Article on anti-crating

[lisa.gayle]

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/ind..._a_prison.html

I came across this article this morning and thought I'd share. We crate Olive when no one is home and she will go to her crate on her own just to relax. I definitely don't agree with what the article says about dogs who voluntarily seek out their crate having self confidence issues.

[ouesi]

Karen Porreca is a senior director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

‘nuff said.

[Beckiw]

It seems she is taking the most extreme bad examples to make her point. Disagree!

[lisa.gayle]

‘nuff said.

Ah, must have skimmed over that part. That does explain it!

It seems she is taking the most extreme bad examples to make her point. Disagree!

Yup.

[Thoenix]

Written by the same people who kill tens of thousands of animals every year that go into thier shelters. Yeah, not taking her words to heart.

[bluebeetlemom]

‘nuff said.

My thought exactly.

[Angel7292]

I'm a long time supporting member of PETA. I may not agree with everything they say or do, but they have made leaps and bounds worth of changes in regards to animal cruelty.

'nuff said too.

[Thoenix]

Leaps and bounds?

They have an 85% kill rate at their shelters.

They recommend the wholesale slaughter of pitties.

They regularly disseminate incorrect and inaccurate information to make people side with them.

They have faked videos, causing people to boycott or harass innocent people.

They tell people to become vegan and claim veganism is safer and better for every single person. That is not the case.

They physically assault people who wear fur or leather.

They objectify the HELL out of women.

They've opposed procedures on animals that are designed to prevent them from further pain and illness.

They support the Animal Liberation Front, which commits acts of violence and destruction and vandalism.

They oppose all animal testing--including drug testing. Drug testing on animals is NECESSARY because humans have a ridiculously long generational period and therefore it would take up to a hundred years for any new drug to be introduced to the market.

They do so much harm, overall, that any forward movement they make is cancelled out. Other groups are doing better, healthier work for animal welfare.

[ouesi]

I'm a long time supporting member of PETA. I may not agree with everything they say or do, but they have made leaps and bounds worth of changes in regards to animal cruelty.

'nuff said too.

If you enjoy keeping dogs as pets, you may want to revisit your support.

PETA is nothing but a domestic terrorist group run by a psychotic narcissist.
I went to a few meetings way back in my college days, what I found out then told me everything I’ve ever needed to know about this organization.

Any group that feels horses are better off dying agonizingly on the side of an interstate from an encounter with a semi, after being “freed” from their paddocks and stalls, is no group I want anything to do with. And that’s just ONE example out of far too many of what PETA supports.

It behooves all dog owners to educate themselves on the difference between animal welfare groups and animal rights groups. JMNSHO

[Angel7292]

I have no need or desire to justify my position or rethink it. As I said, I don't agree with everything they say or do, but they HAVE made a large impact on animal cruelty. You don't agree, that is a-ok with me. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I need to go educate myself.

Secondly, every movement by and large will have extremists. That is just the way it is. The majority of PETA sponsors are average normal people who don't find the need to beat up people who wear fur. LOL You can make a mile long list of things you don't like about PETA and I can make a mile long list of things I do. They have made MANY positive effects in the humane society as a whole. Do they often have crude out in left field tactics? Sure... but every once in a while, you need to take a larger stand. Do I agree with it all.. or even half? Maybe... Maybe not.

I don't believe in animal testing period. You do apparently. I am not a vegetarian and I love myself a juicy steak. However, I think the death of these animals need to regulated and done in the most humane way. I don't agree with their shove it in your face approach that eating your next hamburger makes you animal enemy #1. I'm also someone who can appreciate a family that hunts for their food, but I lack respect for those that do it "just because it's fun".

PETA has had issues with their shelter and I most certainly don't agree with our all their policies. I do think they have a light 'trigger finger' when some animals can be rehabilitated and or cured or managed (illness). I have a pit mix and I don't believe in euthanizing any breed specifically. Even if I didn't have a pit mix, I would feel the same. I do find "no kill" shelters don't often work for various reasons. That is a discussion for another day. Do I want any animal put down? No... but there are instances where it is completely warranted.

That doesn't change the fact that I appreciate their efforts to have many laws passed to prevent chaining up of animals. Or the mass amounts of spay / neuter they have done free of charge. Get people to spay and neuter their darn dogs and cats responsibly and the shelters would have a lot less issues. Too many ignorant ass people in this world not doing right by animals. Do I agree with their stupid comments about companion animals? No... but I think a lot of it has sound basis because of the overpopulation by irresponsible people who just throw their dog out back on a chain and toss kibble to them every once in a while.

