BS: PETA

Subject: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 09:00 AM

What's this ??

peta

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 09:02 AM

PETA had this to say about the issue ..

"PETA spokeswoman Colleen O'Brien said the organization euthanizes animals by lethal injection, which it considers more humane than gassing animals in groups, as some counties do."

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 09:59 AM

Old news -- the date on it is July 11, 2005. A couple employees were arrested for illegally disposing of dead animals, too -- they tossed the corpses in trash bins outside a store, the cops did a stake-out, the pair was arrested.

Black eye for PETA (which is not by any means my favorite animal organization).

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 01:47 PM

For what it's worth, I too consider injection (and in discrete, private surroundings) MUCH more humane than gassing animals en masse.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 02:05 PM

PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said the workers were picking up animals to be brought to PETA headquarters for euthanization. Veterinarians and animal control officers said the PETA workers had promised to find homes for the animals rather than euthanize them, according to police.

Neither police nor PETA offered any theory on why the animals might have been dumped.

What is this about? Were they promising vets and animal control officers to find the animals homes yet euthanizing them instead? Were they simply doing this to use a more "humane" death for these marked animals? Were vets gassing animals instead of using lethal injection?

It is an old story, but it isn't a lucid one.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 03:12 PM

Clinton says PETA is......












People Eating Tasty Animals..................Me, I love it!

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: GUEST,Fullerton
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 03:41 PM

People eating tasty animals has a web site

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 04:34 PM

I don't like some of their more extreme tactics, but I am glad there are people dedicated enough to work on exposing extreme and horrendous acts upon creatures. Alec Baldwin was on Larry King Live about a week ago talking about his work for PETA, primarily about dogs and cats being skinned alive for the fur in China. I didn't watch it or listen to it after that because I am too sensitive and it gave me heartache and nightmares for the rest of the night, what little bit I did hear. PETA workers, at great personal risk, took hidden cameras and filmed the atrocious acts. The fur is being marketed all over the world, including the US, though not tagged as cat and dog. Another good reason to not wear fur!

I wasn't even going to post about this because it made me so sick, but I do feel some defense of PETA AND, most esp. for the animals.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 05:24 PM

the same way you dispose of humans

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 05:27 PM

Kat, I'd like to see the sources for that "skinned alive" business. It sounds unlikely, at least to me.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 05:33 PM

I am sure you can find it doing a search on google, Rapaire. I cannot look into it, anymore than to post this...it's just too much for me:

Heather Mills-McCartney and Alec Baldwin shocked American TV viewers on CNN on Sunday night when they debuted a horrific new dog and cat-skinning video.
The two celebrities joined a panel on Larry King Live to discuss China's inhumanities towards domestic pets.

And, as part of the show, Mills-McCartney showed a new People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) video, shot in a warehouse this summer.

The graphic video featured footage of dogs and cats, crammed into cages, being hurled from vans and being skinned alive.

The activist, who is married to Sir Paul McCartney, used the show to call for new worldwide regulations to make it illegal to skin animals alive for their fur.

She said, "Why don't they make a law that they don't do it...? Why don't you just slit an animal's throat, which is a horrific thing to do anyway, but to actually just skin it alive and leave it to die for 20 minutes, it's sick."

Baldwin urges his fellow Americans to view the harrowing new PETA research footage because he's convinced they'll be so outraged by the sick treatment of the animals they'll be compelled to do something.

He added, "The great thing about people who are inclined in this country to care about these things is they don't need anybody to tell them what's on that tape. You see that tape and you see that is abuse of animals."

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 08:25 PM

There's no easy way to euthanize a pet, but it's pretty difficult to support the argument that lethal injection is always better than other methods. More important than the method are the conditions in which it's done and the attitude of those who must do it.

Many humane organizations use gas, and if an appropriate gas is used there is ample evidence that the gas itself is painless. There are limited but sufficient cases where humans have been rendered unconscious by exposure to most of the few gases commonly used, and after resuscitation have been able to report that they were not even aware of their impending unconsciousness and felt no pain. With most gases, there are some residual effects on re-awakening, but the intent is that the animals will not do that.

