Printable View
*UPDATE*
This article just added to the State Journal online:
Ingham amends animal research sale rules
~~~~~~
There is a poll online for MSU's campus paper..
The State News
in response to a story they ran yesterday:
Meeting discusses Shelter policies
And an opinon column:
Pets in peril
The Lansing State Journal:
Animal lovers protest sales to researchers
What *IS* or can the Shelter / Pound / Animal Control *do*... ??
They're OUT of space...
They're OUT of money...
There's MORE critters waiting to get in...
The New Arrivals greatly exceed the Successful Adoptions...
WHAT are they supposed to do with the sick, the lame, the old,
the fear biters, the just plain *nasty* ones...
... all those critters who come IN and folks just *won't* adopt... ??
I cannot let myself say that I agree with or condone this practice...
But the writers of this piece raise a valid and thoughtful point...
"... And if you think it's terrible to see a puppy or kitten sent off for research,
remember this:
It's better that an animal be used for testing and die for a cause
instead of dying in a shelter serving no better purpose for society."
from "Pets in peril" - MSU's STATE NEWS
*please* ~ SAVE Lives ~ Spay & Neuter!
/s/ Phred
Pound Seizure is immoral & even downright cruel for many
reasons.The Humane Society Of the United States opposes it
as do many other organizations who are trying to get this practice
banned in all states in the U. S.
Quote:
Rationale Flawed
Pound seizure proponents rationalize that animals in the shelter are going to die anyway. After all, the argument goes, the animals were lost or abandoned as unwanted pets. Why not use them for research? Many humane organizations reject this argument, insisting that animals have a right to a safe and happy existence. Furthermore, the animals chosen for the laboratory are the ones most likely to be adopted - young, one to three years of age, healthy, friendly, and of medium size. Those who are rejected by researchers are the animals least likely to find adoptive homes.
Interestingly, the National Institutes of Health, the largest funded of biomedical research in this country, stopped using shelter animals in its own in-house research several years ago because they consider such animals unsuitable research subjects. Shelter animals are not fully known by the researcher as are purpose-bred animals. Nothing is known about the shelter animals' origins, health conditions, or age, and typically the animals lack conditioning for research. Further, it is more expensive to buy, treat, and condition shelter animals than it is to purchase animals purposely bred for research. (end quote)
Please check out just these two links for other views of this
uselessly cruel practice.
http://www.savetheshelterpets.com/pg04_psz.asp
http://www.hsus.org/ace/11431
I strongly disagree with this writer. When animals are put to sleep in a shelter they die in a very humane way, they go quick and peacefully. And while they may not live the happiest lives in the shelter they are much happier than they will be at a testing site. Some of the things that go on in animals testing are just cruel. If I were an animal and had a choice I would rather have a peaceful death then a fearful life of being poked and proded and having painfull tests done to me.Quote:
It's better that an animal be used for testing and die for a cause
Sorry to add a second post, but people also seem to think that in order to make medical advances we need to test on animals. But that is false. John Hopkins provides alternatives to animal testing, there are better ways to do this.
http://caat.jhsph.edu/
Uabassoon,
I too strongly disagree with the writer's statement, and for
the same reasons that you gave. Please read what some others
have to say on this subject;
http://www.fpage.com/dsmith/mn_shame.htm
Quote:
"...if one person is unkind to an animal, it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people."
Ruth Harrison
I am strongly against testing on animals. We might share DNA, but human body systems are different and have different reactions to different things than animals do. I guess if they have to test something then it should be on humans. I know a lot of people have programs that pay people to test their stuff. I refuse to de-value any living thing's life. Ingham County Shelter has been awful from the get go as far as I can tell. I have written letter after letter and no one bothers to respond and the abuses just seem to continue. I did the poll that they had and 49% said it was ok to sell these animals to research. AACCKKK I hate stupid people.
This is a really sticky situation. No, I don't think that animals of any kind or any orgin should be used to test cosmetics or any such thing. Medical research is a little different. I'm not saying that it's ok. I just wonder if my child were dying of cancer if I might feel differently about it. What really bothers me is when people who smoke claim to be against animal testing. Those are the people who are funding it.
I just hope that everyone will be using alternatives to animal testing soon.
