.

>>All my animals are refugees - abandoned and ill-treated by other humans. Compassionate humans have a responsibility to care for these animals<<

This is simply one half of the chicken-and-egg argument. If keeping pets were outlawed, there would be no "refugees" for compassionate humans to care for. You are simply using the excuse of other people's cruelty to justify your own need to keep a pet animal.

>>My animals, or anyone elses, are not "inferior being(s)."<<

I absolutely agree. So why do you treat them as such? If you were kept in the way you keep pets - confined and restricted in your activities like an inmate of Guantanamo Bay - wouldn't you feel that you were considered inferior?

>>I do not "exert control" over my animals. They have been guided into adopting good behaviour traits...<<

That's just housetraining. I'm talking about freedom. I assume you will one day allow your kids to leave home?

>>The animals in my possession (some are ugly) have as much freedom as they desire<<

That's plain ridiculous. How can you possibly determine the level of freedom they "desire"? For one thing, you forced them to get used to a non-free environment for them during "training". You, of course, described their transition from freedom-loving puppy to obedient dog as "growing up".

>>In addition, all their needs are met...<<

Sure, I bet you let them go "walkies" as often as they like. To them, it must be like the exercise yard in a prison - a few minutes of sunlight, then - back to the cell.

>>Perhaps it is you who is "incredibly selfish and self-indulgent," Pericles and the much poorer for it?<<

I'm not sure how being on the side of oppressed animals who are unable to speak for themselves is selfish and self-indulgent, but I suppose it makes you feel better to lash out.

Pericles

I would be most fearful of leaving my animals in your "care."

And I'm wondering why you even saw fit to debate on this thread by presuming everything and knowing nothing.

It's clear you detest animals. Is this why you twist the facts?:

"That's plain ridiculous. How can you possibly determine the level of freedom they "desire"? For one thing, you forced them to get used to a non-free environment for them during "training"."

Forced them, Pericles? Who said? My animals are free. They are not incarcerated in some backyard or compound. My double gates leading to the street are often open. Get it? They will not stray further than a couple of houses before returning, even when visitors have left gates open all day during my absence.

That is something we cannot do with small children. They especially live in a "non-free environment," Pericles. Can we now expect more abuse from you because mothers "confine and restrict" two, three, four, five, six, year old children?

Oh dear. "Like an inmate of Guantanamo Bay" too? Get cracking now Pericles - quickly.

Bring in the Child Abuse Division for my "incarcerated" children and the RSPCA for my "cruelly tethered" animals.

BTW, did you tease a dog when you were a cruel little brat and it bit you Pericles?

Is that why animals disgust you? Is it why you're psychotic over responsible people owning animals!

Please Pericles...do tell. Or is your neighbour's pesky dog keeping you awake at night?

"Yep.....and I swear that tomcat's been sprayin' agin. Get the air-rifle, Mabel!"

Ooohh....perhaps some bad owners send their doggies to deposit logs on your front lawn too Pericles? Beats them having to pick it up hey? Hee hee!

And what about that stray who cocked his leg on ya rose bush?

"Bloody mongrels! Kill the lot of 'em! I got me some 1080 in the shed. Hey.....Mabel....get 'ere!"

You need have no concerns on this score, dickie.

>>I would be most fearful of leaving my animals in your "care."<<

All my animal-owning friends know better than to ask, I tend to spoil the animals rotten.

>>I'm wondering why you even saw fit to debate on this thread<<

Actually, you are the main reason. And people like you, who have never bothered to consider what a crappy life the vast majority of "pets" lead.

I know this will come as a terrible shock to you dickie, but it is precisely because I am genuinely fond of animals that I am so disgusted with the way they are treated/enslaved by human beings.

So all those silly scenarios you dreamed up - teasing a dog and getting bitten, noisy neighbours' dogs, spraying tomcats, logs on lawns, strays cocking legs and so on, are nothing more than the sad product of your fevered imagination.

Says quite a lot about the way you think about animals, though.

>>My animals are free. They are not incarcerated in some backyard or compound<<

Eh? Highly unusual, that. How did you train them, if you don't mind my asking? The sheer force of your benevolent personality, perhaps? But pray, if you don't keep them in a backyard or compound, where exactly do you keep them?

>>They will not stray further than a couple of houses before returning<<

It's clear that you are a paragon of virtue in the pet-keeping establishment, but I can assure you that none of your methods work in the city, where the vast majority of the pet population lives and defecates.

Talking of which, I do get some amusement from the recent developments in pet management that require owners to follow their animals around with plastic bags. Hilarious to watch them scurrying around, scrabbling in the grass to pick up some fresh warm dog turd.

Gives me a chuckle every time. The biter bit, I think to myself. Although not in those precise words...

Have a nice day. Don't forget your doggy bag.

I love animals. But I don't have a pet because I work, and I know that I couldn't give it the time that it deserves.

Yet, I'm constantly surprised by the lack of care shown by some people .
People who take their dogs for walks, and let them make messes on other people's lawns while they stand happily by and watch.
Then equally happily walk away, leaving their dog's mess for someone else to clean up.

Then there is the sensitive question of elderly people and pets.
Not all of the elderly are capable of looking after their animals properly.
A lot of times the pets are given the status of 'children.'
I've known elderly who sleep with their pets, feed their pets off the same plates, and in general spoil their pets so much that these animals become obese through over eating, and are lazy and unhealthy.
Although they love their pets dearly - they don't know that they're killing these animals.

Councils should have stricter rules for the desexing of animals. And households should be forced to keep their animals indoors, especially at night.

People who buy animals and then dump them are beneath contempt. But, I'm not sure what can be done to stop this from happening. The only small contribution that I've made is by financially supporting the RSPCA. It's the least I can do.

Couldn't agree more with you Foxy which brings to mind, my suggestion in my post of December 24 where potential pet owners must be accredited prior to possessing an animal.

In addition, legislation should be brought in where no-one can own an animal over six months of age which hasn't been sterilised.

Then you have the dropkicks who own 2 or 3 dogs, incarcerated in back yards and unable to see over huge fences.

And you are so correct. Most animal owners believe they can throw their pets any old bit of junk food and as a result, animal diseases are now rampant.

The vets are also culpable, recommending many unnecessary booster shots for animals which experts now state are causing additional diseases.

The council pound in my area euthanase over 100 dogs per month.

And Pericles is sufficiently arrogant to describe animals as "the inferior being."

Little wonder the sadists walk freely amongst us to continue their abominations against defenceless species.

