Hunting House » Legal Hunting » fighting current abuse legislation consistent with fighting feline amputation
fighting current abuse legislation consistent with fighting feline amputation
Question:
> but I (personally) do not see declawing > in the same light as these abuses.
I cannot see it as being any different at all. > It makes much more sense to me to promote a bill > which includes definitions of abuse which all can > readily agree upon,
But don’t you see? You will *never* find a definition of abuse which all can agree upon, because all forms of abuse are seen as acceptable to those that perpetrate them. Do you think that those of us who fight fox hunting should give up on that "sticking point" because not everyone agrees that it is abusive? Those who hunt will never, ever, concede that chasing a fox until its lungs are bursting and it can run no longer, and then allowing your dogs to tear it limb from limb is abuse. They consider it to be "sport", and these "sportsmen" are sizeable in number. So should we just give up and allow fox hunting to continue because of those who think it’s acceptable? > than to be devisive over the > issue because of one sticking point.
It’s not being devisive. It’s standing up for what’s right, and it’s not letting down the defenceless creatures who are relying on us to stop our fellow humans exploiting and mutilating them. If you know beyond doubt that something is wrong, then how can you have any self-respect if you do nothing about it? PD
Response:
The response below is a simplistic view of what constitutes animal abuse as well as the process and complexity of effective legislative change. It is naive and erroneous to believe that we agree on "virtually every aspect of animal abuse, except for the declawing issue". It is not at all a matter of "one sticking point" being in the way of consensus. The process of legislative change is very divisive – know anything about the farmers’ lobby, the beef lobby, the pharmaceutical lobby, hunters? It is far too easy to neatly package animal abuse into the clear-cut incidences you outline below as if those are the only important animal abuse instances which need to be addressed by stricter legislation. It conveniently diverts attention from the abuse which legally takes place daily in farms, slaughterhouses, laboratories, etc. Animal abuse encompasses way more than what you propose and in the scheme of things, the examples below are but a minute percentage of cases in a climate which permits pervasive abuse most of us, I suspect, don’t know nor want to know about. Witness slaughterhouse practices, what goes on in hog farms, fur farms, seal hunts, etc. There is no way around creating specific laws that deal with specific contexts such as hunting, scientific experiments, slaughter-house, feed-lot operations, farm practices and yes, also veterinary practice. Legislation must be specific to be enforceable and effective. Animal abuse legislation does not get changed easily or often, it is therefore imperative that it is comprehensive and specific. To address only those contexts which generate easy consensus and dismiss the rest is absurd. Monica – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >My guess is that we probably agree on virtually every aspect of animal >abuse, except for the declawing issue. I can not condone people throwing >rocks at animals, setting them on fire, using them for target practice, etc. >etc. – in fact it makes me very angry/ sad, but I (personally) do not see >declawing in the same light as these abuses. I would love to see stricter >laws on animal abuse. Would you want to see such a bill defeated if it did >not include declawing? *If* I were on the anti-declawing side, I would >consider an improvement upon the present laws a lot better than no >improvement, even if declawing is not included. It makes much more sense to >me to promote a bill which includes definitions of abuse which all can >readily agree upon, than to be devisive over the issue because of one >sticking point. Cathy >Why do some posters advocate fighting for stricter animal abuse >legislation yet urge those of us who fight against feline >digital amputation to put our energies into the former and not >the latter? No only is it entirely consistent to do both, in my >system of ethics, it would be entirely inconsistent to do one >and not the other. >Monica
Response:
>Why do some posters advocate fighting for stricter animal abuse >legislation yet urge those of us who fight against feline >digital amputation to put our energies into the former and not >the latter? No only is it entirely consistent to do both, in my >system of ethics, it would be entirely inconsistent to do one >and not the other.