Some humane organizations use the slightly more exotic hypobaric method, where the animals are placed in what amounts to a "high altitude chamber." Having had extensive contact with test pilots who have been through training in this sort of "climate," I will assure you that 100 percent of them report that in every training exercise, a designated subject is asked to remove his oxygen mask and tell a story. The subject typically loses consciousness in mid sentence after a few seconds, at which point someone slaps a mask back on them, they wake up, and resume the sentence at the same point. They then assert that they were never unconscious, until shown the movie/video that proves to them that they were.

There is no particular difficulty with using either of these methods in "small room" sized chambers where when needed an attendant, with proper breathing apparatus, can if necessary be in the chamber with the animal(s) to keep them as calm and comfortable as possible. Not all organizations have facilities this elaborate, but they're not really all that unusual. Facilities without sufficient space or financial resources for the larger setup usually, in ones I've seen or had reports on, have at least a "windowed" chamber where the animal can see the same attendants he/she's used to, and there is no reason why any part of the process needs to cause pain to the animal.

Lethal injection, on the other hand, by definition requires the physical trauma of the injection itself. Since virtually all injectable substances that cause rapid death also cause pain, convulsions, nausea, and probably other symptoms the animals can't tell us about, the normal procedure in most veterinary offices is to install a needle in a vein through which a slower acting but less painful substance can be slowly admitted. With many animals, the procedure to install the phlebotomy kit alone is sufficiently traumatic to require anesthesia. The entire process is a bit quicker than a properly administered chamber process, but is - from beginning to end - unavoidably stressful to the animal. Veterinarians with whom I've dealt or discussed it have been as caring and careful as is possible, but it is not necessarily a better process. It's just the best that can be done with the facilities available.

I apologize if the above is graphic. It disturbs me and I'm sure others may have some difficulty. It is unusual for many people to have reason to be informed in this matter, hence my hope that it will be helpful.

It is, of course, possible that the PETA pair had some specific knowledge of abuse occuring at the facility they attacked (I consider it an attack until shown otherwise), but I suspect it was the much more common crusador's "I gotta prove they're wrong" than any useful and meaningful action of benefit to the poor animals.

It should be noted: I know of no jurisdiction in the US where it is not ILLEGAL to dispose of dead animals in landfill, which is the usual destination for dumpster contents. In my own locality, the statutory fine would be at least $300 (US) PER ANIMAL in this case. Because of the need to exclude biological wastes from landfills, cremation (or just call it incineration) is the only approved method of disposal in most municipal areas, and even in many rural areas there are specific regulations governing where and how you may legally bury a dead animal, even on your own farm.

A side note is that I've been told that it's virtually impossible to get the necessary permits to have a "private pet" (dog or cat even) in many (or most?) parts of China. Does any one know if this is really true? I was informed by a couple of natives that pets are very difficult to own legally in at least some parts of Japan - it being almost as hard to get a pet license as a permit to buy a private auto.

John

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 09:15 PM

According to a BBC article of 8 May 2003, cat and dog fur is being sold in the EU. The article says that such fur is banned in the US, and the only country in Europe with such a ban is Italy. Cat fur blankets are supposed to be good for rheumatism, or so some in the EU and Asia believe.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 07:59 AM

Thanks, Rapaire.

JohninKS, I remember a show on tv a few years ago about a man who was making a huge amount of money with a travelling cremation van with religious service altar to cater to pet owners in Japan, in a big city, I believe it was Tokyo. He had seen a little girl crying over a lost pet which had been thrown in a trash hin at a pet store, or something and been inspired to offer such services. He had a Buddhist shrine inside at owners could griece, hold a service, etc. with the ashes of their pet in a container.

It may have been Hong Kong, as I see a listing for such here.

Also, see JApan Times: Spoiled Pooches live the good life

Also see THIS where I found the following regarding China:

Owing to the Government's relaxed control in the breeding of cats and dogs, dog and cat ownership grew rapidly between 1999 and 2004. Euromonitor's latest research shows that the percentage of the Chinese population owning dogs and cats increased from 5% and 14% respectively in 1999 to an estimated 7% and 15% in 2004, which indicates the increasing popularity of dogs and cats in China.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 08:50 AM

My problem, Kat, is not in the use of cat and dog fur. If you are going to wear/use fur, that you should accept the statement that fur's fur (and sometimes natural fur IS the best choice for a particular purpose). And let me say right now, I am unequivocably AGAINST causing unnecessary pain to any living thing -- animal OR PLANT.