"But pray, if you don't keep them in a backyard or compound, where exactly do you keep them?" (Pericles)

Errr.....in the front garden Pericles where they can greet passers-by, communicate with visiting animals which come to play "maddies" and be stimulated by the activities occurring in my street. However, they also have access to my backyard - their choice!

"I am genuinely fond of animals that I am so disgusted with the way they are treated/enslaved by human beings."

Crap, Pericles. And what has your contribution been towards preventing animal neglect and cruelty. Looking the other way? Head in the sand? Aware that an animal is being neglected but too gutless to approach or report the sadist?

A typical cop out from Pericles and an "incredibly selfish and self-indulgent" rant!

Pericles

I dont know what sort of personality disorder you have but please do not to speak of this hard working person Dickie in such a manner.

That person has shown more compassion branching out in 'many' areas of Animal Welfare in the last year than you have in your whole selfish life.



My only conclusion is that you are so bitter and lonely you just wanted to share that with somebody else- which is sort of normal I guess.

Mind you its all probably a bit too hard for even you to understand why you seem to make a habit of trying to upset other posters.

You make a habit of being rude to decent folk we have noticed many times.
I guess you are seeking some attention and you seem to be even worse than normal around Christmass time.


We work in conjunction with RSPCA QLD and there are several programes now running for abused victims as well as Animals.
Or even just sad and bitter people. Perhaps you could think about getting involved.

We believe that people and Animals all respond to love- but it is up to us as reasonsible people to ensure the safety and care for our fellow creatures.

Well I am off to the beach now with the dogs and neigbours and their kids.

Yes we will all take a doggie bag. Ah Well actually we wont the council provide them as you walk in.
We are all reasonsible for making sure everybody has a fun day.

Dickie Really
Dont use your energy the person is sadly- Not normal.

I know with your compassion you will join us in a prayer that she seeks help and leave it at that.

Thanks Dickie for all you do. We Owe you a great deal- persons and Animals alike.

A specially hello from the RSPCA QLD CEO Mark and from all of us at RSPCA QLD and People Against Live Exorts and Intensive Farming Halal kind Meats.

You can judge a Nation by the way it treats its Animals
Gandi

It was on the news yesterday ... the family rottweiler who mauled to death the family's new-born baby girl. That's disturbing.

I know that pets can be jealous of a new addition to the family and previously well-behaved animals can show signs of aggression at someone that they feel is intruding onto their turf. However, are there certain species of pets whose nature is more aggressive than others? Should we look at certain breeds - and the danger they may
pose to humans? Are rottweilers one of those breeds?

Does anyone have any answers?

"Are rottweilers one of those breeds?"

I don't believe so Foxy.

Evidence is clear that no dog is born savage.

When you have moronic owners who instruct their dogs to "skitch" or "sool 'em" what can one expect?

In regard to the terrible tragedy to which you refer, the media reported that the neighbours stated the dog was "scary and aggressive" to passers-by, though the animal may have only been exerting his territorial prowess. Who knows?

I am a passionate animal lover, however, I would ensure that my animals did not have access to a first baby's nursery without close supervision.

It's a simple adherence to commonsense and the "Precautionary Principle."

What a strange breed you pet-lovers are, to be sure.

>>Pericles is sufficiently arrogant to describe animals as "the inferior being."<<

Far from it. Pet-owners treat them as such, not I.

>>And what has your contribution been towards preventing animal neglect and cruelty.<<

I take every opportunity to point out to pet-owners that they are demonstrating a rare and vicious cruelty by perpetuating the habit of "ownership" over another living creature.

If pet ownership were illegal today - which it will become in the future, I can assure you - then there would be zero incidences of people-to-animal cruelty. There would also be zero incidences of rottweiller-eats-baby. Which is a kind of bonus, I suppose.

And many thanks for your contribution PALEIF, it was most enlightening.

>>I dont know what sort of personality disorder you have but please do not to speak of this hard working person Dickie in such a manner.<<

My "personality disorder" is to believe that keeping pets is a form of cruelty that demeans us as human beings, in the same way that you believe shutting sheep up in ships and transporting them to their death is a form of cruelty that demeans us as human beings.

And I will continue to address dickie in any way I see fit. You will notice that it is dickie, and not I, who has indulged in puerile name-calling.

And now you are doing the same.

Have a great day walking the dogs, won't you? And try for just a moment to think about it objectively.

Keeping pets is a form of cruelty that demeans us as human beings.

"Keeping pets is a form of cruelty that demeans us as human beings."

I take it then you are a vegetarian, Pericles?

You wouldn't dream of eating any animal which has been incarcerated, would you? How cruel would that be?

Particularly when they've been castrated, debeaked, tails chopped off, muelsed, flanks slit open and their ovaries ripped out, crippled, throats slashed, strung up alive, boiled alive, beheaded, disembowelled, stabbed in the eyes, tendons slashed and all without the benefit of a pain-killer or anaesethic.

This practice is for your benefit Pericles, an animal lover, where you are then able to salivate over your evening meal of dead, corrupted animal flesh.

Surely you wouldn't actually eat these critters, would you Pericles?

No.....I don't believe it! That would be so hypocritical of you Pericles, wouldn't it and so demeaning for you as a compassionate, kindly, human being!

Pericles
Lets move away from the pets for a moment shall we?
Now regardless or not if you eat meat how do you feel about the intensive farming industry?
Or How do you feel about Live Exports.?

Dickie
Lets save time and do what we said and help PF with the Survey and get the petition re Rudd underway.
What do you think?
We are waisting time here.

It is interesting to read the many comments, the fors and the againsts of Pet Ownership, however the main concern with which I created this thread was to "feel" for solutions to this ongoing problem that is obviously increasing in intensity!.......petty personal point scoring does nothing to create any type of realistic solution, so I will suggest another possible solution or two:

I believe that in many cases a child acompanied by a parent, sees in a local shopping centre Pet Shop a window, a display of "cute little puppies" The innocence of childhood appeals to the child, who then cajoles the parent into purchasing one of these little "cuteys", unaware of the constant love and attention needed (for it`s life) to justify this purchase, resulting in sometime at a later date an "unwanted pet" to be disposed off whichever way possible, usually the easiest which is the dumping of this "ex-loved" pet!

I suggest that Pet Shops should NOT be allowed to trade in dogs or cats for a start, and whether they should be allowed to trade in any animals at all is questionable?