I share your system of ethics. The issue with declaw is not that those of us opposed to it shouldn’t fight against it. The point is that ‘pro’ and ‘anti,’ while disagreeing on declaw, agree on (non-declaw) animal abuse legislation, and need to work together on it. So where we have our disagreements (i.e., the declaw issue) we should discuss them cordially, rather than with insults. While the two camps have a dispute over the issue, there is no reason to alienate one side from the other. Insults and other immature behavior will not win any converts, and could prove counterproductive to any joint efforts in regard to other important issues. –Paul
Response:
>Why do some posters advocate fighting for stricter animal abuse >legislation yet urge those of us who fight against feline >digital amputation to put our energies into the former and not >the latter? No only is it entirely consistent to do both, in my >system of ethics, it would be entirely inconsistent to do one >and not the other. >Monica
My guess is that we probably agree on virtually every aspect of animal abuse, except for the declawing issue. I can not condone people throwing rocks at animals, setting them on fire, using them for target practice, etc. etc. – in fact it makes me very angry/ sad, but I (personally) do not see declawing in the same light as these abuses. I would love to see stricter laws on animal abuse. Would you want to see such a bill defeated if it did not include declawing? *If* I were on the anti-declawing side, I would consider an improvement upon the present laws a lot better than no improvement, even if declawing is not included. It makes much more sense to me to promote a bill which includes definitions of abuse which all can readily agree upon, than to be devisive over the issue because of one sticking point. Cathy
Response:
Why do some posters advocate fighting for stricter animal abuse legislation yet urge those of us who fight against feline digital amputation to put our energies into the former and not the latter? No only is it entirely consistent to do both, in my system of ethics, it would be entirely inconsistent to do one and not the other. Monica
Response:
> but I (personally) do not see declawing > in the same light as these abuses.
I cannot see it as being any different at all. > It makes much more sense to me to promote a bill > which includes definitions of abuse which all can > readily agree upon,
But don’t you see? You will *never* find a definition of abuse which all can agree upon, because all forms of abuse are seen as acceptable to those that perpetrate them. Do you think that those of us who fight fox hunting should give up on that "sticking point" because not everyone agrees that it is abusive? Those who hunt will never, ever, concede that chasing a fox until its lungs are bursting and it can run no longer, and then allowing your dogs to tear it limb from limb is abuse. They consider it to be "sport", and these "sportsmen" are sizeable in number. So should we just give up and allow fox hunting to continue because of those who think it’s acceptable? > than to be devisive over the > issue because of one sticking point.
It’s not being devisive. It’s standing up for what’s right, and it’s not letting down the defenceless creatures who are relying on us to stop our fellow humans exploiting and mutilating them. If you know beyond doubt that something is wrong, then how can you have any self-respect if you do nothing about it? PD
Response:
The response below is a simplistic view of what constitutes animal abuse as well as the process and complexity of effective legislative change. It is naive and erroneous to believe that we agree on "virtually every aspect of animal abuse, except for the declawing issue". It is not at all a matter of "one sticking point" being in the way of consensus. The process of legislative change is very divisive – know anything about the farmers’ lobby, the beef lobby, the pharmaceutical lobby, hunters? It is far too easy to neatly package animal abuse into the clear-cut incidences you outline below as if those are the only important animal abuse instances which need to be addressed by stricter legislation. It conveniently diverts attention from the abuse which legally takes place daily in farms, slaughterhouses, laboratories, etc. Animal abuse encompasses way more than what you propose and in the scheme of things, the examples below are but a minute percentage of cases in a climate which permits pervasive abuse most of us, I suspect, don’t know nor want to know about. Witness slaughterhouse practices, what goes on in hog farms, fur farms, seal hunts, etc. There is no way around creating specific laws that deal with specific contexts such as hunting, scientific experiments, slaughter-house, feed-lot operations, farm practices and yes, also veterinary practice. Legislation must be specific to be enforceable and effective. Animal abuse legislation does not get changed easily or often, it is therefore imperative that it is comprehensive and specific. To address only those contexts which generate easy consensus and dismiss the rest is absurd. Monica – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >My guess is that we probably agree on virtually every aspect of animal >abuse, except for the declawing issue. I can not condone people throwing >rocks at animals, setting them on fire, using them for target practice, etc. >etc. – in fact it makes me very angry/ sad, but I (personally) do not see >declawing in the same light as these abuses. I would love to see stricter >laws on animal abuse. Would you want to see such a bill defeated if it did >not include declawing? *If* I were on the anti-declawing side, I would >consider an improvement upon the present laws a lot better than no >improvement, even if declawing is not included. It makes much more sense to >me to promote a bill which includes definitions of abuse which all can >readily agree upon, than to be devisive over the issue because of one >sticking point. Cathy >Why do some posters advocate fighting for stricter animal abuse >legislation yet urge those of us who fight against feline >digital amputation to put our energies into the former and not >the latter? No only is it entirely consistent to do both, in my >system of ethics, it would be entirely inconsistent to do one >and not the other. >Monica
Response:
>Why do some posters advocate fighting for stricter animal abuse >legislation yet urge those of us who fight against feline >digital amputation to put our energies into the former and not >the latter? No only is it entirely consistent to do both, in my >system of ethics, it would be entirely inconsistent to do one >and not the other.