There is positives and negatives to ANY position YOU wish to support. Rarely will you find a social issue completely agreeable. I can respect your decision to think the way you do. You should respect mine. Your agenda is not my agenda. I'm also a democrat who believes in stem cell research, abortion and national health care. Oh.. and I'm about to vote for Obama AGAIN. Want to make some more lists? See... we are different people .. with different views... that is what makes the world go around.

[Thoenix]

I really hope that, if you don't believe in animal testing, you back that up. In other words, I hope you don't use treatments for you or your animals that have been tested on animals. Because animal testing is necessary. It takes 20 years to do a generational test on humans, minimum. MINIMUM. Failure to do generational testing is what results in things like Thalidomide, which caused thousands of babies to be born lacking limbs. Rats have a generational length of like six months. This means life saving drugs can hit the market in a matter of a few years, rather than a century. Opposing animal testing is opposing medical progress. It is the opposition of treatments for seizure sufferers, heart patients, psychiatric patients. It is the opposition of HIV medications. It is the opposition of allergy treatments and surgeries that save lives. It is the opposition of limb regeneration techniques that are being researched right now and the opposition of understanding how humans came to exist. It is the opposition of feeding tubes for children who fail to thrive and who would otherwise die.

It's incredibly naive and is a pet peeve of mine. Yes, animals in testing facilities should be treated well and, in most cases, they are. The cases we hear about are a minority, not a majority.

[Angel7292]

They objectify the HELL out of women.

I'm guessing your talking about all the nude publicity they do? I'm also a supporter of NO H8. So what is your position on the No H8 campaign and all those nekkid women? I know you are involved a lot in the gay community and I was interested in what you thought of this campaign as well using women with duct tape clad nipples.

[Thoenix]

I'm guessing your talking about all the nude publicity they do? I'm also a supporter of NO H8. So what is your position on the No H8 campaign and all those nekkid women? I know you are involved a lot in the gay community and I was interested in what you thought of this campaign as well using women with duct tape clad nipples.

Honestly? Most of the pro-gay campaigns that are going on right now do us no favours. My least favourite is the "It gets better" campaign because it's incredibly problematic for dozens of reasons, not the least of which being Dan Savage. The F*** H8 campaign bothers me for several reasons as well. The biggest one being offensive gets offensiveness back and makes your opposition incredibly defensive, which makes them less receptive. The No H8 one has had some people choose to wear nothing but duct tape, but the campaign itself originally had people in white t-shirts and duct taped mouths. The main part of the campaign is NOT sexually exploitative and I have no problem with public nudity itself. I, myself, have appeared topless on stage. It's about how you use it in advertising. The PETA nude campaign is all about being naked except for leaves or lettuce and striking sexy poses. The No H8 campaign seems to be all about people just BEING, with duct tape and the NO H8 logo on their cheeks. Some people are being sexy. Some are just hanging out. Out of four galleries I just went through on the NO H8 website, I have a total of 6 women wearing less than what I'd see walking down the streets of Toronto (and two of those, I think I've seen similar outfits). I have dozens of family shots, or non-sexualized shots. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

PETA's nude publicity would not be so bad if it wasn't a) stupid (no one is forcing anyone to wear fur, so the options are NOT 'wear fur or be naked') and b) completely about objectification. There is absolutely zero representation of body types other than the ideal, in any part of the campaign, and it's entirely sex-marketing. ALL of the photos are problematic and no part of the campaign is not problematic in its treatment of women.

[Angel7292]

It's incredibly naive and is a pet peeve of mine. Yes, animals in testing facilities should be treated well and, in most cases, they are. The cases we hear about are a minority, not a majority.

I can't roll back time and change what has been done. Just because I don't agree with testing on animals at all, doesn't mean there isn't a necessity. There may be a place in this world for testing on animals to life save a human, but that doesn't make it right. I think there should be more regulation especially with companies that are testing on animals that aren't being required of them by law.

However, you missed a lot of things in your list... Let's talk about the stuff animals are tested on that isn't saving anyones life today:

Makeup
Facial Cleaner
Shampoo
Toothpaste
Household chemicals
Paint
Pool Supplies

And the list goes on for miles...

[ChickyPop]

Kiki and Klaus are both crate trained. They both crate themselves to nap or they'll take a tasty bone or favorite new toy to their crates. But I'd NEVER crate my dogs for 18 hours as suggested in the article, that is inhumane! I'd also never crate my dogs to keep them out of the way if we had company. It's kind of a given if you come to my house you're coming to visit my dogs as well