Two steps forward and three steps back
Every night while I am cruising the internet trying to find stories of interest for you to read, I come across another one on new legislation in one state or another. Many times this is just what it seems: a story on a bill some legislator is trying to get through committee to actually make it to a vote but then the bill dies in committee and isn't heard about until next year, when it is refiled again.
All states are the same and the bills seem to carry the same words. When I came across the story here out of Pennsylvania, I found it interesting. Interesting because Pennsylvania is widely known as a puppy mill state, which means the numbers of puppy mills is astronomical and the offspring from these mills are populating many of the petshops in the south and then re-populating the shelters when their owners get tired of them or the medical bills associated with them.
This story had to do with a bill to ban the use of carbon monoxide poisoning for killing shelter dogs. It then went on to talk about how many rural shelters use gas this way because they don't have access to a veterinarian. It talks about the reason it may fail and what they can do about it.
The reason they suspect the bill may fail is because the language allows for the use of guns against dangerous, sick or ill dogs. Pennsylvania apparently had a problem with dogs getting shot.
I am like the advocates in the story. Which is the lesser of two evils? Who makes those decisions?
Being in the south, as much as we like to talk about how humane we are in the ritzy areas, we still have the same problems Pennsylvania has.
We have puppy mills and gas chambers. Some counties in Florida still use gas and you are still allowed to use a gun to kill an animal if it belongs to you.
I have been around all of these things, much to my dismay, and have continued to hope we can become more progressive in animal welfare.
So imagine this: you are at a ranch way up in the Rocky Mountains. The road down the mountain is 22 miles long before you even get to the nearest town and when you do arrive, there is only one vet for the whole area and he does house calls. So he may be in and he may not.
A dog gets dumped up in the mountains and wanders onto the ranch property. The dog is sick with what is probably distemper and is obviously in distress. In this case, the ranch owner took the dog away from the other animals and killed it with a gun and then buried it. Would it have been more humane to drive it all the way into town to try and find the one vet who was probably out on a call to another one of the ranches? I had many friends tell me the ranch owner should have tried. I felt like the ranch owner did the most humane thing possible. I knew the dog was suffering.
Once again, the problem lies with whether animals are property or not. As property, you have the right to control their destiny. Many laws, thank God, prevent intentional cruelty and neglect, but as long as you are not intentionally being cruel or neglecting your animals, you can do pretty much what you want. (don't shoot me, I am just the messenger)
So in this day and age although we have taken two steps forward, it seems in a lot of ways, we went three steps back. So the fight continues.
All states are the same and the bills seem to carry the same words. When I came across the story here out of Pennsylvania, I found it interesting. Interesting because Pennsylvania is widely known as a puppy mill state, which means the numbers of puppy mills is astronomical and the offspring from these mills are populating many of the petshops in the south and then re-populating the shelters when their owners get tired of them or the medical bills associated with them.
This story had to do with a bill to ban the use of carbon monoxide poisoning for killing shelter dogs. It then went on to talk about how many rural shelters use gas this way because they don't have access to a veterinarian. It talks about the reason it may fail and what they can do about it.
The reason they suspect the bill may fail is because the language allows for the use of guns against dangerous, sick or ill dogs. Pennsylvania apparently had a problem with dogs getting shot.
I am like the advocates in the story. Which is the lesser of two evils? Who makes those decisions?
Being in the south, as much as we like to talk about how humane we are in the ritzy areas, we still have the same problems Pennsylvania has.
We have puppy mills and gas chambers. Some counties in Florida still use gas and you are still allowed to use a gun to kill an animal if it belongs to you.
I have been around all of these things, much to my dismay, and have continued to hope we can become more progressive in animal welfare.
So imagine this: you are at a ranch way up in the Rocky Mountains. The road down the mountain is 22 miles long before you even get to the nearest town and when you do arrive, there is only one vet for the whole area and he does house calls. So he may be in and he may not.
A dog gets dumped up in the mountains and wanders onto the ranch property. The dog is sick with what is probably distemper and is obviously in distress. In this case, the ranch owner took the dog away from the other animals and killed it with a gun and then buried it. Would it have been more humane to drive it all the way into town to try and find the one vet who was probably out on a call to another one of the ranches? I had many friends tell me the ranch owner should have tried. I felt like the ranch owner did the most humane thing possible. I knew the dog was suffering.
Once again, the problem lies with whether animals are property or not. As property, you have the right to control their destiny. Many laws, thank God, prevent intentional cruelty and neglect, but as long as you are not intentionally being cruel or neglecting your animals, you can do pretty much what you want. (don't shoot me, I am just the messenger)
So in this day and age although we have taken two steps forward, it seems in a lot of ways, we went three steps back. So the fight continues.
Comments