Another issue that I pose is this latest one of "dog attack"......We hear of so many dog attacks often upon child members of a family. "That dog is a killer!....put it down!" .....never ever do we get to hear the dog`s side of the story, where maybe an inquisitive toddler has inserted some sharp object into an eye, anus or similar, resulting in the dog`s only response....SNAP or bite!
I myself have witnessed young children (and some not so young) do some disgraceful things to dogs, unaware of the possible repercussions, often in company of parents,......so how about considering the dog`s situation for a change?

Nice logic, dickie.

>>I take it then you are a vegetarian, Pericles?<<

As I understand you, if you eat meat, it is also ok to keep pets. Or is it the other way around, it's ok to be carnivorous if you also keep pets.

To conflate the two is to miss the entire point. Which I am sure is your intention - if you can't think of a logical rejoinder, change the subject.

How about we both agree on one thing - that cruelty to animals is a bad thing.

Are you OK with that?

Now, in my opinion, keeping pets is a highly visible and commonplace form of cruelty. I don't necessarily expect everyone to agree with me, in fact very few do. Nevertheless, it is a deeply felt conviction of mine that keeping pets reflects very badly indeed on our so-called humanity.

In much the same way as PALEIF keeps battling on against the cruelty involved in animal slaughter, I will keep throwing in my twopenn'orth when the topic of pets rears its head.

What puzzles me is the vehemence with which my views are opposed by folk who label themselves as being on the side of animal protection. I could perhaps understand a "the time is not yet right" response, but hardly the vilification directed towards me in a sequence of straightforward, ad hominem attacks.

So, if you want to make a point about keeping pets being a perfectly acceptable facet of our makeup as human beings, by all means go ahead. I have heard many, by the way, and so far they all seem highly loaded with emotion, and very light on objective thought.

But there's always room for another opinion, isn't there?

Pericles

We actually have something in common.

I too have never sought or bought an animal in my life.

Nor have I ever not had an animal.

That is my contribution to preventing on-going cruelty to the animals that have been or are now under my care.

The list is endless....dogs, cats, goats, rabbits, birds.

Should I have ignored the cruelty that had been perpetrated on these animals?

I shall reiterate the question, Pericles:

What has your contribution been to this dilemma and what would your "objective" recommendations have been to MY dilemma?

Yes Cuphandle, ban the cat. And stop beating up on children.

Pericles, as much as I love my dog and he me, I tend to agree with your arguments here.

Firstly, I resolutely refuse to do the doggy bag thing. He might start thinking he's the one in charge.

Second, I regularily challenge my mutt to go out and kill something. But he just wags his stupid tail whatever I say. In fact the more I mock him for his domesticated ways the more excited he seems to get.

Parli

You wouldnt use a doggie bag at the beach.

Its the law.

Anyway what sort of owner would leave doggie poo for someone to walk in on the beach. If all owners were like you the council would Ban people taking their dogs to the beach or walking them on the grass or road all together.

Pericles
I see- I think.
Yes we can agree that Animal Cruelty is wrong. Sorry if I got a it agro.
We are pretty impressed with Dickie and her efforts.
I think what `you` are saying is that it makes you so sick to see how some pets are kept under the umbrella of the laws that you personally would rather see `all` pet owndership banned.

Is that right?
Interesting.

In the last few weeks another poster on a thread said well if we dont do this and that those Animals will be extinct.

I replied- Considering they are hunted down and thrown into trucks and shipped off in old boats in 50 degree heat without water or shade to a barbaic death- "That would be a good thing".

All hell then broke loose and we were accused of having no regard for conservation so the kids could one day visit a Zoo and see a - Whatever.

Put that way I addmitt to be guilty as charged.

Rather there were no animals to suffer if people cant treat them properly. As for domestic Animals. Many dogs are a member of the family and treated well.
Others not.I wouldnt judge every owner badly.
Although I think I am starting to follow your line of thought.
Its different- Almost extreme but I think I follow your logic.
Its not mine of course.
Enjoy your Sunday.

Dickie if you wish to get this out for pigs re ACCC and the Rudd Petition etc would you please email us or call.

Other wise I will just have to forget it as we cant do the whole lot ourselves and Nicky[ Suzzanne] made no reply.

BTW Good Luck with the settlement.

That too is an avoidance strategy, dickie:

Dickie: "I too have never sought or bought an animal in my life"

Bill Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman."

It is a chicken-and-egg situation, is it not?

If the starting point was that keeping pets is illegal - and it will be, let me assure you, in the fullness of time - then there wouldn't be animals to "save" in this fashion, would there?

>>What has your contribution been to this dilemma and what would your "objective" recommendations have been to MY dilemma?<<

As I said before, my contribution is simply to continue to point out the anomalous behaviour of people who regard themselves as animal-lovers, when it comes to the topic of pets.

I really can't help you with your dilemma, except to point out that your protestations that the doggies and kitties are being well looked-after echo those of slave-owners in the southern United States, before the abolition of slavery.

Take a look through Orlando Patterson's "Slavery and Social Death". You'll find many familiar phrases in the pro-slavery team's view of their place in life. Or check out George FitzHugh's "Cannibals All; Slaves without Masters" - he nominated socialism as the "new slavery", because in his view it made the working man worse off than the slaves:

Part of their argument rests on the premise that the landowners looked after the slaves' welfare, and setting them free would force them into a world where they had to compete for jobs, and therefore their livelihood. I have heard remarkably similar excuses from pet-owners - the dog/cat/hamster/rabbit depends on me for food/shelter etc., how would it survive out in the wild?

Are you starting to understand the logic? I don't expect you to agree with it, of course, but perhaps one day you will start asking the questions of yourself.

And you might just be surprised at the answers.

Interesting thread. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think that my own position lies not so much between the extremes expressed here as equidistant from them but on a somewhat divergent trajectory.

Firstly, I think that Pericles would be correct to describe the relationship between pets and their owners as "slave-like", rather than actual slavery. This is because, as a humanist, I regard other species of animals as having lower intrinsic status than H. sapiens. I think that our law and culture agree with me, since infringements against animals typically incur lesser penalties and disapproval than do those against people.

This doesn't mean that I don't love animals - rather, it means that I have a very different kind of relationship to animals, particularly those that I own, than I do with people. For a start, I own some domestic animals, eat others, and regularly hunt wild aquatic animals.

As we have a small acreage, the conditions under which my pets live is somewhat different to those experienced by urban pets. I have a dog, who is free to roam the property and occasionally visits the neighbours, then returns of her own volition. She is quite welcome to eat any of the occasionally numerous rabbits that also like to call our place home, but for some reason she prefers the tucker I provide.

