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?