PUT EXTRA MONEY IN YOUR POCKET
https://www.ebates.com/r/SYBIL414?eeid=29041

Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please help

Hunting/Farming/Taxidermy, any topic that may get heated debate.

WARNING things may get a bit rougher here than the other forums.

Moderators: Ash, TamanduaGirl

User avatar
Juska
Posts: 2179
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania, US
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Juska » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:36 pm

Juska wrote:"Or those idiots who think every female dog should be put through at least one estrous cycle and/or bred and have to endure a pregnancy and birth BEFORE they get spayed. If I ever met the person who made up that myth I'd knock their teeth out."


BlueBaby1023 wrote:Also, just so you know, there is a lot of evidence that shows a high correlation between early castration/hysterectomies and increased rates of osteosarcomas in all breeds of dog. It's not a myth.


That would be all fine and well in the discussion we're having, but I never said anything about the benefits of spaying and neutering other than uneducated people not breeding them when they don't need to be bred. I said nothing about cancers or any other health problems, so I don't know where you came up with it to add to your argument.

Whenever I hear someone say what I mentioned above, they're not saying it because they read in a medical journal that keeping a dog intact has a smaller chance of developing cancer versus dogs that are spayed early in life, maybe. They're saying it because they heard it from a friend of a friend who knows a guy who breeds "purebred Silver Siberian Malamutes", or some other made-up story. Same thing with people who think if you breed a purebred female to a different breed or a mixed breed male it'll "ruin" her. What context and hair-brained idea that came from I have no clue.

Do you understand now that cancer and health problem risks "caused" by spaying/neutering is not what I was talking about?

I only replied to yours about the medical journal because I personally wasn't quite convinced of its findings. Not to mention they were only conducted on purebred dogs from who knows where, and tons of other variables probably not taken into account during the study. That's all. That doesn't mean you're wrong, that doesn't mean the study is wrong.
Pet parent of Emo the border collie mix, Conte the schnoodle and Namira the harlequin cat!
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10278
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby TamanduaGirl » Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:04 pm

Actually I've also seen studies that found that neutering increased the odds of getting prostate cancer rather than decrease it though it does increase the chance of eventually having an enlarged prostate. Thing is a late neuter at that point shrinks the prostate back down.

---

It would depend on the definition of right though. If you are going strictly by the constitution than almost nothing is and even having food to eat becomes a privilege. Otherwise a privilege is legally anything you need to jump through some legal hoop for to be allowed to do, so a right is anything you don't. So anything is no longer a right if there is a law and you can make a law for anything the bill of rights doesn't prevent. So legally, owning animals, no not a right. Though by that definition having kids or domestic pets is still a right most places as at most you need a license but that is really just a registration after the fact not something you need to do first to be allowed to get one.

Morally though I would argue owning animals is a right. Sure there's no number specifically in the bill of rights but there's no number for the right to eat or have kids either. I would however argue that those things are important and even necessary to life and so a right for people to pursue and to have. You need food to live, you need kids to continue life and unless vegan need animals to live as well. Sure now we don't all need to have kids since the population is so big and we can buy animal products from others instead of raise or own but that was only a recent change but having animals is rooted in our natural roots just as having kids is and the right to choose to have them should not be taken from anyone unless they prove deserving of that punishment.
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7870
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Ash » Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:18 am

Morally though I would argue owning animals is a right. Sure there's no number specifically in the bill of rights but there's no number for the right to eat or have kids either. I would however argue that those things are important and even necessary to life and so a right for people to pursue and to have. You need food to live, you need kids to continue life and unless vegan need animals to live as well. Sure now we don't all need to have kids since the population is so big and we can buy animal products from others instead of raise or own but that was only a recent change but having animals is rooted in our natural roots just as having kids is and the right to choose to have them should not be taken from anyone unless they prove deserving of that punishment.


^^This I agree with 100%.

Meaghan, I think the above statement by TG is where you and I probably disagree. I do believe it is our right to own these animals. BUT I do believe a person can lose that right if they, for example, abuse or neglect their animals, or fail to properly take care of them. I do believe we should have the right to own whatever animal we choose to make us happy, and be able to have as many as we are truly able to care adequately for. And reasonable legislation is what's key there.

Current laws should be enforced. And laws we don't agree with, we can try to change. The answer is not to write more legislation--that just doesn't work and hurts the good people who are already doing good. It's punishing us before we've done anything wrong.