We have a few sheep whose job it is to eat excess grass in summer, and whose feed I supplement in winter. They would be somebody else's tucker by now if I hadn't bought them from a farmer whp breeds them for that purpose. We have a couple of ducks who come and go as they please, but never stray more than about 20 metres from our house dam. They eat grubs and weeds around the garden, which we supplement with corn and the odd slice of bread or some lettuce in winter. They too would probably have been on somebody's menu if we hadn't bought them.

[continued}

[continued]

Then there's the chooks, who convert table scraps into eggs in exchange for some additional feed and shelter. They wander around freely during the day, but are happily confined at night to protect them from feral cats and the odd fox, who otherwise do pretty well on the rabbits.

On the other hand, in addition to the rabbits, there are other animals like posssums, mice and such who seem to do anything to try and move in with us. I trap and relocate the possums, but I'm afraid the mice come to a less pleasant end. Snakes are encouraged to move away from the immediate vicinity of the house and its environs.

And of course there are the myriad wild birds, roos, wallabies, amphibians and reptiles who share the place with us, or just stop by for a while on their travels.

I think the correct term for our domestic animals is 'chattels'. That is, they are indeed a form of property, but our relationship with them is not one of master and slave. The technical term for that relationship is, I believe, 'husbandry' - but I won't delve into the etymology of that role at this point!

The point is that I don't think that my humanity is diminished by my possession of these animals - rather, it is enhanced. While they are not of equal status to the human members of my household, they all lead very pleasant - indeed enviable - lives. However, I agree that there are many people who do not treat their pets well, or keep them in entirely inappropriate places.

Humans and domestic animals have co-evolved over millennia. I think that people will always be inclined to have pets, but it is a measure of their humanity how they treat and regard them.

Hey Pericles

That was then and this is now.

We require solutions man, for the 21st Century and immediately, not 20 or 30 years hence.

We olden and modern day "slave owners" have allowed the animal population to breed out of control (myself excluded.)

Bit like humans breeding out of control eh?

And we continue to purchase the "status symbol" pedigree whilst thousands of pound animals are abandoned and destroyed each year.

One of my friends carries her shitzu (complete with pink bow) around in a designer label bag!

So you are stating that one should not interfere when witnessing an animal being ill-treated?

And since we self-indulgent humans are all responsible for this tragedy, are you suggesting that we set all pets free to become uncontrollable, starving feral animals to join their brothers which we've already dumped in the bush?

And should all neglected pets be seized and euthanased - pronto?

sheesh! Morgan we gotta stop meeting(of minds) like this.You have cured me of my tendencies to agree with Pericles. Yours is a more realistic take on our relationship with our pets.

Elsewhere I find agreement breaking out all over the place. Yours was a brilliant retort on Belly's "Evil' thread of those confused PALE people, and I'll sleep content knowing that Santa disapproves of child beating.

The best for you and yours you old belligerent, and may your amiable wisdom continue to delight us.

It's encouraging that you are already thinking towards a solution, dickie.

>>are you suggesting that we set all pets free to become uncontrollable, starving feral animals to join their brothers which we've already dumped in the bush? And should all neglected pets be seized and euthanased - pronto?<<

The obvious and humane approach is also the most practical. By declaring the ownership of new pets illegal, you instantly discourage the breeding of such animals. There will obviously be a dissident rump who continue the practice illegally for a while, there always is, but they will gradually discover that animals are a little more conspicuous than most other home-grown illegal activities.

Those who already own pets will of course be allowed to keep them, it would be inhumane to take any other action. The pet "industry" would be charged with the responsibility for collecting and housing strays until such time as there are none left - by which time the industry participants will have had enough time to find useful alternative employment. As prison wardens, perhaps, or auditors.

No need for mass killings, or releasing them into the wild. Just a gradual and intelligent elimination of the problem.

CJ's post gives further food for thought. Is this an exclusively urban issue? Given that the nature of man's relationship with the animal kingdom is fundamentally different away from the city (I've never met a vegetarian farmer, for example) would it make sense to ban pets only from built-up areas?

Incidentally, dickie, I found this juxtaposition of ideas in your post quite interesting:

>>One of my friends carries her shitzu (complete with pink bow) around in a designer label bag!
So you are stating that one should not interfere when witnessing an animal being ill-treated?<<

Do you consider the shitzu to be ill-treated? Do you support your friend's right to keep an animal in that fashion?

And did you "interfere"?

Morgan
Commencing from [As we have small acerage,] of your post is something would be welcome on RSPCA QLD web page. It was a good read and we toughly enjoyed it. Although I am almost sure it wasn’t designed with that intention. Aside if you wouldn’t mind we would like forward your post to our CEO for RSPCA QLD web page.
Goes to say we would not do that “without” your consent.

-palimpsest,

Ah- Someone with a sense of humor at last! For you=

The farmers daughter was young, attractive and a pretty good hand with the cattle. As it turned out, her father had a couple of bricklayers from the city to build a new shearers hut and, like a lot of city people, they thought that all country people were dim- witted.On their third morning there, they spied the young girl and thought they`d have a bit of a joke.
`Hey Miss! Do you know if anyone in the area has a rooster that lays eggs?
The girl looked over at the two men and smiled.
`No, sorry, I wouldn’t have a clue about that, but Father to me at breakfast that he brought two galahs
From the city who thought they could lay bricks.

Cuphandle said
Access to Government Veterinary Services should be readily available to some animal owners (]

Me thinks your proposal has some legs. Perhaps you could request RSPCA support such a suggestion or similar. Thanks for your thoughts.

Perciles
I think Dickie is more concerned about this type of cruelty than pampered pooches.
http://www.choosecrueltyfree.org.au/fur.html
http://www.liveexportshame.com/worlds_best_practice.htm
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22989858-3462,00.html

Dogs have played a special role in Australian tradition. In a land where workers spent endless days, often weeks shearing riding the bullock drays through forrest the dogs been a true mate. It has also been an equal working partner and friend. All sizes with names such as Bluey, Piddling Pete or Red. They talk if you listen and they often perform extraordinary deeds of kindness giving their own lives to save their best mate.