One thing that strikes me about the story is the "skinning alive" part. It's too too reminiscent of the "Chinese/Indian/Thai/Korean/Japanese restaurants serve dog/cat/rat meat" and other such xenophobic (and racist) rumors. I'd need more proof that videotapes that alleged show such. Let's get a UN or EU commission in to settle it.

Secondly, I wonder if we aren't imposing our standards of "morality" and "ethics" upon other cultures. Historically, the Eurocentric version of "rightness" has been enforced upon other peoples because it was backed by superior weaponry. Sometimes this was good -- the suppression of Thugee and Sutee in India by the British leaps to mind. More often it destroyed and continues to destroy entire cultures -- the missionaries in Polynesia, the demolition of the hunting/trapping cultures of the Arctic peoples. And sometimes, such as in the so-called Opium Wars, it forced something onto people that was ultimately rooted in pure greed and which destroyed many lives.

I'm against this Moral Imperialism. If you want to barbecue a dog, as has been and is done in Korea and among certain American Indian Nations, I don't care as long as the killing is done humanely. If you want to eat rat, fine (my brother shared a meal of rat with the Kit Carson Scouts when he was in Vietnam). Cat, fine (I know people who have eaten mountain lion and that, after all, is just a matter of size). You'll pardon me if I don't partake, though.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 08:54 AM

Thanks everyone for your posts.

JohnInKansas .... assuming you live in Kansas ... is it true Greyhounds are legally not a dog in that state ... this allows for them being outside the jurisdiction of the SPCA at the tracks?

One point I should mention in this thread is the practice of using euthanized pets in many commercial pet foods ... pentobarbital (this is the chemical of choice that vets and animal shelters use to put animals to sleep) is capable of surviving the rendering process.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:02 AM

6, I don't think that's permitted in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: GUEST,A
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:26 AM

While I am against many of PETA's methods, they do have some good people that do the job for no attention.

In the matter of how dogs and cats are put down, Vets and Humane Societys use the injection method. You can no doubt find a occasional County/Parish animal control departments that use the 'gassing' method of all in one room and a cartridge set off.

The Humane Society I have done some stuff for will sedate first. The 3 Vets involved with the center do likewise. I know in the past year there were upwards of 200 cats put down in a single month. Too many cats, not enough homes. No reason to wonder why the spaying program is so widely promoted. Did assist once in the case of 2 very sick and malnourished cats. Never again - sorta' wear my heart on my sleeve when it comes to small animals and little kids and, of course, not necessarily in that order.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 09:51 AM

sIx -

I don't know what specific regulations apply to racing animals, but the SPCA is an organization that has no "jurisdiction" anywhere. As "interested parties" they can help to enforce animal protection laws; but they are not a government agency, and have no enforcement authority different than any individual who observes maltreatment of an animal (which includes a child under the laws in some places) and reports it to agencies who do have authority to investigate and prosecute.

News articles about a very few cases of abuse of racing greyhounds have indicated that the government agencies, and the non-governmental associations, that regulate greyhound racing do impose their own sets of rules about treatment of animals used for that purpose, but the impression given is that those rules do not supercede the more general ones applying to all animals. They appear to be quite specific about some things peculiar to breeding and "performance" conditions that must be adhered to for the racing animals that would not often be of concern and would not be covered in any specific general laws. Racing greyhounds are not "exempt from" any laws on humane treatment of animals, but are subject to additional gaming laws and regulations and additional trade organization rules.

I'm not personally impressed with the life of a greyhound, but then my personal opinion is that organized "contact sports" such as football and soccer for chilren less than at least 12 years old should be considered child abuse.

I'd suggest checking your "euthanized animals in pet food" thing with Snopes or one of the other web myth-busters. There are Federal, State, and industry association laws and rules about the use of carrion products in animal food, but I'm not intimately familiar with them. Reputable pet food suppliers used to regularly issue statements denying that the use you describe has ever been a practice; but have pretty much stopped official response on the grounds that "fanatics and fools will believe whatever they want to and there's nothing much you can do about it." (Sort of like Procter & Gamble and their "devil worship" trademark.) I don't believe it's a problem, but have no specific personal knowledge in the matter.