That's my stance on it, anyway. ;) I see owning animals as a right. "Pursuit of happiness," also as business ventures.
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, 2 salamanders, 3 tarantulas
User avatar
BlueBaby1023
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:32 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby BlueBaby1023 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 2:50 am

Juska wrote:
Juska wrote:"Or those idiots who think every female dog should be put through at least one estrous cycle and/or bred and have to endure a pregnancy and birth BEFORE they get spayed. If I ever met the person who made up that myth I'd knock their teeth out."


BlueBaby1023 wrote:Also, just so you know, there is a lot of evidence that shows a high correlation between early castration/hysterectomies and increased rates of osteosarcomas in all breeds of dog. It's not a myth.


That would be all fine and well in the discussion we're having, but I never said anything about the benefits of spaying and neutering other than uneducated people not breeding them when they don't need to be bred. I said nothing about cancers or any other health problems, so I don't know where you came up with it to add to your argument.


The reason why I stated that about cancers and other health problems is due to the fact that it is the scientific reasoning why it's recommended to wait to spay a dog. You said that you didn't know why people say you should wait to spay a dog until it's been through an estrous cycle, I was just trying to explain the scientific reason why you should. Because, scientifically speaking, dogs that are spayed/neutered young (ie before their first heat cycle) are more likely to die younger due to increased rates of cancer.

I know most people don't read scientific journals, but that's often where most of these "myths" start. They heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from their breeder, who heard it from their vet. And often times it does get mixed up down the road, but there is truth to waiting until after the first heat cycle. That's why I pointed that out. I know what you were trying to get at, I was just saying it isn't all hearsay, there is some truth to it at it's core.

And I definitely agree it shouldn't be for every owner. Most people are not responsible enough to keep their dogs from becoming pregnant during their first or even second estrous cycle. I'm just saying that for people who are, and are also looking to the best interest of their dogs health, they should wait until the dog full matures and is done with puberty due to the cancer/joint risks.

As far as purebreds go, that's really all we have to study on, unfortunately. The reason being is that a difference in genetic makeup (ie, if we used mutts that naturally have a lower risk of cancer) is a potential bias. If the animals are not closely related in breed, then it could be said any difference in result could be due to genetic factors, not in the actual experimental factor. It's part of the variables that you mention. All studies have some, but since it's replicated across several breeds and even the control groups within those breeds, it's fairly likely that it's more accurate than not.

Ash wrote:Meaghan, I think the above statement by TG is where you and I probably disagree. I do believe it is our right to own these animals. BUT I do believe a person can lose that right if they, for example, abuse or neglect their animals, or fail to properly take care of them. I do believe we should have the right to own whatever animal we choose to make us happy, and be able to have as many as we are truly able to care adequately for. And reasonable legislation is what's key there.


See, that is where we differ.

But isn't a right just that, a right? You can't lose your right to freedom of speech just because you say something that could land you in jail (like liable or slander). You can't lose your right to not have soldiers invade your house and demand shelter (what is that, Amendment 3?) even if you break housing codes or other home related laws. You can't lose your right to not be punished by cruel and unusual means even if you have broken a law by being cruel or doing something considered "unusual punishment" like murdering someone in a crude way.

You can lose your ability to have animals if you break animal related laws. You can lose your ability to keep your children with you if you break child protection laws. You can lose your ability to drive if you break enough driving laws. And many more examples, which is why I think it's categorized as a privileged and not a right. Legally speaking, at least.
4 Fancy Rats
2 American Guinea Pigs
1 Holland Lop Rabbit
1 Rex Rabbit
2 Ferrets
1 Lutino Cockatiel
5 Mixed Breed Cats
1 PitxLab
1 Great Pyr
1 Greyhound
2 Great PyrxAnatolian Shepherds
2 Red Foxes
5 Goats
~100 chickens, ducks, and turkeys
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10278
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby TamanduaGirl » Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:09 pm

"But isn't a right just that, a right?"
Not exactly.

Constitutionally a right is one of those things in the bill of rights that can't be taken away, yes. But the right to vote isn't in the bill of rights and can be taken away so could be called a privilege. Why then is it not called the privilege to vote? Legally speaking when it comes to laws a privilege is something you can't legally have or do till you jump through some legal hoops, like getting a license and a right is something you can do without that(like walk down a public street). Though since you need to register before voting it still can be lumped in as a privilege legally. So why is voting called a right? Because it is considered as such ethically/morally by society.The bill of rights is not the only way rights are defined.

Ash and I are saying we believe owning animals and having kids are an ethical/moral right, like voting, which should not be taken away unless you deserve that punishment(like convicted felons can't vote in most states).
User avatar
BlueBaby1023
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:32 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby BlueBaby1023 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:25 pm

TamanduaGirl wrote:Ash and I are saying we believe owning animals and having kids are an ethical/moral right, like voting, which should not be taken away unless you deserve that punishment(like convicted felons can't vote in most states).