Pericles,do you seriously believe that anything alive, and by human hands constrained and manipulated, as with pets,circus animals and for good measure GE animals and other living forms, need to be set free? Ah you believe in the Ubermensch principal.If it is freedom you are chasing look within first.Or maybe you follow R.Steiner and not know how to educate people first, before they put their hands on manipulating all life forms, that's what's needed in this twisted world of ours.How about taking care of other peoples mistakes towards animals and other natural living forms the best you can and not hide your compassion towards caring people who can only do their best to honor life all around us like so many in this forum. May you freedom reach you in 2008!

This discussion is taking different directions every day, how interesting.

Thank you eftfnc for introducing a new - if somewhat impenetrable - slant on the issues.

>>do you seriously believe that anything alive, and by human hands constrained and manipulated, as with pets,circus animals and for good measure GE animals and other living forms, need to be set free?<<

If you are saying what I think you are saying, I think that there is something demeaning and degrading to our humanity to keep animals for sport or other selfish reasons. So for pets and circus animals, the answer is a resounding yes, I seriously believe they should not be enslaved.

You might have to be a little more specific on the "GE animals and other living forms", but if you are asking whether I am a vegetarian the answer is no. I'm happy to debate - sensibly - whether there is a moral difference between eating meat and keeping animals as pets, but if it helps, I don't eat dogs or cats.

>>Ah you believe in the Ubermensch principal<<

You may need to explain this to my slow brain - how is Nietzsche involved? Did he own a puppy, perhaps? And I think you are travelling even further in the wrong direction with Steiner - this is not deep philosophy here, just the ethics of keeping doggies and kitties and bunnies.

>>How about taking care of other peoples mistakes towards animals and other natural living forms the best you can and not hide your compassion towards caring people who can only do their best to honor life all around us like so many in this forum.<<

Nah. Lost me there I'm afraid.

Have a great day.

My Lords, I have heard it said once and the saying has haunted me ever since - that if animals believed in the devil, he would look remarkably like a human being"

- Lord Bishop of Manchester

eftfnc,

We are indeed privileged to share in your words of wisdom on this thread - so aptly spoken. Thank you.

I am still waiting (rather forlornly) for someone to "join in" and offer some sensible and constructive suggestions as to how we can curtail this neverending problem of "ANIMAL CRUELTY" and I reiterate, as illustrated by the increasing dumping of unwanted and unloved pets that are discarded like a worn out shirts to satisfy the greedy whims of the selfish people out there in the community who think solely of "Me! Me! Me!"

I remember quite clearly the fiasco of the Cannon Hill Saleyards (the deplorable conditions and cruelty that the "prisoners awaiting execution" were subjected to) and the final solution to that particular problem which resulted in the closing down of the Saleyards.

It appears that we are very limited in the action that we can take to persuade the farmers, graziers and similar corporate members of the community that cruelty to animals is UNACCEPTABLE in any shape or form,..... but hang on!.....there is quid to be made out of it, so why should anyone really care!.......I think that there are some members of our community who would gladly sell their own children if they thought that there was a quid to be made out of it?

We are achieving nothing in this particular thread by arguing back and forth about trivialities concerning attitudes to the for`s and the against`s of pet ownership!.....What we really need is to formulate some sort of a plan to regulate and control the haphazard approach to pet ownership (and I use that term rather loosely) and submit some form of acceptable set of regualatory processes to Government for their consideration and hopefully eventual implementation!

Cuphandle

Open Letter - PM Rudd from fellow Queenslander.

Dear PM.

Two months ago a woman pinched a childs pet goat named Mandy and slowly killed it in a Church.
=no goal, fine, record- Nothing.
The Church said they `forgave` her.?
The QLD Premier said `nothing` nor the police ATG `nobody`.

Could you please direct the AT to appeal the judges descion as a matter of urgency.
Signed -- and so forth.

Cuphandle
It starts from the top especially judges.
Police need more training of the acts.
We have to `demand` justice and do it `ourselves` not rely on others.
We have to get the truth out to the public and not leave it to animal groups. People must get active and not just donate.

We have to except the Government takes bugger all notice of groups happily fobbing them off as extreme veggies or libbers or whatever.

Look at the fantasic job done by Animal Liberation for example in SA.
You didnt hear the then opposition Government say well done guys for dragging a federal Ministers A@ through the papers and disclosing the lack of concern in this country and utter cruelty.

People care- But I am afraid we are doing to have to inform them ourselves as members of public- otherwise half of them end up being mis lead.

We must always remember for eg RSPCA Australia do get Federal Government funding which goes towards CEOS wages Cars etc.

Also that RSPCA have a MOU with most State Governments.

They dont check live exports or piggery`s[ not often] Its not their job under the MOU with State Governments- Same as Poultry.

In other words RSPCA National call for a fund raiser for lets say for eg Live Exports.
The public dig deep and feel better. They dont know about the MOUs with the Government.

Others join groups - make their monthly payment again feeling better.

Trouble is those people who joined are now officially extreme according to the Governnment and Media[same]

People should write letters themselves.Thats the answer.

They can still use the information gained memberships.

PALEIF: "...if you wouldn’t mind we would like forward your post to our CEO for RSPCA QLD web page."

Glad you enjoyed it, but I think it would be a much better idea if you forwarded the URL for the thread, so that my comment can be seen in context. The URL is

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1373&page=0

Morgan

Thanks, I will send both if thats ok. We have a very special CEO in QLD RSPCA and we are blessed. However I am not sure the web master can put up a link from a forum.
All Branches must operate under a strick code of practise and they have some mighty strange rules set the National Branch believe me.
As it is e operate a lot in the grey areas already.
However we Thank You `
Cuphandle said
I am still waiting (rather forlornly) for someone to "join in" and offer some sensible and constructive suggestions as to how we can curtail this neverending problem of "ANIMAL CRUELTY"

It appears that we are very limited in the action that we can take to persuade the farmers, graziers and similar corporate members of the community that cruelty to animals is UNACCEPTABLE in any shape or form
We are achieving nothing in this particular thread by arguing back and forth about trivialities concerning attitudes to the for`s and the against`s of pet ownership!.....What we really need is to formulate some sort of a plan to regulate and control the haphazard approach to pet ownership (and I use that term rather loosely) and submit some form of acceptable set of regualatory processes to Government for their consideration and hopefully eventual implementation!
Posted by Cuphandle, Monday, 31 December 2007 6:14:20 PM

Pale Replies
I learnt a long time ago not to take over sombodies progect.
I think we should tackle one thing at a time and BTW I totally agree with you.
You come up with a prefered approach to whichever you wish to tacke first and we will support you wherever possible.