Discussion of the cruel practice of Pound Seizure eventually
gets around to someone saying "if my child, parent,etc., were
suffering from cancer & dog or cat could help find a cure,etc"
(Not you cheshirekatt, I'm speaking in a general way)
The truth of it is animal research has not yet given people one tiny benefit in the form of any cure or prevention of a human disease. Not one!! Please take two minutes to read any of these
few links to see what scientists say for themselves.I truely
believe allowing pound seizure to exist in the U.S.(It's already
banned in many other countries) is the ultimate betrayal of
trust between humans & animals.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/P.../testimon.html
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/P.../question.html
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/P...papsindex.html
IMO, the above is the same as murder for hire!Quote:
Last year the county animal shelter sold 47 dogs and cats for research
My sentiments exactly!Quote:
When animals are put to sleep in a shelter they die in a very humane way, they go quick and peacefully. And while they may not live the happiest lives in the shelter they are much happier than they will be at a testing site. Some of the things that go on in animals testing are just cruel
Suggestion: Why not use prisoners on death row for testing instead of animals??? Afterall, they're gonna die anyway and it would save the government and states BUNDLES of money in shelter, food, and medical expenses.
Moosmom,
I personally believe your suggestion is a good one, but some
human rights group would surely step up and call the idea
"inhumane treatment". I believe (not 100% sure) that there
are prisoners who can volunteer for expermental testing & some
do. But it volunteer only. Pound Seizure is "inhumane treatment"
also. Webster's defines the word this way,
One entry found for humane.
Main Entry: hu·mane
Pronunciation: hyü-'mAn, yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain
Date: circa 1500
1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals
2 : characterized by or tending to broad humanistic culture : HUMANISTIC <humane studies>
- hu·mane·ly adverb
- hu·mane·ness /-'mAn-n&s/ noun
Humane treatment should not to be reserved for humans only...
Lizbud,
Right on!!!
The sad part about the human rights groups feeling differently, is they seem to put more importance on the lives of despicable low lifes who have killed innocent people rather than innocent animals that can't speak for themselves. :(
Human rights groups have a place in society, but you're right
that the animals need to have pet lovers speak for their right to humane treatment. They need us to speak for them. The groups
like People Against Pound Seizure, & others were formed. This
is another group with the same goal, to give people the facts
about this explotation of innocent animals.
http://www.stoptakingourpets.org/about.htm
We should remember in our dealings with animals that they are a sacred trust to us from our heavenly Father. They are dumb and cannot speak for themselves.
--Harriet Beecher Stowe
One day the world will look upon research upon animals as it now looks upon research on human beings.
--Leonardo Da Vinci
I feel I've wandered onto the wrong side of the fence in this discussion :(.
I do NOT condone or approve of dogs, cats, or other critters being used as lab subjects. But I believe that practice will continue. We all need to work to try to minimize the number of animals used for these purposes.
I'd love to see an Experimental Animal Tax ~
Want to use a live animal subject in a test/experiment/trial? OK - but you PAY a nice Fat Tax to your State (for each animal used). And that Tax money should ONLY be used for animal welfare issues. Such a program *might* reduce the number of animals used in these experiments.
Dr. Neal D. Barnard, M.D., in this "Tetimony on the Use of Shelter Animals", makes some very compelling arguments - which I agree with. But the good Doctor fails to mention that all shelters & pounds are NOT humane; and all euthanasia is NOT done in a gentle, compassionate, and humane way.
And I had forgotten an important thought...
not all shelter & pound animals are homeless, never-loved street strays - some are (or were) a once-loved family pet :(. But that is a thought I find very difficult to accept and remember...
The thought that did run through my mind earlier is that we're talking about God's Creatures...
and I cannot believe that He can fathom our justification for euthanizing an unwanted shelter animal, and at the same instant - create, through a lab animal breeder, ANOTHER animal to be used for research purposes. In my mind, we're using TWO of God's Creatures, when only one is already one too many.
WHAT's Wrong with us humans?
Please ~ SAVE Lives ~ Spay & Neuter!
/s/ Phred
Cinder and Smoke,
I don't believe you're" on the wrong side of the fence". This
subject is rarely discussed & the practice is not widely publicized.
Most people don't know this goes on, but it does. When I read
this section of the article on pound seizure here;
http://www.stoptakingourpets.org/about.htm
" In a perfect world there would be no need for animal shelters so there would be no pound release. However the world is not perfect. For one reason or another people find they can no longer keep or care for their family pets. They take them to the animal shelter hoping they will find a new home. Or, pets somehow become lost. They and their families depend upon the kindness of others who may find these animals to take them to the shelter so they can be reunited. Or the shelter confiscates animals who are victims of cruelty and abuse. For these poor creatures the animal shelter may represent the first decent meal and first roof over their heads they have ever known. And for these abused pets - who have known only fear, pain and suffering for their entire lives; and for the pets given up by their families thru no fault of their own; and for the strays whose owners may not know where to look for them - what do we offer them? A chance at a new home and a new life? A humane and speedy ending if no new home is found? Or a terrifying trip to the B dealer as they await an even worse fate at the hands of who knows what kind of research or industrial product testing. "
and then look my own
pup sleeping at my feet, I pray he is never in that situation.
Spay & Neuter clinics properly funded by cities & towns
would actually save taxpayer money & animal lives.I think we
could all agree on that.