Yikes, Indygrrl, that sucks. Tying a pit bull to a tire is a way to train them to be fighting dogs: even as it twists their spine and causes all sorts of back injuries, it strengthens their shoulders. Given what you described, I’d suspect those fools of raising fighting dogs.
Animal control may very well not see the dog tied up: they probably only do one drive-by, and if the dog is somewhere else at that moment, they’re not going to stake out the property. If you can, take a photograph. This can provide AC the evidence that you’re telling the truth, that you’re not just another cranky neighbor trying to use AC as a pawn in a neighborhood dispute.
Ah, Sammies!! The most wonderful of all dogs. If I hadn’t married a Southerner who can’t take the cold, I’d move north just so I could have a Sammy or two. They’re great company on a cross-country skiing trip. Snow is their playground.
I’ve got no advice to give on the specifics of how to tell PETA to buzz off, Shagnasty. But do give your big fluffy white dog a hug for me.
Yeah, I know . . . I’m sorry. I was just saying that while I disagreed with what happened in the OP, I do support some of PETA’s efforts. Some of their campaings are off-the-wall, but some of the things they do are reasonable and worth working for. I’m sorry I made you angry.
Yes, I’d call them and tell them:
" If I ever catch one or more of your loonies on my property , I’ll be defending whats mine within the boundries of the law "
Then calmly say : " Dont…fuck…with…me…please,Have a nice day!"
mebbe they’ll think Mr Shagnasty is a lunatic , and mebbe we should just leave him be…
How is it you keep missing the fact that PETA brochures are freely available to the public, and that this probably wasn’t a representative of PETA, but rather some neighborhood loony, who distributed it? Do you expect them to send out a special newsletter to all their fans saying, “IMPORTANT: STAY AWAY FROM SHAGNASTY’S HOUSE”?
Looking around on their Web site, the closest thing I can find to such a campaign is this article. It recommends that activists who see animals in insufficient outdoor conditions offer to build a doghouse for folks whose dogs have insufficient shelter.
I think this is fine advice, well within the charitable tradition. If a local loony can’t distinguish between the shelter you offer your dog and the pictures on this Web site, I don’t see that this is PETA’s fault.
Given that we just had a dog freeze to death in our county because some moron refused to let him off his chain, I wish we had more such activists in our area.
No offense, and sorry to mention this after you spent the $600, but if a dog house is meant to keep the animal warm on nights too cold even for a Samoyed, bigger is not necessarily better.
You want a house that is big enough for him to turn around in, and lie down, but small enough that his body heat will warm the space (as well as a wind break, obviously). I am assuming the house is up off the ground to insulate the floor from the cold ground.
Again, no offense, and it sounds like your dog has a great life. A big dog on a big property romping around in the snow with its master is probably one of the happiest creatures in existence.
I lost patience with PETA when a co-worker who belonged to that organization insisted that the use of the term “pet” was species-ist. The correct term was “non-human companion”.
The fact that someone expresses an opinion does not establish that it is worth listening to. Feel free to apply this to whatever junk mail PETA dumps on you.
My WAG is that they are mainly tightknit small groups(cells) of loony people for any givin area (loonies tend to stick together), so regardless if they are “official” reps or not,warning one may send a message…
So yes, I would consider calling and telling them fuck off just good practice…
The house is really meant more to keep him out of the rain keep him cool in the summer than to warm him up in the winter. It doesn’t really get too cold for Samoyeds in this part of Massachusetts. It really gets below 20 degrees F even at night in Januray. This is well above temperatures that they were developed for. He does have a bed inside and some hay but I didn’t go overboard trying to make it warmer than necessary. Samoyeds are arctic dogs through and through. I built it larger than necessary because I thought that we may adopt another dog sometime and he seems to really like all the room to stretch and turn around.
Actually, Daniel, the day I parted ways completely with PETA and stopped defending them and their positions (yep, I’m one of those “radical” tofu eating, animal rights freaks), was when I determined that PETA advocates and endorses Breed Specific Legislation.
In case you’re not familar with BSL, these are laws that are enacted in counties, towns and jurisdictions which ban the ownership of dogs that have been determined to be “dangerous”. Consequently, such legislation enforced in these counties, towns and jurisdictions also means that dogs such a pit bulls, rotties, etc cannot be adopted from animal shelters. From this, you can assertain what happens to the animals which are brought into those shelters - they are euthanized. And, typically, if you are found in possession of one of these dog breeds, your pet is seized and destroyed.
As you can imagine, as the owner of a wonderful and loving pit bull terrier, I’m very strongly against BSL - especially because I feel that BSL only punishes responsible pet owners and their pets and does nothing to stop those who would choose to fight or breed vicious animals.
Here is a cite from PETA’s website:
"Certain dogs bred originally for fighting, like the “pit bull” breeds, can have additional problems. Pit bull terriers were originally bred to fight chained bulls and bears. Today, they are frequently used by drug dealers to guard drugs and money, and in inner-city fighting rings where they often die very violent deaths.
Few good homes are open to dogs perceived as overly aggressive. Breed-specific legislation (with a “grandfather clause” for those dogs already in existence) can be an important tool in ending the tragic exploitation of these breeds."
As is typical for PETA, they give a very simplistic solution to a very complex problem.
Trishdish, I agree with you that PETA’s position on breed-specific legislation sucks. BSL is usually so ambiguous as to be unconstitutional (since “breed” is a social construct, not a scientific term) and doesn’t usually solve the problem – there are so many nasty breeds out there that banning them all is impractical, and some of the worst bites come from some of the least-notorious animals.