Cuphandle

"I am still waiting (rather forlornly) for someone to "join in" and offer some sensible and constructive suggestions as to how we can curtail this neverending problem of "ANIMAL CRUELTY"

You must have missed the suggestion I offered on the 24/12, regarding pet ownership.

However, let's look beyond pets now and consider the bigger picture of man's brutality to other species and ask ourselves (the "superior" ones):

"Is there no mercy?":

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vCX7f_s1CA4

Why does this nation remain indifferent to man's sadistic dominion over animals?

I would at least expect all compassionate posters on this thread to commence lobbying our immoral Federal and State governments who, through their silence and cover-ups, endorse and promote cruelty to animals.

Those few citizens who do protest are treated with disdain. We need an on-going, concerted effort of thousands to achieve results.

The evidence is overwhelming. Are our people too cowardly and fearful of being labelled "extremists?" The "she'll be right, mate" attitude?

A brief letter for starters, expressing their disgust, is not much to ask, is it?

Sadly, I suspect this thread will soon be archived and man's heinous treatment of other species in this country and beyond, will continue to flourish!

If you could let us know exactly what you would like to hear, Cuphandle, then we might be able to help.

>>I am still waiting (rather forlornly) for someone to "join in" and offer some sensible and constructive suggestions as to how we can curtail this neverending problem of "ANIMAL CRUELTY" and I reiterate, as illustrated by the increasing dumping of unwanted and unloved pets that are discarded like a worn out shirts to satisfy the greedy whims of the selfish people out there in the community who think solely of "Me! Me! Me!"<<

You must have missed my suggestion that we should make the keeping of pets unlawful. Since the root cause of the cruelty is clearly that some people consider animals to be some form of lesser being, they quickly become fair game for exploitation. It is only a small step from thinking that you "own" a slave, to using that ownership as justification for beating it, or denying it freedom.

Clearly, this is too radical for you, but I can assure you that it will solve the problem. Anything less will continue the practice of pet ownership, and by definition continue the cruelty.

>>We are achieving nothing in this particular thread by arguing back and forth about trivialities concerning attitudes to the for`s and the against`s of pet ownership!.<<

I disagree. Far from being a triviality, the concept of pet ownership is a fundamental root cause of the problems you describe. I am pretty sure that a number of readers are already starting to re-think their hitherto laissez-faire attitude to the subject, which can only be a good thing.

I doubt they will admit to it just yet, having seen the vilification that comes with the territory. Nevertheless, continuing the discussion can only help others to see that, in the end, outlawing pet ownership is the only real answer.

So, many thanks for the pulpit.

"You must have missed my suggestion that we should make the keeping of pets unlawful. Since the root cause of the cruelty is clearly that some people consider animals to be some form of lesser being, they quickly become fair game for exploitation. It is only a small step from thinking that you "own" a slave, to using that ownership as justification for beating it, or denying it freedom."

That's fantastic Pericles. A ban on pet ownership. Of course that ban would also extend to banning the "fair game and exploitation" of factory farmed animals, where ownership is "justification for beating it or deying it freedom" would it not?

If you consider pet ownership to be cruel, then you must surely view the treatment of our factory farmed animals as an abomination?

Our governments do like to see this nation's livestock (sheep, cattle, camels, goats, deer) "enjoy" themselves. After the ocean voyage, our animals join in the Hajj festivals and the trek to Mecca where each year, many thousands of Australia's animals participate in the celebrations:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:sz0e41mclaMJ:sweetness-light.com/archive/the-eid-festival-around-the-world-graphic-photos+animal+torture+muslim+festivals&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://lawyersforanimals.org.au/2006/10/01/comments-on-version-2-of-the-australian-standards-for-the-export-of-livestock/

So what's your next recommendation, Pericles?

Perciles

Again I say to you I think Dickie is refering to the treatment of Australian farm animals.
What did you think of the above link she provided.?

Lets just say for for argument sake that all those on this thread agreed we should follow your advise and lobby for owning any pet to be banned.

Ok but what of farm Animals? Or the Industry that breeds for racing for example.
http://www.petrescue.com.au/information_library/rescue_news/rescue_in_the_media/481

They are not pets, so there for, would never be banned.

Or do you feel farm animals are unimportant because they are bred for humane consumption?

Hello? The thread's about pets, not farm animals.

Pericles raises some interesting and highly debatable points, but I don't think he's been talking at all about animals that are kept for the purpose of providing food for humans.

"Hello? The thread's about pets, not farm animals." CJ Morgan

Perhaps CJ you should pay attention and read what the author of this thread had to say:

"I remember quite clearly the fiasco of the Cannon Hill Saleyards (the deplorable conditions and cruelty that the "prisoners awaiting execution" were subjected to) and the final solution to that particular problem which resulted in the closing down of the Saleyards.

"It appears that we are very limited in the action that we can take to persuade the farmers, graziers and similar corporate members of the community that cruelty to animals is UNACCEPTABLE in any shape or form,..... but hang on!.....there is quid to be made out of it, so why should anyone really care!.......I think that there are some members of our community who would gladly sell their own children if they thought that there was a quid to be made out of it?"

PALEIF: "Thanks, I will send both if thats ok."

Actually it's not. My comment was part of a discussion in this forum and I'd prefer it if it remained in this context, particularly if you want to quote me on an external website.

Not being nasty, but I've been quite appalled at your tendency in this forum to claim the support of all kinds of people with whom you've had some minimal level of interaction. I'm not at all confident that you wouldn't misrepresent me in those terms, so I don't give permission for you to forward my comments here to the RSPCA or anywhere else, I'm afraid.

Nothing personal, of course.

dickie: "Perhaps CJ you should pay attention and read what the author of this thread had to say"

Fair enough, dickie. I missed the fact that cuphandle had changed the subject of his/her thread when s/he didn't like the way people were responding.

Feel free to rave on about the insidious cruelty of man to farm animals.

"Feel free to rave on about the insidious cruelty of man to farm animals." (CJ Morgan)

Thank you Herr Commandant.

CJ Morgan
No offense taken.
Your short story was nice, well written with a main stream approach to Animals in General.
RSPCA QLD are very active with their web page and I thought yours fitted the main stream fair go approach adopted by them. We are always on the look out for different little main stream peices written by members of the public. Yours I thought would be perfect.

