Emotionality about pets as apposed to livestock should not be encoded into law.
This also supports our efforts to underscore that humane treatment of animals is an important aspect of our culture and also that animal cruelty must be monitored and dealt with as it correlates so highly to abuse of humans.
There’s a difference between “animal rights” and “animal welfare”. These provisions sound like they are promoting “animal welfare”. They sound good to me.
Reminds me of the national anti-vivasection ads.
Mmmm animals and humans are the same.
we're all animals/humans after all.
The only way to be sure there isn’t something more sinister in this bill is to see the amendment in its entirety. HSUS is famous for publicizing only part of its agenda, to get a gullible public to endorse something they’d never accept if the truth were known. HSUS is a known promoter of animal rights, not animal welfare.
Like it or not, the medical advances we enjoy today come from animal research. Like most people, I want to see it done in as humane a manner as is possible, but I don’t agree that it’s in our best interest to ban the use of animals in medical research.
I don’t trust HSUS one bit.
OK, folks, so you want to pay out $42B in pork to farmers and food stamp recipients just for the sake of a dog and cat amendment ?
Sheesh, folks, think. There are already laws on the books regarding animal cruelty and such. Why pay for the pork along with it ?
PING!
Why aren't squirrels pets?
They're cute little furry things. They're not large, noisy and smelly like dogs. They are not the cold blooded killers of baby birds, cute little lizards and pretty much all creatures smaller than they, like cats are.
Some people shoot, skin, cook and eat squirrels. I know that some of you who live in the land of no guns will find this hard to believe, but it's true.
People think all cats and dogs should be neutered to keep the population down, but eating some of them would accomplish the same thing and I think in the long run be more humane.
Think about it. Would you prefer a life of no sex, ever, if it came with the guarantee of always being provided food and shelter? Why do you think your best friend would prefer it?
And humans are animals. Why aren't we neutering them in places where they have more babies than the environment they live in can support. For that matter, why don't we package and eat them?
We hear all the time of places where it is so sad that millions are starving. Isn't the solution obvious?
Would you let your child starve if there was a tasty neighbor handy? What about old people who are just sort of waiting to die? Why aren't they fair game, so to speak.
And why abort all these babies? Why not let them be born, then shipped to India, mixed with a little curry and served with rice? Is it really more humane to kill them in the womb?
If so, why? A new baby would not be an inconvenience or hardship to a woman if it disappeared from her life as soon as it was born. She was just going to kill it and flush it down the toilet anyway.
Do you think the starving children in India, or elsewhere, would care what their Spam or Livermush was made of?
But some of you would say, "People are more special. It would be monstrous, horrible, barbaric and inhumane to eat them." If that's true, then would it not be more humane to save the starving children by feeding them your pets?
Why isn't there a federal law proclaiming this? Isn't human life sacred? Would you let a child starve to death, in front of your eyes, to save your pet, or would you slice and dice the little furry animal and thus save a human life?
And if you knew that two million people were going to starve to death within the next couple months, would it not be more humane to keep one million of them alive by using the other one million as food?
Maybe we could keep starving children as pets instead of our little furry friends. Wouldn't that be more humane? No? You think it better that they starve?
Well, I find this issue to be very confusing but am happy to learn that my government has found another good way to spend tax money by creating another law.
This needs to be vetoed big time.
Bump for later.
Gotta go milk the dog.
Apparently, these people don’t have enough to do.