I share your system of ethics. The issue with declaw is not that those of us opposed to it shouldn’t fight against it. The point is that ‘pro’ and ‘anti,’ while disagreeing on declaw, agree on (non-declaw) animal abuse legislation, and need to work together on it. So where we have our disagreements (i.e., the declaw issue) we should discuss them cordially, rather than with insults. While the two camps have a dispute over the issue, there is no reason to alienate one side from the other. Insults and other immature behavior will not win any converts, and could prove counterproductive to any joint efforts in regard to other important issues. –Paul
Response:
>Why do some posters advocate fighting for stricter animal abuse >legislation yet urge those of us who fight against feline >digital amputation to put our energies into the former and not >the latter? No only is it entirely consistent to do both, in my >system of ethics, it would be entirely inconsistent to do one >and not the other. >Monica
My guess is that we probably agree on virtually every aspect of animal abuse, except for the declawing issue. I can not condone people throwing rocks at animals, setting them on fire, using them for target practice, etc. etc. – in fact it makes me very angry/ sad, but I (personally) do not see declawing in the same light as these abuses. I would love to see stricter laws on animal abuse. Would you want to see such a bill defeated if it did not include declawing? *If* I were on the anti-declawing side, I would consider an improvement upon the present laws a lot better than no improvement, even if declawing is not included. It makes much more sense to me to promote a bill which includes definitions of abuse which all can readily agree upon, than to be devisive over the issue because of one sticking point. Cathy
Response:
Why do some posters advocate fighting for stricter animal abuse legislation yet urge those of us who fight against feline digital amputation to put our energies into the former and not the latter? No only is it entirely consistent to do both, in my system of ethics, it would be entirely inconsistent to do one and not the other. Monica
Response:
> but I (personally) do not see declawing > in the same light as these abuses.
I cannot see it as being any different at all. > It makes much more sense to me to promote a bill > which includes definitions of abuse which all can > readily agree upon,
But don’t you see? You will *never* find a definition of abuse which all can agree upon, because all forms of abuse are seen as acceptable to those that perpetrate them. Do you think that those of us who fight fox hunting should give up on that "sticking point" because not everyone agrees that it is abusive? Those who hunt will never, ever, concede that chasing a fox until its lungs are bursting and it can run no longer, and then allowing your dogs to tear it limb from limb is abuse. They consider it to be "sport", and these "sportsmen" are sizeable in number. So should we just give up and allow fox hunting to continue because of those who think it’s acceptable? > than to be devisive over the > issue because of one sticking point.