John

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:05 AM

Appreciate your input JohnInKansas ... I'm with you on your views (should point out we do have 2 greys (ex-racers) ... except the pet food issue .. rendering facilities are not government controlled, let's face it it's a business and the bottom line counts regardless of moral ethics .... A few years ago one of our cats started to have 'fits', I immediately noticed the other cat was't eating the food ... the vet informed us of the the pentobarbital fact ... recommended specific high grade foods. Changing the food certainly made a difference.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:15 AM

News article is 4 years old ... but there appears to be no law against it in Canada and if it's not a law here, it certainly is not a law south of the border.

    cbc article

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:34 AM

Sorry, Rapaire, I cannot read most of what you posted; it's just too much for my sensitivity and, many years ago when I was quite involved in animal rights, I heard all of the pro/con arguments. All I can say is I believe animals are equal in the eyes of my god/goddess and should be treated as such. The REAL solution, in our country at least are NO KILL SHELTERS and SPAYING & NEUTERING.

Also, I do not know what to say to you about "alive" thing. I saw the footage on CNN; I trust the people who brought it to the world's attention. Perhaps you can find another source which will convince you.

These days I am more protective of my *heart* and emotional health. Sorry this is it for me in this thread. Thanks, folks.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 10:40 AM

"All I can say is I believe animals are equal in the eyes of my god/goddess and should be treated as such."

I'm with you on that one kat.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 12:14 PM

And, believe it or not, I agree too.

I just don't like to see any animal exploited for ANY cause or reason, or any human for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 01:26 PM

"animals are equal and should be treated as such"

Ya... equal, in that when it's dead, meat is meat... I don't care if it comes from a cow, a horse, a slug, a dog or from you....

If you want to recycle, get serious about it... eat the dead.... If you don't want to be serious about it, don't do it at all.

And don't try to tell me -I- should be, if you're not serious.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 03:46 PM

Very eloquently stated CH.

I now suggest you go and snack on a plate full of some soylent greens


sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 03:51 PM

Or become a cannibal...

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: MMario
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 03:56 PM

to the tune of "O Tannenbaum'

O Soylent Green, O Soylent Green...
They make you out of people
Oh Soylent Green, O Soylent Green...
They make you out of people
Mathusian though it may seem
it really isn't a bad dream
Oh Soylent Green, O Soylent Green...
They make you out of people

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 04:00 PM

Very good MMario.

Everyone join in now ... don't be shy!!






sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 04:08 PM

Meat is meat....

Anything else is pusillanimous, euphemism or half measures...

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 04:20 PM

so ... what's your point.

Am I getting the drift that your day job is a butcher? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Hey, it's a job.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 04:57 PM

I'm fortunate enough to not HAVE to have a day job.

"so ... what's your point"
My point is what's the big deal if dead animals feed living animals? That's how it's been done since there ever was animals...

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 05:20 PM

Really ..... ok. What you do during the day is your own business, I can respect that.

Thanks for the clarification ... but I don't they have been eating animals with traces of pentobarbital since the beginning of time.

BTW ... not all animals have been eating animals since there ever was animals.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 05:27 PM

Except, surely, if dead animals are ground up and fed to non-carnivorous animals, such as cattle parts to living cattle. As you know, that's how we got into a peck of trouble just recently.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 07:12 PM

Exactly Ebbie .... if we don't treat animals with decency and respect, and that includes the food we feed them (and I stress we, as in us humans) it will all come back and bite us (sorry about the pun) in the long run.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 09:45 AM

"not all animals have been eating animals"

Everything kills something so that it can live

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:03 AM

sIx -

As I said, I haven't had cause to investigate the pet food makers here, but all communities in which I've spent some time in the US prohibit disposal of dead animals of any kind in landfill. Enforcement does vary, but any large numbers would likely be noted. Individual violations do occasionally result in penalties, and all the trash pickup providers are acutely aware of the prohibition, since they can lose their licenses/contracts.

I can attest that the "rendering plants" that will dispose of agricultural animals in my present area generally refuse to accept small animals of any kind. The limit, when they rarely accept non-agricultural animals, is usually "not less than 100 pounds" in cases I've heard of and even then it was not willingly done.

The "animal shelter" in my area operates under contract with the city and county governments, and the contract requires incineration for any animals euthenized there, and for "road killed" or otherwise unaccounted dead animals. The vet who assisted our last sad occasion specifically asked whether we wished to do something special (there are licensed and regulated pet cemeteries here) or wanted the body sent to the shelter for incineration. (I think he did use the "cremation" euphemism.)

