Animal Advocates Watchdog

The very definition of animal welfare is on trial

The very definition of animal welfare is on trial. Can killing healthy animals ever be logically or honestly called animal welfare? It can logically, without any verbal or mental gymnastics, be called animal disposal. But animal welfare? We don't think so and we are in very good company with the leading academics and thinkers in the world on this subject.

Of course there are a lot of so-called animal welfare agencies that claim that killing animals not sold within a limited period of time, is animal welfare, but those agencies are almost always paid to control and dispose of animals, so no matter how many of them there are all saying in chorus that killing equals compassion, it seems more likely to be a pet-disposal industry marketing slogan.

It is not unethical for a pound to kill excess pets - that is one of the two primary functions of pounds in societies which permit the over-production of pets - as our society does.

The other function of pounds is to protect humans from dangerous dogs and there is nothing unethical about pounds killing dangerous dogs in a society that permits dogs bred specifically to fight to the death to be bred, sold, and owned, and which permits the various forms of cruelty - chaining and social isolation - which can make any dog a danger to society - as our society does.

But both these things are highly immoral. As a society we have not forced our legislators to control the over-production of pets nor to force them to ban the social isolation of dogs. Our taxes pay for poundkeepers to kill excess animals and dangerous dogs instead of paying to control the roots of the killing.

The question that the PETA case raises is not is it legal to kill unwanted animals - it is. But is there a conflict of interest if the agency that does that gets millions of dollars in donations from people who do not know or do not understand that it is doing that, also gets millions of dollars in tax money to kill excess pets and dangerous dogs? PETA at least didn't get paid to do what it did.

Messages In This Thread

PETA workers on trial for cruelty
The "Angels of Death" argument
For those who are interested in the PETA trial, daily updates are given on a website
The website is hosted by the Center for Consumer Freedom
The other source I found today is the Roanake-Chowan News Herald
PETA Trial, Day 1: Jury Selection, and a Bombshell *LINK*
PETA Trial, Day 2: Jury selection: PETA lawyers reject "animal lover" *LINK*
PETA Trial, Day 3 : Bodies in bags *LINK* *PIC*
Lots of bodies in bags every week for years
PETA Trial, Day 4: Toby, Annie, and a Drug Bust in the Making *LINK*
PETA Trial, Day 5: Ray, along with her co-workers, operated under the impression that PETA would treat these healthy animals "ethically." *PIC*
PETA Trial, Day 6: The defense begins *LINK*
PETA Trial, Day 7: Why would a "shelter" need a freezer for the bodies of the "sheltered"? *LINK*
PETA Trial, Day 8: Surrendered dogs can be killed before the ink is dry (that is the law in BC too) *LINK*
PETA Trial, Day 9: The defense has rested *LINK*
Re: PETA Trial, Day 10: "Not guilty" but PETA hypocrisy revealed - argues that the animals IT kills have NO VALUE
PETA's Work in NC *LINK*
The very definition of animal welfare is on trial
Yes but....
This trial is not based on an infraction of an animal-ethics law
Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - Blaming the victims - impound workers take the moral high ground *LINK*
Sadly, it appears to me that PETA as a whole, has strongly immoral policies

Share