Vets groups duke it out on who's more...

Vets groups duke it out on who's more humane

There are 35 comments on the Newsday story from Jan 29, 2008, titled Vets groups duke it out on who's more humane. In it, Newsday reports that:

It's Godzilla versus Mothra. I'm talking about the recent head-butting between the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Humane Society of the United States.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Chris - Australia

Balwyn North, Australia

#1 Jan 30, 2008
How long will HSUS tolerate the scientific experiments of Ms Jean Dodds.

HSUS is not an Animal Welfare organisation and if AVAR think they have gained some respectability, then they will need to rethink their gains.

AVAR has sold out for the financial backing and they will soon come to realise that HSUS is buying the mainstream reputation
AntiSean Conner

United States

#3 Jan 30, 2008
Most readers who actively engage the news they consume should try to note the bias of the reporter. It is remarkable that this column notes that regulation of hobby breeders is "left of center" when there are so many thousand healthy dogs and cats being euthanized in shelters for lack of good homes. I hope all others take note of this.

To my knowledge, the HSUS and PETA both condone animal caregiving, even offering advice on their websites. Perhaps you should research this further before writing another article.
Pamela Bertsch

AOL

#4 Jan 30, 2008
I've been fighting against U.S. horse slaughter for about 5 years. I've always been horrified that the AVMA has taken the side of slaughtering our horses for human consumption. There has NEVER been a need to slaughter our horses here in the U.S. as they slaughter only 1% and those horses can easily be re-absorbed into our huge horse population now in 2008.

Back in 2004 the U.S. Senate designated December 13, 2004 as The National Day of the Horse, encouraging the people of the United States to be mindful of the contribution of horses to the economy, history and character of the United States.(Sen. RES. 452 - 108th Congress)

I for one am a proud American and I say shame on the AVMA!!!

I totally agree with Wayne Pacelle of HSUS regarding minimal rights for animals! I too believe that animals should at least have the right to turn around and spread their wings. He is a compassionate man and I say bravo Mr. Pacelle!!!
Tracy

United States

#5 Jan 30, 2008
Given the obvious bias in this column, I think it's apparent whose side the columnist has taken.

I, on the other hand, will side with the group that cares for ALL animals.
Pamela Bertsch

AOL

#6 Jan 30, 2008
I must say I agree with Mr. Wayne Pacelle of The HSUS. I believe animals should have at least 'minimal rights' to spread their wings and turn around. It's so pathetic to think of a calf taken from its mother right after birth and trucked to a barn, only to be chained to a wall for 4 months. What kind of monsters do this? They should at least give that innocent victim some space to turn around instead of confining it so it can't even move. That's inhumane and the AVMA is all for this?

When I see laying hens crammed into cages so tight that they cannot spread their wings and pigs jammed into gestation crates I just want to scream! All God's creatures deserve the right to live without suffering during their time on earth.

I am an animal 'welfare' activist, not a 'rights' activist. That means I am against confinement and suffering of animals while they're alive. We should at least give them that much respect. I think it's wonderful that The HSUS is merging with the AVAR! Go get em!!!

“Spay and neuter your pet”

Since: Jul 07

Burnt Hills

#7 Jan 30, 2008
Suzanne wrote:
I'll go for the AVMA group whose tradition has proven to have the best interest of both animals and human health at heart. HSUS, for all its window dressing, is really a radical animal rights organization. Look at what their money and power have been able to do in recent legisation. When they are finished with the horse issue, we won't be able to ride horses. With their success re. the horse slaughter issue,(which is hurting horses more than helping), they are now gearing up for the transportation of horses -- which will ultimately affect those of us who like to transport our horses to trail rides, etc.
Yes look at all the laws that benefit the animals that HSUS has helped enact. Would you rather not have a law against animal cruelty? As for the horses, have you ever been to a horse slaughter house and seen the hell they are going through before they are killed? It's not pretty. They are hung by their hind legs and hoisted in the air and their necks are slit to drain the blood and all the while they are writhing in pain and crying. And you believe this atrocious act should continue. Where is your compassion? As for the transport of horses, I think the HSUS goal is to enact laws to make the transport of horses a safe one. That people comply with certain criteria when moving these animals from one place to another. We've had accidents in our area involving horse trailers that were over packed and many animals died because of someone's greed and ignorance. Your comment suggest that you are more concerned about having the right to move your horses than you are about the safety of all horses. There's no reason why we can't have both. Remember that the people who help enact laws for the animals have alot of compassion and the animals well being is first and foremost in their minds. It's not about them, nor is it about you, it's about the horses and other animals!
anjee

Ferriday, LA

#8 Jan 30, 2008
Foie gras has been described as "decadent." That term also applies to AVMA: DECADENT. I am thrilled that veterinarians and their assistants have the opportunity to join a better group: HSVMA, HUMANE SOCIETY VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.
Wendy

Fort Collins, CO

#9 Jan 30, 2008
Being very familiar with both the AVMA and the HSUS, I think the "right" answer generally lies somewhere between their two viewpoints. Given that, I found this article refreshingly unbiased. Given that, I found the comments about bias to be very interesting, especially since they all came from supporters of HSUS. How can you accuse a reporter of bias when she says she hasn't yet made up her mind? That could only happen when, as Ron DeHaven pointed out, you're only willing to listen to those who agree with you.
IceClass

Iqaluit, Canada

#10 Jan 30, 2008
Horse meat is good and healthy. Foie gras is not cruel. I worked in France at a goose farm and the geese come back themselves.