That I can understand. But to me, that's a privilege. Like driving, etc. To me, rights can't be taken away, where as privileges can.
4 Fancy Rats
2 American Guinea Pigs
1 Holland Lop Rabbit
1 Rex Rabbit
2 Ferrets
1 Lutino Cockatiel
5 Mixed Breed Cats
1 PitxLab
1 Great Pyr
1 Greyhound
2 Great PyrxAnatolian Shepherds
2 Red Foxes
5 Goats
~100 chickens, ducks, and turkeys
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10278
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby TamanduaGirl » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:50 pm

Okay but the other definitions of rights do exist even if you don't acknowledge them.
User avatar
BlueBaby1023
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:32 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby BlueBaby1023 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:12 pm

TG: I understand what you mean. I just meant from a legal perspective (and this whole thread was about the legality of laws restricting animal ownership which is not, legally speaking, a right) that rights can't be taken away and privileges can.

That's at least what I was trying to articulate, but of course what a right is, is up to interpretation from a personal perspective. I just thought we were talking from a legal perspective. icon-smile
4 Fancy Rats
2 American Guinea Pigs
1 Holland Lop Rabbit
1 Rex Rabbit
2 Ferrets
1 Lutino Cockatiel
5 Mixed Breed Cats
1 PitxLab
1 Great Pyr
1 Greyhound
2 Great PyrxAnatolian Shepherds
2 Red Foxes
5 Goats
~100 chickens, ducks, and turkeys
User avatar
Juska
Posts: 2179
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania, US
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Juska » Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:34 pm

TamanduaGirl wrote:Ash and I are saying we believe owning animals and having kids are an ethical/moral right, like voting, which should not be taken away unless you deserve that punishment(like convicted felons can't vote in most states).
Pet parent of Emo the border collie mix, Conte the schnoodle and Namira the harlequin cat!
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10278
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby TamanduaGirl » Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:48 am

There are three definitions to rights

Constitutional rights

Legal rights

And ethical rights

Legally anything you don't need to do something legally, like get a permit, to gain the permission to do is a right, like walk in public. You can loose your right to walk in public by being arrested or loose the right to walk down a public street if they close it for safety reasons but it's a right because you don't have to do anything to gain the right to do it, like you don't need to carry official ID to be in public and you don't need a permit to go out in public. Driving is a privilege because you DO have to do something to be allowed to drive in public.

But yeah as Juska quoted I think owning animals is a moral/ethical right like voting is a moral/ethical right and being an ethical right any law making it a legal privilege should be limited, like you only need to register to vote and maybe show ID in some states to be able to and don't have to take a test to prove you are competent to vote, or have graduated x level of schooling etc and because it's widely accepted as an ethical right by society a law requiring such hurdles would never be allowed. Similarly owning domestic animals is still widely considered an ethical right by society, which is why laws requiring hurdles to be allowed to get them don't exist(aside from some minor things like zoning restrictions for livestock). I do think the ethical right to have them should extend to all species but that is not currently the case by societal standards.

PS I was getting my ethical and moral a bit mixed up at times in other posts. Moral is personal and ethical is societal. So ethically voting and domestics are rights. Morally(ie personally) exotics are a right as well to me but I do think they SHOULD be an ethical right.

Though Juska's previous comment about getting bogged down in semantics probably applies to this post, lol. But all three definitions are valid meanings of rights.
User avatar
BlueBaby1023
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:32 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby BlueBaby1023 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:13 pm

TG: I know what you're trying to explain, but when talking about creating or removing laws, isn't it only the legal definition that has any bearing? Thinking more along the lines of something like states regulating commerce and thus make some things illegal, but technically there may be people who think it's part of their moral/ethical rights.

So, forgive me for bringing up a touchy subject, I am just using it as an example because it's the only thing I can think of because I read an article about it earlier. I do not intend to discuss this subject on here (it's irrelevant and something that a lot of people have strong feelings for), I just mean to use it as a correlation where moral/ethical rights do not necessarily trump legal rights or have any bearing in making laws. For example, a lot of states have enacted the requirement of an invasive ultrasound prior to getting an abortion. While a lot of people think it's their ethical right to not be subjected to invasive procedures prior to getting an abortion, it's technically still legal for states to enact this law because it's part of commerce.