One specific case in which a "farm dweller" with whom I was acqauinted a few years ago requested disposal from the rendering plant for a family pet resulted in referal to the Ag Agent, who recommended "burning" but also provided an extract of regulations relating to burial on rural properties. The regs were not overly restrictive, but were quite specific.

Most pet food manufacturers here (my current area) do use animal products in the foods they make, but they assure us that they use only byproducts from the packing plants where animals for human consumption are processed. That's not necessarily a real guarantee of wholesomeness, and they may lie, but I haven't heard of a credible case being made for it.

The use of animal byproducts in agricultural feed is rather strictly regulated, by Federal Regulations applicable throughout the US. Violations do occur, but any ag food mfr who wants to stay in business likely will make at least an attempt to look like they follow the regulations.

Again, I can't give any assurances about pets in the pet food, but my own observations don't cause me concern that it's being done here.

John

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: MMario
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:04 AM

I guess you could say plants "kill" minerals...

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:29 AM

(there are licensed and regulated pet cemeteries here)

All cemeteries are a total waste of space and resources

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: MMario
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 10:34 AM

depends on what you do with them - we used to play in a local graveyard - and it was the only greenspace available to shoot of the 4rth of july fireworks   - if the land hadn't been a cemetary that space would have been more houses - and no fireworks.   so it wasn't wasted -

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:44 AM

Gettin' rather stressed from Xmas are we CH.

I agree with MMario ... cemetaries are just more than a dumping ground for the dead ... they are green space much like a park ... they are good places to meditate, read the tombstones, try to reach out and touch the humanity that has proceeded us on this earth, sorta like monuments to the common man/woman. I suggest you go to one CH, find a bench, sit down, relax and meditate for a bit ... release some of that crankiness, and stress that is building up within ya.

MMario .. we used to have a cemetary at the end of our street ... it too was the only greenspace available close by ... our daughter and friends used to play there. Nothing wrong with that.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:51 AM

JohnInKansas ... "I can attest that the "rendering plants" that will dispose of agricultural animals in my present area generally refuse to accept small animals of any kind."

True ... but the word "generally" should be noted.

Anyway ... I appreciate your posts John ... and I agree somewhat. But as I mentioned before it's all business, and as in business there are those that will go to the extreme to make a profit ... as consumers we should be aware of this and choose what we feed our pets with some scrutiny.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:51 AM

John, I'm amazed at what you tell us about Kansas. In Oregon where I spent most of my life, dead animals were/are? frequently dragged off into the back 40 for the wild animals to feed on.

Backyard burial of pets is common and the preferred disposal for many families.

Not only that but one can bury one's granny on one's own land.

In Juneau, Alaska, we don't currently have a waste incinerator so the landfill is our ONLY method of disposal. And I seriously doubt that the carcasses from the inevitable deaths are piling up someplace.

So, Kansas - as rural as it is - has all the regulations you cite?

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: MMario
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:57 AM

Backyard burial of pets is common and the preferred disposal for many families

which doesn't necessarily mean it is legal - Our vet has always cautioned us not to tell him what we plan to do with the remains of pets he puts down for us - as cremation is the only legal means to dispose of them.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 12:41 PM

Ebbie -

How can anyone possibly question that Kansas has more regulations restricting virtually anything one can think of than anywhere else one might possible choose?

Don't you EVER read the news?

John

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:46 PM

John, I probably do NOT want to live in Kansas. *G* But I do remeber being struck by how friendly the people are. But that was way back in 1957.

I suspect pet disposal may hinge upon what else is available in a region, i.e., pet cemeteries and crematories. Which, of course, may have quite a bit to do with encouraging local enterprise. It certainly has not to do with the aesthetics of burial. Obviously apartment dwellers - and perhaps most urban areas - don't have the access to the requisite land that suburban and rural areas have.