It’s not being devisive. It’s standing up for what’s right, and it’s not letting down the defenceless creatures who are relying on us to stop our fellow humans exploiting and mutilating them. If you know beyond doubt that something is wrong, then how can you have any self-respect if you do nothing about it? PD
Response:
The response below is a simplistic view of what constitutes animal abuse as well as the process and complexity of effective legislative change. It is naive and erroneous to believe that we agree on "virtually every aspect of animal abuse, except for the declawing issue". It is not at all a matter of "one sticking point" being in the way of consensus. The process of legislative change is very divisive – know anything about the farmers’ lobby, the beef lobby, the pharmaceutical lobby, hunters? It is far too easy to neatly package animal abuse into the clear-cut incidences you outline below as if those are the only important animal abuse instances which need to be addressed by stricter legislation. It conveniently diverts attention from the abuse which legally takes place daily in farms, slaughterhouses, laboratories, etc. Animal abuse encompasses way more than what you propose and in the scheme of things, the examples below are but a minute percentage of cases in a climate which permits pervasive abuse most of us, I suspect, don’t know nor want to know about. Witness slaughterhouse practices, what goes on in hog farms, fur farms, seal hunts, etc. There is no way around creating specific laws that deal with specific contexts such as hunting, scientific experiments, slaughter-house, feed-lot operations, farm practices and yes, also veterinary practice. Legislation must be specific to be enforceable and effective. Animal abuse legislation does not get changed easily or often, it is therefore imperative that it is comprehensive and specific. To address only those contexts which generate easy consensus and dismiss the rest is absurd. Monica – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >My guess is that we probably agree on virtually every aspect of animal >abuse, except for the declawing issue. I can not condone people throwing >rocks at animals, setting them on fire, using them for target practice, etc. >etc. – in fact it makes me very angry/ sad, but I (personally) do not see >declawing in the same light as these abuses. I would love to see stricter >laws on animal abuse. Would you want to see such a bill defeated if it did >not include declawing? *If* I were on the anti-declawing side, I would >consider an improvement upon the present laws a lot better than no >improvement, even if declawing is not included. It makes much more sense to >me to promote a bill which includes definitions of abuse which all can >readily agree upon, than to be devisive over the issue because of one >sticking point. Cathy >Why do some posters advocate fighting for stricter animal abuse >legislation yet urge those of us who fight against feline >digital amputation to put our energies into the former and not >the latter? No only is it entirely consistent to do both, in my >system of ethics, it would be entirely inconsistent to do one >and not the other. >Monica
Response:
>Why do some posters advocate fighting for stricter animal abuse >legislation yet urge those of us who fight against feline >digital amputation to put our energies into the former and not >the latter? No only is it entirely consistent to do both, in my >system of ethics, it would be entirely inconsistent to do one >and not the other.
I share your system of ethics. The issue with declaw is not that those of us opposed to it shouldn’t fight against it. The point is that ‘pro’ and ‘anti,’ while disagreeing on declaw, agree on (non-declaw) animal abuse legislation, and need to work together on it. So where we have our disagreements (i.e., the declaw issue) we should discuss them cordially, rather than with insults. While the two camps have a dispute over the issue, there is no reason to alienate one side from the other. Insults and other immature behavior will not win any converts, and could prove counterproductive to any joint efforts in regard to other important issues. –Paul
Response:
>Why do some posters advocate fighting for stricter animal abuse >legislation yet urge those of us who fight against feline >digital amputation to put our energies into the former and not >the latter? No only is it entirely consistent to do both, in my >system of ethics, it would be entirely inconsistent to do one >and not the other. >Monica
My guess is that we probably agree on virtually every aspect of animal abuse, except for the declawing issue. I can not condone people throwing rocks at animals, setting them on fire, using them for target practice, etc. etc. – in fact it makes me very angry/ sad, but I (personally) do not see declawing in the same light as these abuses. I would love to see stricter laws on animal abuse. Would you want to see such a bill defeated if it did not include declawing? *If* I were on the anti-declawing side, I would consider an improvement upon the present laws a lot better than no improvement, even if declawing is not included. It makes much more sense to me to promote a bill which includes definitions of abuse which all can readily agree upon, than to be devisive over the issue because of one sticking point. Cathy
Response:
Why do some posters advocate fighting for stricter animal abuse legislation yet urge those of us who fight against feline digital amputation to put our energies into the former and not the latter? No only is it entirely consistent to do both, in my system of ethics, it would be entirely inconsistent to do one and not the other. Monica