However, you’ll note a couple of things:
They call for a grandfather clause in BSL, so that animals aren’t all taken to the shelter
Shelters already euthanize 5 million or so animals every year due to overpopulation; many, many of those animals are healthy, friendly, adoptable animals. It’s the tragedy of our work. WHile it might seem unfair to euthanize pit bulls solely because of their breed, ultimately it’s unfair to euthanize any animal that’s adoptable.
I don’t think it’s fair to conclude that a call for general BSL (with a grandfather clause) is equivalent to a call for euthanizing animals of a specific breed. Some BSL’s require owners to muzzle their animals when in public, for example; while such legislation is also unfair to responsible owners of (for example) Pit Bulls, it’s not calling for the destruction of pit-bulls.
Well, Daniel, I’d have to disagree with you on the idea that there are “nasty breeds” out there. Instead, I would say there are a lot of nasty owners who use their animals for nefarious purposes.
I don’t think a “grandfather clause” solves the problem as PETA seems to think it will. Ultimately, a grandfather clause will only protect those who had the breeds before the legislation was enacted, after that, it will offer no protection.
And, yes, I agree with with you that there are many loving, friendly, adopted animals in shelters that are unfortunately put to death every day. What BSL can encourage, though, is that regardless of his temperment or adoptability of a certain dog, he will immediately be put down only because of the breed of dog that he is. There will be no opportunity for adoption whatsoever.
So, yes, by advocating the usage of BSL, ultimately, PETA is advocating the euthanasia of certain breeds. Just as there are some places where BSL means muzzling, there are other places, such as Prince Georges County in Maryland, were BSL means death.
I just find it unbelievable that a group that calls itself an “animal rights organization” would advocate and endorse breed specific legislation. Breed Specific Legislation is opposed by other animal organizations like the Humane Society of the US.
But, I’ll stop now because I’m hijacking a thread that wasn’t about BSL to begin with. But, it probably does shed some light onto precisely why even those of us who consider ourselves sympathic to the plight of animals do not support PETA.
I apologize; this was shorthand on my part for “breeds that folks who advocate BSL would, if they knew about them, want to ban.” I did not make it clear that I don’t believe specific breeds are ever nasty (although certainly some bloodlines are born nasty; I’m happy to post my experience with a bunch of dogfighter’s pit bull puppies if you need me to).
While I still don’t think it’s fair to say that PETA is calling for the euthanasia of certain breeds, I agree with you that some BSL will cause a disproportionate number of euthanasias among certain breeds; given that PETA seems to advocate BSL in some cases, you can draw a very tenuous connection between PETA and such disproportionate euthanasia.
I disagree with them in this case because I think BSL doesn’t solve the problems it tries to solve and distracts people from much better solutions to the problem of dangerous dogs. But I don’t think it’s necessary to exaggerate their position in order to disagree with them, and I think the people on the first page of the thread who said things like, “PETA wants to euthanize my dogs, because 1) they’re pets held captive by a human, never mind that they were bred specifically to be fisherman’s companions, and 2) they’re rare breed dogs that I didn’t get from a shelter” were being ridiculous.
I think you’re drawing a thin connection between PETA and euthanizing specific breeds, but you’re not being ridiculous; and you’re right to criticize BSL, IMHO.
For the most part, PETA is composed of a bunch of attention whores.
We already have a very effective and very rational group that actually cares about animals instead of being trendy. We call them the **Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals. **
Whoever is aiding and abetting Eric Robert Rudolph I would describe under the classification of “domestic terrorist”, just like Nichols and McVeigh. And anyone who would knowingly support arsonists, I would do the same.
In any case, anyone that brought their PETA fundraising spiel to my doorstep (as they have in New Jersey) would get a suspicious, glaring eye. Granted, I’m sure they were non-neighborhood loonies, and I fully respect their motivation (and their rights behind it) enough to go door to door to petition, I feel there are better ways to go about redressing the government. I assure you and will personally make it my mission in life to guarantee your right to peacefully redress the government for grievances, but I’ll knock you down with a right hook if you try to do it by force (i.e. threats to medical facilities).
[/okay, hijack over. . .]
Maybe it’s me, but I have yet to meet anyone who claims to be a member of this group who I didn’t sense as a wacko. They came to my door once, and thought they were high or something. . . Totally unprofessional in their approach, and totally disorganized. Like a couple of clueless college students just reaching out for any cause that would make them feel better about themselves.
Come to think of it, that’s exactly what they were. . .
Tripler
I’ve only met magazine subscription types up here in NoDak, thank Heavens.
Can’t argue with you re the attention whore thing: I definitely think that’s true, even as I think PETA is pretty effective at using their attention-whore tendencies to achieve the changes they want.
“SPCA” is actually not an organization, any more than “Restaurant” is an organization. There’s the ASPCA, and the RSPCA (American and Royal, respectively), and then there are countless smaller SPCAs across the country, some more intelligent than others. FWIW, “Humane Society” is the same way: we’re not chapters of a national group, even though there is a Humane Society of the United States and an American Humane Association.
These groups are all fundamentally different from PETA: whereas PETA organizes around animal rights, the others all organize around animal welfare.
Getting back to the original OP, Shagnasty, I would take a dognapping threat very seriously. Frequenting canine-specific forums, I can tell you I have more than once seen threads where just such a situation has been proposed and endorsed. Be alert.