|Question||What can be done about animal cruelty on municipal pounds? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaEW6rpzV-E|
– BorgClown, 2010-03-14 at 22:13:43 (5 comments)
|On 2010-03-14 at 22:18:53, BorgClown wrote...
It's true that the methods used are too much cruel, mostly to save costs. I picture the local "bright" dude thinking: "Why do we sedate dogs that we are going to kill anyway? It'll save a lot of money not doing it" OTOH, why the hell are there so much animals waiting to be killed? Weren't most of them someone's pet? If there were less animals to be killed, anesthetizing all of them would be easier, economically speaking.
|On 2010-03-15 at 20:25:06, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Animals have no rights and few protections generally. Punishments for animal cruelty are usually fairly minor except in extreme cases. There's little doubt in my mind that most people simply don't apply much morality to animals at all. It sounds as though you're suggesting that the government should limit the reproduction of pets to reduce the number that need to be killed. For that to happen people would have to actually care. They don't. Pets are an almost invisible part of our society (yes, I know, there's no such thing as a society) and people care about their existence only if they make the news headlines. Is your use of the word "bright" a reference to the Brights movement? I don't suppose it is, but I do hate any suggestion that Brights cannot empathise with animals (or other humans) just because there's no spirituality involved. That's utter nonsense.
|On 2010-03-21 at 05:49:02, BorgClown wrote...
Oh no, I just used the word "bright" instead of clever/smart. About having less animals to be disposed of, the government certainly could help, but not by imposing a hardly enforceable limit on pet reproduction. It could run a media campaign advocating pet neutering and contrasting it with the current suffering of unwanted pets.
|On 2010-03-21 at 19:00:30, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Ah, good plan - more neutering would be a good idea, and the media campaign would be a good way about it. But maybe there are barriers to getting it done and removing one or more of them would have a big impact too?
|On 2010-03-22 at 03:25:16, BorgClown wrote...
Sure there would be barriers, indolent or irrational people for example, or monetary concerns, if the neutering is more expensive than just dumping the critters when they're born. It's something I'd like to be tried and tested, it would be awful to just have a law about it. Politicians these days have become too lazy and just make laws instead of real work (consider the Internet censorship of Australia, or the global ACTA). Even here the gay marriage law was badly elaborated: Don't make a new law on top of the ones we already have, just remove the gender limitation of the current laws to make it more generic.