So, while I understand that you and others think owning animals is a moral or ethical right, as far as making laws go, I'm not sure that it has or should have bearing? That's all I was trying to get across. That's why I was talking about things in a legal sense. Although this thread isn't in the legal section, it's discussion is primarily about legalities and laws regarding animals. That's all I meant. :)
4 Fancy Rats
2 American Guinea Pigs
1 Holland Lop Rabbit
1 Rex Rabbit
2 Ferrets
1 Lutino Cockatiel
5 Mixed Breed Cats
1 PitxLab
1 Great Pyr
1 Greyhound
2 Great PyrxAnatolian Shepherds
2 Red Foxes
5 Goats
~100 chickens, ducks, and turkeys
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7870
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Ash » Thu Dec 18, 2014 5:35 pm

Returning to the original topic, lol, I'll again say that USARK is one to support. Their most recent mass email was mostly about reptile laws being changed, BUT they also had a section about how Arizona is trying to ban monkeys and keep hedehogs illegal there. They encouraged Arizonians to show up and defend their right to own them. So even though they mostly stick up for the herp community, USARK does support exotic animal ownership in mammals as well and will post when there are bans being put in place for them too.

USARK is really the only big organization I really like these days that fights for private ownership. Rexano does too, but they aren't an organization. And then there are local and statewide organizations like the one in Ohio.

Pijac still needs to prove to me it's going to stand with us. Seeing as Canadians have said that Pijac in Canada discourages owning anything unconventional, makes me wary how Pijac in the US is going to be--especially after they got that animal rights activist for their CEO.

HumaneWatch is good, but they don't fight for the rights of animal owners. BUT they do keep an eye on all the animal rights groups and call them out constantly on their hypocrisy, terrorism, etc. So they are allies there.

So far "AnimalBytesTV" on facebook is doing pretty good educating people. Brian from BHB reptiles started it all with "Snakebytes" years ago, but then decided to branch out and include a lot more exotics--instead of just snakes and other herps. They hate Animal Planet or National Geographic since it's become so sensationalized, so they decided to start their own animal show that was actually ABOUT animals. The first episodes, I admit, are pretty cheesy and boring (not well-shot, poor color correction, etc), but once it hit its stride, it'll start getting better and better. One of the most recent Snakebytes episodes on "AnimalBytesTV" was really, really good. I was very impressed with how scientific and well-shot it was. So I can see them becoming a really good source of honest, true info in the future. Here's the episode I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVN6IIfMxfk.
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, 2 salamanders, 3 tarantulas
User avatar
Nìmwey
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:17 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Nìmwey » Sun Dec 21, 2014 6:57 am

I found SnakeBytes a couple of months ago, and have been watching a lot of their old (and new) videos.

This was one on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FPfL212CB8
Five years old, but scary stuff, if all they're saying is true.

I know Animal Planet is not about animals anymore (more about animals attacking people, "Infested", "My cat from hell", and other anti-animal stuff like that), and Discovery which is of course the same thing, now doing the opposite of what it used to with its Shark Week and actually spreading fear of sharks. :(

But I haven't noticed NatGeo doing the same?
I don't have the channel so I can just watch this: https://www.youtube.com/user/NatGeoWild/videos
My main interest is in parrots, dogs, toothed whales and snakes.
Future animals I want to have when we have land are camels, wolfdogs/wolves, coyotes or jackals, striped hyena or aardwolf. Also poultry, rabbits water buffalo and/or yak for livestock.
User avatar
Juska
Posts: 2179
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania, US
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby Juska » Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:05 pm

NatGeoWild is basically doing the same thing, but they're not as terrible as the other two.
Pet parent of Emo the border collie mix, Conte the schnoodle and Namira the harlequin cat!
User avatar
veralidaine
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 10:06 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

Re: Trying to unify pet owners to save our animals. Please h

Postby veralidaine » Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:54 pm

To be honest, I don't really agree with the whole 'having kids is a right' just because I think the overpopulation of the world is a major problem that is behind a lot of other issues. For instance, the intensive farming practices that lead to poor animal welfare are often justified by the fact that we need to be able to produce food as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to feed our humongous population. Meanwhile, valuable farmland (that could really help with the supposed 'food shortage' that my professors all told us the world is going through) is being torn up and turned into housing and shopping malls and it's again being justified by our large population. Then there's the environment getting destroyed because not only do we need more housing and shopping malls for the growing population, but we also need more sources of energy to provide electricity for daily life and fuel for a growing number of vehicles. Not to mention the fact that there are so many children out there without parents. Personally, I think a lot of good could come from regulating how many people are allowed to have children a year (maybe have it be a lottery? Others will either need to adopt a child or wait). Not to mention, while we're at it, we could give people a light test to get into the lottery, and maybe reduce the amount of abusive/neglectful parents.

Return to “Controversial ANIMAL Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest