I'm no "animal lover", although I certainly like animals... for eating! Haha, anyway, Governor Arnold is proposing to save money by allowing animal shelters to kill strays sooner than they can now. Current law requires shelters to keep an animal for at least six days, and the new law would ease that to three days.
Schwarzenegger has told the state Legislature that the changes could save local governments that operate shelters up to $14 million. ...And that's the key. The new law doesn't require animals to be killed after three days, it just allows the ones who won't be adopted to be killed. Many of these unadoptable animals are probably old, and have diseases or injuries.The waiting period has caused overcrowding and forced some shelters to kill off animals simply to make room for new ones, said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Department of Finance.
"Because of space limitations, the shelters are being forced to euthanize animals who are otherwise highly adoptable immediately after the holding time," Palmer said.
"There is no organized constituency of cats and dogs, but certainly the pet owners of America will find this reprehensible," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at California State University, Sacramento.Uh, what? Only crazy people prefer their pets to other humans. Pets are property. I like my car and my house, and some people like their dogs and cats. Fine. Rationally, they're the same exact thing."Cats and dogs are like mom and apple pie," she said. "Don't mess with the pets. Most people prefer them to other people."
What do these supposed "most people" want to happen? Do they want to maintain the status quo, where adoptable animals are killed to make room for others? Or would they prefer animal shelter budgets to be expanded by billions of dollars, and for all these stray animals to be raised by the government? Or what? I just don't see how this poposed change is worse than what we've got now, from any perspective. These same "most people" would probably object to feeding the disposed-of animals to the homeless!
Update:
Then again, I don't condone throwing kittens out of moving vehicles. (HT: Dean Esmay.)
Hey, I've eaten whale in Japan. It's a little chewy. It tastes like beef (it is a mammal after all).
First of all, if most of the disposed of animals are "old and have diseases and injuries," we probably SHOULDN'T be feeding them to the homeless (or anyone else, either).
Secondly, my mom prefers both of her cats to other people and although I am a little biased, she's not crazy. And she's far from the only person I've met who feels that way.
I don't know if you've ever owned a pet but their love is almost unconditional. The only condition my cats have is that I feed them. And my dogs - they would forgo their food to be petted and fawned over and told they are loved. Your car and your house will never love you or show appreciation that you're home or play with you when you're bored or lonely.
I disagree with potentially adoptable pets being put to death just to take in new strays but I think you and Arnie are WAY off base on this issue!
P: You don't think it's irrational for your mom to favor her pets over human beings? I expect she loves you more than her cats!
As for feeding the homeless, I have no idea why you'd be so cruel as to want them to starve. You're mean.
My car is exactly as capable of love as any dog or cat. It drives me around, rarely complains about anything, doesn't care where we go, and is always up for anything I want to do. It loves me unconditionally, as does my house. They both entertain me and help stave off boredom, but no, they can't relieve loneliness, because only humans can do that (unless you're crazy!).
If you disagree with me and Arnie, and think we're off base, what would you propose? Status quo, or some other change?
( :) )
Actually, at times, my mom does love her cats more. They don't argue with her over petty things or make her angry. And the feeling is reciprocal for me as well. When I am upset to the point that I'm crying, my cat climbing into my lap is much better (to me)than talking to a person. Sometimes you just can't talk and your pets don't expect you to.
If I'm mean, wait until all those homeless people you fed start suing you for making them sick from giving them bad meat!
As for the car and house bit, I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not. If you're not, can you explain how an inanimate object loves? When one of my cats rubs his face against my hand or face or one of my dogs *tries* to lick me in the face, it may not be love but it's definitely affection.
And call me crazy but my cats talk to me. I'm sure many other catowners would say the same. I ask my cats questions (Are you my baby? Are you hungry? Do you love me?) and they answer with meows. They may not understand a thing I'm saying but I like to pretend they're talking to me (okay, maybe the last sentence sounds a little crazy).
I think status quo would *probably* be better than what Schwarzenegger is currently proposing. I have no great answer to the question except that I get all of my pets spayed or neutered before they are ever capable of parenting even one litter. My cats were from a litter my sister's cat had. One of my dogs is from a shelter that will not let you adopt until they have had a chance to sterilize the dog. My other dog is a stray that we took in off the street one cold, rainy February night. Since owning them, I have had each one "fixed" (except for the one that already was fixed) as I have had done with all of my cats in the past. I know it would take hundreds of (animal) generations and very responsible pet owners to get the numbers down enough to control the pet population but it's a start.
There are probably other options, especially for mild tempered dogs, such as assistance programs. Some prisons now have prisoners training the dogs so it's very low cost all around.
P: You wrote, "When one of my cats rubs his face against my hand or face or one of my dogs *tries* to lick me in the face, it may not be love but it's definitely affection."
Is this different than if I were to program my computer to tell me over and over again how smart and handsome I am? Or, better still, designed a cuddly robot kitty cat that never pooped or needed to be cared for, but that would always "show me affection", if not love. I don't think animals are capable of human emotions. I think pet owners project their own feelings on their pets, and the pets are just acting in whatever way gets them the most food. (How is this different from how humans behave, though? Is it?)
A side note: it sounds like the animals that are most likable are also the ones least likely to breed (if they're bought and neutered). Strays that no one wants (that don't get caught and killed?) must breed like crazy, making even more undesirable animals.
My house was broken into in 2001 or 2002 - can't remember which year. The door to the walkout basement - glass - was completely shattered.
Once Brian and I ensured the house was secure, what was the next thought? I promise you it wasn't to check for various and sundry property - it was to find the animals.
We have 5. All were present and accounted for. I say this because the "living thing" versus computer or stereo or flour cannister, if you will, doesn't stand. It's not all just property. Take all of my computers if you must, but don't harm my cats. I won't grieve for anything material.
I know the governor's got it rough and that things must be cut. Hopefully, this will have a very positive outcome in that more people will send money to shelters and that still more will volunteer.
I may make fun of PETA, but don't mess with my kitties ;)
hln
hln: That's rational in some sense, since each cat is unique in a way that computers aren't, but still. Your emotional attachment doesn't, on its own, prove anything about cats and computers.