HSUS and PETA is all about making MONEY for top executives and they use prejudice and demonization to do it.
It's always about appealing to our huiman nature of being suspicious of "them over there".

Animal rights isn't a movement it's just another product.

Ethics are dime a dozen and noone agrees on a universal set.
Think sustainable for the future.
Not demonization for cash.
Remember Julius Streicher!
Janipurr

Oakland, CA

#11 Jan 30, 2008
HSUS and PeTA have absolutely NO INTEREST in the welfare of animals--they simply want to advance a repugnant political agenda that ends all animal use and ownership, period. Do not be deceived! The man who started their "movement" does not even LIKE animals!

I am veterinary nurse of over 20 years, and I absolutely despise HSUS and PeTA. I am not naive enough to believe their lies. I actively oppose them whenever possible. You are especially ignorant if you believe the lie that small hobby breeders contribute to the shelter population. California is trying to pass a law making it illegal for anyone to breed dogs or cats, and I bet that every puppymill in the country is eagerly awaiting it's passage. People aren't going to turn to shelters for pets simply because the local breeder is out of business--because the shelters make it as hard as possible to get a pet from them, and then blame it on the public! Already, there are 10,000 puppies a year being smuggled over the Mexican border to supply the demand in LA--that will triple or quadruple with the passage of such a breeding ban.

If you want to know what Animal ADVOCACY is about, as opposed to Animal hatred (like HSUS), go to:
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/
Barb T

Fairfield, CT

#12 Jan 30, 2008
I believe all animals have the right to live without pain, with shelter, food and clean water and exercise.

I DO NOT believe animal "rights" should be of greater importance than the rights of humans to own, breed and keep animals. Ending animal use also would end animal ownership, animals who help the sight and hearing impaired and animal assistance.

I DO NOT want to be forced to live without my animals, the breed I choose, NOT the shelter animal someone else has discarded. I DO NOT want to be unable to eat meat. I want to make the decisions regarding the care and safety of my animals and not have it dictated by legislation being promoted by fanatics who are backed by the deep pockets of PETA and HSUS.
Linda H

Greensboro, NC

#13 Jan 30, 2008
Tracy wrote:
I, on the other hand, will side with the group that cares for ALL animals.
Can I assume this includes the welfare of human beings? Which are, after all, animals too.
Eric

Boston, MA

#14 Jan 30, 2008
This really says it all: "it would be pretty counterproductive if we were working toward eliminating pet ownership"

Talk about a conflict of interest. Makes it hard to do the right thing by animals if you see them as your lifeblood, doesn't it? This is exactly why nonhuman animals must be released from their bonds as property. As long as they are considered such, their interests will always be subjugated to those of property owners.

Anyway, thanks for helping to spread the word about how animals are treated as commodities, instead of sentient beings. It is an important part of the struggle toward rights for all feeling animals.
Tricia

South Yarmouth, MA

#15 Jan 30, 2008
I have to laugh at the justifications these animal users come up with.
All of them claim to be opposed to animal cruelty, yet they want to eat their meat. The way meat is produced today, you can have one or the other but not both.
The article was biased in that it emphasized pet guardianship issues (which HSUS accepts). The worst animal cruelty occurs in institutional/commercial settings. The AVMA supports virtually every practice animal use industries come up with from sow gestation crates, battery caging of chickens, forced molting of chickens to animal experimentation, some of which is truly gruesome, and much of which is unnecessary. AVMA may have its rationales, but it does not represent the interests of animals.