To put your doubts at ease about pale we run pale which is people against live exports in conjunction with RSPCA QLD.
In other words we run the Ban Live Export side of things.
However we do not do anything regarding Intensive Farming in Conjunction with RSPCA QLD
That is why we have our own identidy.
As for our MOUs with Aboriginal Council and Islamic Leaders such as AFIC that is also inderpendant of RSPCA however strongly supported by our wonderful RSPCA CEO of QLD
I am afriad it all gets a little political from time to time as we do our best to uphold our MOUS with the different groups of people.
Because of that We cant put links to forums up but thank you for your kind offer.
Happy new Year to all again if I didnt say it before.
PS CJ
The Title is Animal Festivals and that very much as Dickie said comes under the cruelty of Animal Festival such as in ME and here at Christmass so I fully support her.
Anyway- Why when you see can to utter barbaric treatment of Animals at these festivals wish to split hairs over a title thread.
Its barbaric. Its unforgivable and Australia is the largest guilty live animal trader in the world. Thats a fact.
Well not in my name
SHAME

Let us be quite clear on the topic here, dickie.

>>the Animal Welfare Refuges [are] appealing to the members of the public to please consider the fate of their "unwanted" pets... many selfish holidaymakers dump their animals, rather than pay to put them into care... Maybe every person aquiring a pet for their child or themselves should be compelled... if a pet owner decides to "hand in" a pet to avoid payment of "care fees"... unless we can come up with an alternative, we will have no other option than to ban completely the ownership of both Cats and Dogs in all Residential areas... I would be interested to hear the communities views on these issues<<

I think I made my views clear.

>>If you consider pet ownership to be cruel, then you must surely view the treatment of our factory farmed animals as an abomination?<<

There are two separate situations here, which you are trying to muddle together.

The first is the topic as stated - what to do about the pet problem. My view is that pets are a total indulgence. And that we should be big enough to accept that what we are putting these animals through is simply an animal version of slavery. They have no say in the matter, they are allowed to live in return for being fed and housed. And - as the original post points out - are discarded when the owner is bored with them.

Animals kept for food come into a completely different category. Unless we all become vegetarians overnight - which, I suggest, would be a significantly more difficult stunt to pull off than just banning domestic pets - there will be a need to grow animals purely for the meat on their bones. No pretence at affection or loyalty, just plain straightforward supply-and-demand commerce.

In that context, unnecessary cruelty - given that we intend to kill the beasts anyway - is of course abhorrent. But to confuse the two arguments is to do neither of them justice.

Have a great day, and a happy new year.

CJ Morgan

Actually Re read your comment.

It was rude. Uncalled for.
Pale has always provided information of contacts with all our different projects . Ample information complete with pictures phone numbers and contact details.


I will post this link in the hope you actually look at it- You will see the Leaders of The Muslim Community’s in Australia sitting up here with our CEO RSPCA QLD and our MOU information. They say a picture is worth a thousand words.-

http://www.halakindmeats.com/

If you scroll down further you will see Media Releases from Australians Muslim Leaders in conjunction with us asking the Government and the media to be responsible when reporting on the real reasons that lie behind the cruel live animal trade.

The Aboriginal MOU projects and work are there as well for all to see.

This Web Page is of course up on the RSPCA QLD web site as well as AFIC.

You will also see the NSW Humane Society there as well by way of statement.

Then if you read long enough you will see the first submission and the second from Muslim Leaders ever in Australia to our Senate Enquiry into Animal Welfare with suggested alternatives to the Live Trade.
It’s all there to see CJ.
And here is our pale web site again-

http://www.livexports.com/

This is us on RSPCA QLD site

http://www.rspcaqld.org.au/campaigns/liveexporttrade/

And here is Our AMIEU Work Scroll down, left column
http://www.amieu.asn.au/pages.php?recid=65

This one is several thousand people who do not agree with you CJ-

http://consciousevolution.com/onshu/view_signatures.php

I am just wondering what else you want.
We have always supplied ample evidence of who we are and what we do. With whom - “Always!”
However the bottom line is- We are just people like Dickie and Nicky and Penny who care enough about Animals and this countries reputation world wide to try to make changes for the better.

Cuphandle is interested as the author Percilces and the title is festivals!
That aside its clear yourself CJ etc are here to waiste our time Dickie and others so I dont think we should repond to their chilish comments

If you conduct your animal rescue activities in the same way as you handle open discussion on this forum, PALEIF, you must find life extremely tough.

>>That aside its clear yourself CJ etc are here to waiste our time Dickie and others so I dont think we should repond to their chilish comments<<

If I understand you (and it's tough sometimes) this is particularly rude. You appear to be suggesting that my only purpose in posting here is to "waiste" your time.

Let me assure you that I feel very strongly about people and pets. And let me give you a little advice: precisely because you disagree with my viewpoint, you owe it to yourself to take it seriously.

If you have a contrary viewpoint, that's fine, I'd like to hear it. And if it is convincing at a logical and human level, it has a chance of swaying my views, or at least make me consider the problem from a different angle.

Your sneering and your direct insults on the other hand, and those of your cohorts, will have absolutely no impact on the way I think about the problem. In fact, the more personal the attack, and the more emotional the response, the more I am convinced that my view will, in the end, prevail.

Have a wonderful day.

Perciles
Yes I have already acknowledged you are serious about your new laws for pets.
I was refering to we are waisting our time trying to get an answer from you regarding festivals to which Dickie and myself have raised several times.
The title was festivals Perciles yet you refuse to discuss ME Festivals or even our own Festivals Such as Christmass.
Of course there is no law requiring you to do so.[ yet]

I just would have thought given the season it might have been an oportunity to also discuss the millions of intensive pig farms and the fact that we are reasponsibly for promoting cruelty.

I am unsure if you have seen the farmers survey on this topic.

As for the way we conduct pale- You have zero idea of what we do or dont do and quite frankly I dont give a dam about what you think.

RSPCA are in control of dogs and domestic pets.
If you want laws changed to bar people from having a pet I suggest you lobby them for support to present a bill to Parliment.
Mind you it would be a brave party who supported it.
But you never know pigs really might fly.
BTW As for as I am aware there are 'no' dog festivals[ yet] So your demands are actually [ Off post]
Or perhaps just plain off.

PALEIF, at least you are consistent in your inconsistency.

>>we are waisting our time trying to get an answer from you regarding festivals... The title was festivals Perciles yet you refuse to discuss ME Festivals or even our own Festivals Such as Christmass<<

The title was "Animal Festivities", PALEIF, not Festivals.