In addition, I gather that regulations regarding pet burial tend to be on a county - rather than state - basis. The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture has regulations but not prohibition; it appears to accept the concept and the practice. I found a lot of links to the subject. Here are a few:

New York: "To engage for a fee in the business of operating a pet cemetery or pet crematorium" means and refers to a person who holds himself or herself out directly or indirectly, as being able, or who offers or undertakes, by any means or method, to dispose of pet remains by earth burial, entombment, inurnment, cremation or other means.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c44/a91.html


Dept. of Agriculture: Sander, J.E.; Warbington, M.C.; Myers, L.M. Selected methods of animal carcass disposal. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Schaumburg, Ill.: American Veterinary Medical Association. Apr. 1, 2002. v. 220 (7) p. 1003-1005. ISSN: 0003-1488. http://www.avma.org NAL Call No.: 41.8 Am3
Descriptors: carcasses, dead animal carcass disposal, rendering, composting, burning, pit burial.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/carcass.htm


UK: "Only pet animals could be disposed of directly by burial."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmstand/euroa/st010307/10307s01.htm

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:27 PM

If it's not a dog, than what is it?

       only in kansas

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 09:44 AM

ONE MORE TIME for sIx

Even the article you linked doesn't say that the law said anything about "a greyhound is not a DOG." It said that a "racing greyhound" is not a PET.

The law makes a number of distinctions between pets (companion animals), "exotic pets," protection animals (guard dogs), agricultural livestock (with separate regulations for "food" and "draft/work" animals), zoo animals, feral pest animals, feral game animals, etc.

Laws also say that people who have not reached the "age of consent" are not "PERSONS before the law" with respect to consensual sex, rape and other abuse, and that people who have not reached adult age are not PERSONS with respect to making contracts or with respect to being prosecuted in the same way as "real persons" for certain crimes.

There have been objections to some of the conditions applied to "racing greyhounds" and I am not sufficiently familiar with the business to enumerate them. One thing that the "change in status" does accomplish is to designate specific enforcement agents to make MANDATORY periodic inspections to assure that racing greyhounds are kept and treated in accordance with the specific rules that apply to them. There is no corresponding legal requirement that anyone make prior or periodic determination of whether "pets" are treated humanely, and in many cases it's only "by accident" that the worst cases of abuse of pets are found.

The special classification of racing greyhounds specifically does not include greyhounds kept as pets, including retired racing hounds adopted as pets by individuals, if I can believe local news reports from some half-dozen years back.

Texas also says that "fighting cocks" aren't chickens, if you want something to cluck about. I don't have to approve of their permitting such animals to be bred and used to recognize that a separate legal classification is needed if they're going to do it.

John

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:18 AM

They are classified as lifestock ... Kansas law classifies greyhounds as "livestock," they are not given the same protection from abuse normally accorded dogs, cats, and other companion animals. The only protection accorded Kansas greyhounds is federal legislation regulating the transportation and slaughter of farm animals, which is enforced – or notoriously unenforced – by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. ... still absurd, but that's my opinion.

Anyway ... what's the weather like there in Kansas?

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: MMario
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:35 AM

Kansas has an entire section of statutes specifically regarding the breeding, housing, transportation of racing greyhounds. No other breed of dogs has such legal protection in Kansas.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:06 AM

Interesting ... anymore specifics regarding this MMario.

I'm probably coming across as some sort of 'nut' regarding this. Reason is I'm involved in finding homes here in N.B. for rescued Greyhounds. As mentioned I have 2. Every hound we bring up for adoption are skin and bones, have ticks, poor teeth as result of their diet. The female hound I have, was brought up from what was indicated from the track as a broken leg, she had been in this condition for 2 weeks ... after taking her home and a visit to the vet it was found she had a ruptured tendon ... All in all I have an interest in these dogs, so bear with me if I'm digging for info.

All posts are appreaciated.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: MMario
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:20 AM

6 - I found the statutes in less then five minutes of googling. Despite rumour mongering etc to the contrary it appears that racing greyhounds (and non-racing greyhounds are covered under the pet rules) rather then having LESS protection then companion animals have MORE protection. Just as racing horses have more stringent protection then horses raised for casual riding or dressage.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:24 AM

Thanks MMario ...I get what your saying there, it makes sense ... I'm a lousy googler BTW.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: MMario
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:36 AM

aarrghhh! had a nice long response all fancied up with HTML and such - and lost it by clicking on a link in e-mail.

roughly - what appears to be happenning is that people are translating legalese (badly) into English, then taking offense on their (mistaken) beliefs of what the (badly translated) legalese says.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA
From: number 6
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:42 AM

I don't have a clue what you typed there ... but I know exactly what you mean!!

Thanks for the clarification (sincerely) ... it's all in the interpetation ... precise and to the point in English is what is required .. and what you provided in that previous poist.

sIx