Obama's Dog

[xoxoxoBruce]

HSUS

Despite the words “humane society” on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.
HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a “humane society” in name only. And while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.

[DanaC]

So, is spaying and neutering at a particular age mandatory in some states?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

HSUS

According to HSUS 2007 IRS filing, the organization gave $millions in grants to many local humane societies.

To give your link a little more perspective...

ActivistCash.com was created by the Center for Consumer Freedom that I referenced earlier in response to nirvanna citing it as a "factual" source even though it provides no primary source information or footnotes to verify its claims or charges (as most credilbe organzations would include as a standard practice).

It purports to be a consumer advocate organization but IMO, the evidence is rather compelling that it is a front group for the meat/poultry industry, restaurant industry, alcohol and tobacco interests, ...

Here is more on CCF and Activist.Com:
http://www.consumerdeception.com/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...nsumer_Freedom
http://www.bermanexposed.org/
http://www.cspinet.org/new/200302201.html

[kerosene]

I know we are talking about dogs, here, but I think it is appropriate.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Redux

.

To give your link a little more perspective...

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."

So that's not true because it was said by Hermann Goering.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Because there are medical arguments against it. There are also 'moral' arguments against it. There is also the feeling of discomfort at ripping away the dog's reproductive organs.

Personally I wish we'd had Pilau done. I was persuaded out of it by my then partner and my brother. My Brother has absolutely insisted that his bitch, Amber, stays intact.

Spaying and neutering isn't the only way to prevent unwanted canine pregnancy...you can, y'know, not let your dog roam?

I asked earlier about the age at which the legislation mentioned, expects dogs to be neutered or spayed. I asked because there is a cultural divide between Americasn vets and British vets as to when the appropriate age wold be. As far as I know, American vets go a little earlier than British vets.

Well, I mostly have cats, and with cats, I think the issue is different. For one thing, neutering a cat when it's young will (usually) keep it from spraying all over the house, and keep it from fighting as much. For another, if you have a cat that goes outside, they won't just stay inside the fence, so they will most likely reproduce.

And isn't it similar to what people get when they're "neutered?" Why it would be ripping away at their reproductive organs? It's surgery. They are under anesthesia. And I've always heard they were healthier if they were "fixed." I didn't realize there health reason to NOT have them fixed.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Nirvana

You seem to lack reading skills SP

Quote:
I have a two lb Chihuahua technically under this law I would have to pay $150 for her because technically she is capable of producing offspring and because having one breedable female I am considered a kennel so I would then have to pay $500 but no one in their right mind would breed a 2 lb dog and most veterinarians would not perform surgery on a dog that small when it is not an emergency.
Spay/Neuter is an important medical decision that should be made for each individual pet only after careful consultation with the pet's veterinarian, instead of mandated at a fixed age by the government.

Spay/Neuter is an important medical decision that should be made for each individual pet only after careful consultation with the pet's veterinarian, instead of mandated at a fixed age by the government.

Why is dangerous to spay/neuter a small dog? I've never heard that, and how would it be any different than a 6-9 month old kitten?

It would seem the law may be going too far, but in MOST cases, I think people should spay/neuter their pets if they aren't going to breed them. That is just my opinion.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Nirvana

The people in Los Angeles did not vote on that issue their representatives did and I think you will see a change in representatives because of their actions.

Excuse me, I was LIVING THERE when it was on the ballot the first time. I VOTED ON IT.

How are animals being protected when neutering is mandatory? Many of the people that have lower incomes will be dumping their animals because they cannot afford the procedures or the fines for not having the neutering done. This will cost the city of Los Angeles more money and more dogs will be euthanized. I am sure when the tax rates go up to cover the cost of that fiasco some of the people are not going to think it was reasonable.

They are just trying to cut down on the feral population and the ENORMOUS number of animals being put to sleep every year. It seems to me that you are being kinda irrational about this issue.

How will cost the city more money? If they cut down on the stray popultion, it would save them money. For lower income people, there are organizations they help pay for the services. That doesn't cost the city, they are charities.

[Nirvana]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Excuse me, I was LIVING THERE when it was on the ballot the first time. I VOTED ON IT.

The only way you personally voted, was for who you elected to the city council. Oh wait are you on the city council?? Its ok to have an opinion but don't make stuff up.

http://laanimalservices.blogspot.com...r-measure.html

This measure will only increase shelter killing because those that cannot afford to have their pets neutered will be dumping them to avoid the fines.

[sugarpop]

Please do your homework. In California, they put things on the ballot and allow people to vote on them.

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/archives/id/13616/

Two propositions about animal rights will appear on the ballot in November, thanks to the initiative of grassroots organizations in California.

Over 700,000 citizens signed petitions for both measures so that voters will decide whether Propositions 4 and 6 will become California law.

Proposition 4 prohibits the use of a "padded steel-jawed leg hold trap" when catching fur-bearing or non-game mammals for commercial or recreational use. It also prohibits the use of two specific poisons...

Proposition 6 makes the possession, transfer, or receipt of horses for slaughter for human consumption a felony...

[sugarpop]

I think I know what I've voted for...

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Proposition 6 makes the possession, transfer, or receipt of horses for slaughter for human consumption a felony...

Why?

[Nirvana]

So that people could dump their horses all over the state when they can longer afford to feed them. Thats happening now all over the country because there is really no other recourse.

Oh I see you voted in 1998 on the spay and neuter ordinance the City of Los Angeles passed in February 2009, whatever SP

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Nirvana

So that people could dump their horses all over the state when they can longer afford to feed them. Thats happening now all over the country because there is really no other recourse.

Oh I see you voted in 1998 on the spay and neuter ordinance the City of Los Angeles passed in February 2009, whatever SP

I SAID I voted on the HORSE MEAT issue. YOU don't read well.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Why?

Well, back when the ammendment was on the ballot, apparently more than a few people got really upset when they found out their pet horses, which they had sold, were being transported into other states and ground up as meat for consumption. Most people who keep horses as pets would never consider selling them for this purpose. They thought they were going to loving families. So, it caused an uproar. there were people buying the horses under the pretense that they were going to keep them as pets. And then, there's this... ...It said that horses are killed in cruel and unusual ways when they are slated as food, because euthanasia ruins the meat of the animals...