“Spay and neuter your pet”

Since: Jul 07

Burnt Hills

#16 Jan 31, 2008
Barb T wrote:
I believe all animals have the right to live without pain, with shelter, food and clean water and exercise.
I DO NOT believe animal "rights" should be of greater importance than the rights of humans to own, breed and keep animals. Ending animal use also would end animal ownership, animals who help the sight and hearing impaired and animal assistance.
I DO NOT want to be forced to live without my animals, the breed I choose, NOT the shelter animal someone else has discarded. I DO NOT want to be unable to eat meat. I want to make the decisions regarding the care and safety of my animals and not have it dictated by legislation being promoted by fanatics who are backed by the deep pockets of PETA and HSUS.
You believe that all animals have the right to live without pain and have food, water, shelter and exercise, but according to your other comment not a right to live. You state that you don't want a shelter animal cause it's been disgarded by someone else. If everyone thought like you ALL those animals would die. You and millions of others want the right to breed or buy a purebred. Fact is 25% of shelter dogs are purebreds. Millions of others have and will only adopt from shelter cause they believe someone else's trash is someone else's treasure and I Thank God for everyone of those compassionate people. I myself do rescue and I can tell you that I have even adopted some from the shelter and I have been blessed more than if I bought a purebred. Maybe if you had to assist in holding hundreds of animals in your arms (especially in the summer) every week while they are given the injection to end their life you might have a change of heart. And if you didn't then I'd have to say you don't have one.

“Spay and neuter your pet”

Since: Jul 07

Burnt Hills

#17 Jan 31, 2008
Eric wrote:
This really says it all: "it would be pretty counterproductive if we were working toward eliminating pet ownership"
Talk about a conflict of interest. Makes it hard to do the right thing by animals if you see them as your lifeblood, doesn't it? This is exactly why nonhuman animals must be released from their bonds as property. As long as they are considered such, their interests will always be subjugated to those of property owners.
Anyway, thanks for helping to spread the word about how animals are treated as commodities, instead of sentient beings. It is an important part of the struggle toward rights for all feeling animals.
Bravo!!!
Reuben

West Hartford, CT

#20 Jan 31, 2008
Ron DeHaven came to the AVMA straight from the USDA, where he spent a great deal of time ignoring the needs of the animals whose welfare he was charged with overseeing. He continues here his excellent work of choosing rhetoric over animal welfare.

And AVMA supporterd - why don't you try to come up with a new argument - perhaps one that DOESN"T come from the anti-animal group Center for Consumer Freedom. All this hysteria and cries of "do not be deceived" are really just smokescreens to cover the fact that you are endorsing animal exploitation and abuse so that you can continue to breed more animals to end up homeless and starving.
James

Washington, DC

#21 Jan 31, 2008
PETA and its subsidiaries, HSUS, AVAR, etc, have radical agendas and lose credibility with their exagerated rhetoric. The majority of all Americans willing support the prevention of animal cruelty. That is a responsibility of an advanced society, not a "right" of some animal. We live in a free society, not a PETA dictatorship. Animals should be treated well, not given PETA generated rights that ignore human rights in a free society.
elk hunter

Richland, WA

#22 Jan 31, 2008
Man is a predator that is why his etes are in the front of his head. Predators eat meat which comes from other animals.Watch and see what a crocodille or a large cat does to another animal when it takes one for food. Is that cruel and inhamane no it is called natures way to survive only when man does it is it called cruel and inhumane. Whats the difference ? I see none its a matter of survival.PETA and HSUS are radical nuts and need to be woke up.
Anonymous

United States

#23 Jan 31, 2008
Pamela Bertsch wrote:
I've been fighting against U.S. horse slaughter for about 5 years. I've always been horrified that the AVMA has taken the side of slaughtering our horses for human consumption. There has NEVER been a need to slaughter our horses here in the U.S. as they slaughter only 1% and those horses can easily be re-absorbed into our huge horse population now in 2008.
Back in 2004 the U.S. Senate designated December 13, 2004 as The National Day of the Horse, encouraging the people of the United States to be mindful of the contribution of horses to the economy, history and character of the United States.(Sen. RES. 452 - 108th Congress)
I for one am a proud American and I say shame on the AVMA!!!
I totally agree with Wayne Pacelle of HSUS regarding minimal rights for animals! I too believe that animals should at least have the right to turn around and spread their wings. He is a compassionate man and I say bravo Mr. Pacelle!!!
Pamela get out your checkbook. Due to drought, increased hay prices and the lack of market prices we have horses dying of neglect. Put your money where your ignorant mouth is and send funds to the SE U.S and Kentucky to pay for desperately needed hay to feed all those extra mouths!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Foie Gras Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 3-star chef Benoit Violier found dead in appare... (Feb '16) Feb '16 Lovereal SGVN 1
News Outside France, foodies are gorging themselves ... (Mar '15) Mar '15 common sense 29
News Maite Kropp: Is satisfying your taste buds wort... (Jan '15) Jan '15 Jerry 4
Lancement d'une nouvelle gamme de foie gras/que... (Oct '14) Oct '14 MarketingEtudes 1
News Responding to complaints from animal rights act... (Sep '11) Dec '13 T Ly 3
News Wire: Chez Simo Bistro Open in Ravenswood; Bon ... (Jun '13) Jun '13 Steve 2
News dining review casimir bistro boca raton (Oct '08) Mar '13 Jeanine from Boca 11
More from around the web