Christmas was not even mentioned in the original post, let alone "ME Festivals"

Take a look again at the opening post, only slightly edited:

"Here in Queensland we are hearing the Animal Welfare Refuges... appealing to the members of the public to please consider the fate of their "unwanted" pets. Painfully inevitable and becoming so monotonous at this time of the year, as the many selfish holidaymakers dump their animals, rather than pay to put them into care, whilst they themselves are out there living it up, oblivious to the possible pain and suffering these unwanted animals may have to endure, or the "final solution" that many that cannot be placed back in society face as a result of these selfish human acts.

Society has to do something to put a stop to this disgraceful problem!

Maybe every person aquiring a pet for their child or themselves should be compelled to deposit a significant sum of money with the local Council or the like, out of which a "chipping" and "sterlization" fee (unless registered as a breeder!) is deducted.

I would also suggest that if a pet owner decides to "hand in" a pet to avoid payment of "care fees" then that particular person should never again be allowed to own a pet!...

...In the long term I believe that unless we can come up with an alternative, we will have no other option than to ban completely the ownership of both Cats and Dogs in all Residential areas, and stricter controls will have to be placed upon all Rural Cat and Dog ownership, to prevent indiscriminate cross-breeding with Dingoes and feralization of unwanted domestic cats.

I would be interested to hear the communities views on these issues..."

And you have the cheek to say I'm off topic!

"In that context, unnecessary cruelty - given that we intend to kill the beasts anyway - is of course abhorrent. But to confuse the two arguments is to do neither of them justice."

Pericles

You suggest banning pet owner-ship to prevent cruelty to animals, is that not correct? However, it's OK to torture farm animals - right?

Therefore, your views are surely ambiguous if not completely inane.

Allow me to again raise an example of cruelty to farm animals.

Procedure for spaying cattle:

Flank spaying involves entering the abdomen through a cut made in the flank of the animal.

When performed without anaesthesia there is a level of pain and distress to the animal that is totally unacceptable.

In nearly all instances this procedure is performed WITHOUT anaesthesia.

In heifers and undeveloped cows, passage spaying by hand is only possible with the aid of a mechanical device to spread the vaginal passage.

This procedure inflicts extreme pain to the animal and causes irreparable damage to the vagina. The greater proportion of spaying is performed on undeveloped cattle where the procedure requires the use of spreaders.

Another method, the Willis Technique, is increasingly being used in the Northern Territory and Queensland.

This method involves an operator placing his/her arm into the back passage of the calf and cutting the ovaries out. Again, no analgesia or anaesthesia is used, and the operators must be highly skilled to avoid internal damage and infections.

Naturally the beast is incarcerated in a steel vice otherwise it would try to escape - wouldn't you?

None of these ‘procedures’ is performed using anaesthetic or analgesic follow-up. Rarely are they carried out by veterinary surgeons; most being undertaken by unqualified untrained workers.

"No pretence at affection or loyalty, just plain straightforward supply-and-demand commerce." (Pericles)

Well you got that bit right Pericles.

However, your contradictions have become tiresome.

Why is it unacceptable to torture a pet but OK to torture farm animals?

Do you endorse torturing animals or do you not?

Actually you are right and I am wrong Perciles.
I did get the topic mixed- I guess doing OLO pluss the zillion other projects is starting to take its toll
As I said you would need to get a bill pased in Parliment.
Ah, Now would that also include guide dogs for the blind?
There would be all sorts of problems given they especially provide so much friedship to lives of people who could not survive as well without them.
Of course this would be the argument from the other side.
What could be done is to licence people- not the dogs.
That applies to children as well.
You see as RSPCA will tell you it is the irresonsible people who are the problem.
' So speaking of breeds you could licence people 'before they have children to be seen fit as repsonsible parents even more irresponsible people.
You might even stamp out much child abuse and negelect as well.

I might add that isnt the way the RSPCA worded it.
But that will do.
Ban Irresponsible Pet owners by issueing a licence to have children.
Ah, Now watch them come out of the wood work!
As they say Some mothers do have them!
Now what about the lady with the pet goat cow horse chook under your new act
Or dont they count?

dickie, I know you saw the words that I wrote, because you copied them into your own post.

But did you actually read them? Just in case, here they are again.

"In that context, unnecessary cruelty - given that we intend to kill the beasts anyway - is of course abhorrent. But to confuse the two arguments is to do neither of them justice."

>>You suggest banning pet owner-ship to prevent cruelty to animals, is that not correct? <<

Yes, that's right.

>>However, it's OK to torture farm animals - right? Therefore, your views are surely ambiguous if not completely inane.<<

Follow me closely now. In my opinion, as I said, unnecessary cruelty to animals grown for food is abhorrent. Unnecessary cruelty, the way I see it, includes torture. Therefore - and I hope you are still with me - I do not think that it's ok to torture farm animals.

Trying to equate the arguments - the cruelty I see as inherent in humans keeping pets, and the cruelty to animals grown for food - is not doing justice to either position.

One is purely social (that's the one about pets, dickie), in the sense that banning the ownership of animals for no purpose except self-gratification, while the other is - for good or ill - a part of a food chain that would need additional actions in order to replace.

So, as I said, confusing the two cruelties is not to deny either, but to point out that they are entirely different in their impact. We could eliminate the pet problem easily, because it would leave no noticeable impact.

Is that perhaps clearer?

Well it is to me. Dickie, who constantly tries to claim the upper
moral ground, will now have to concede that she is in fact
an owner of slaves :)

Pericles
By law I must say I would have to agree to look at that. Yabby same applies-= 'by law only'
We all know the law is an Ar@S. However, that’s never won a case.

Dickie= It is only fair if we are to use the definition of Slaves to argue the live trade we must accept it in its full context.
We must be prepared to argue our case without emotion in a court of law.

Good Grief I just agreed with P and Y. This place must be starting to get to me.
No Dickie I am not having a go at you= Believe me.
It’s just a good exercise for future reference if we want to peruse that line of Argument [However well intended and no doubt your intentions are very well meant.]

Speaking of the higher moral ground.

Notice good intent from the threads I started has disappeared.
No longer is the Kevin 07 'Did he or didn’t he eat whatever= free Range or the Wonderful Sunday at the lodge thread= which was interesting thread ' of any interest to you or Nicky? Penny.

We agreed to do a petition - Rudd
To get someone to ask the question on the floor= Yes.
That was your preference- opposed to mine
I agreed with everything you said
So we have done the petition= as you requested.
We have worked to get people out in shopping centers with PF survey etc but not hear one word from you.