by all accounts, the County Animal Services folks do a good job..they deal with strays, unwanted animals, crazy dogs and so forth..occasionally a dog may die in the custody of the county..then the weird old ladies like Wendy come out all ballistic and want to demonize the county folks...
of course they write letters to the News-Press..one lady Elisabeth Mazzetti seems to be the anti-county mouthpiece..she sees a dead dog and gets hysterical....she's dogcentric..dogs are these people's whole world..how sad...Mazzetti has a boner for one of the ladies at the County Animal Services, Jan Glick...
I had a dream last night..a lady was driving a 1967 maroon Mustang down East Valley Rd..she was asleep at the wheel..the car was packed full of dogs...she ran off the road and I woke up
the problem is the county competes with these other nonprofits for money to take care of the animals...the nonprofits want the cash and no oversight..some of these old ladies are pathetic using animals as surrogate children..
and of course they want to privatize
so it's no surprise a nonprofit issued a critical report on the County Animal Services...the nonprofit is the American Humane Association...
but the AHA had its share of controversy and hypocrisy as a few web searches reveal:
In the late 1980s, the Association was accused by Bob Barker and the United Activists for Animal Rights of condoning animal cruelty on the set of Project X and in several other media projects. The basis of the accusation allowing a cattle prod and a gun on set, and rumored beating of the chimpanzee on set. The Association responded by launching a $10 million suit for libel, slander and invasion of privacy against Mr. Barker. The American Humane Association claimed that there had been a two-year "vendetta" against them behind the accusations. In a series of public ads along with the $10 million libel suit, the Association stated that the allegations were made based on insufficient and misleading information. The suit was eventually settled by Barker's insurance company, that paid AHA $300,000.
The Los Angeles Times also reported in 2001 that the AHA Film Unit "has been slow to criticize cases of animal mistreatment, yet quick to defend the big-budget studios it is supposed to police," and that an examination of the Association "also raises questions about the association's effectiveness." The article cites numerous cases of animals injured during filming which the AHA may have overlooked.
In late 2013, the Hollywood Reporter ran a story which implicated the AHA in turning a blind eye to and under reporting incidents of animal abuse on television and movie sets.
And AHA, the long the ignored stepchild of the "big three," decided to top them all: awarding Foster Farms the American Humane Association’s "Humane Certified" label which now appears on the package of every dead Foster Farms chicken sold in America, in exchange for an undisclosed sum of money and agreement to standards which often do little more than codify cruel industry practices. Like HSUS and the ASPCA, AHA lulls people into a false sense of complacency that supporting a company which abuses and kills millions of animals a year is consistent with a belief in animal protection.
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?cat=9
Does AHA require chickens to be allowed to go outside, to get fresh air and sunlight, to be able to act in accordance with all of their instincts to ensure their happiness and psychological as well as physical well-being? No.
Does AHA prohibit beaks from being cut off? No.
Does AHA prohibit the use of masticators—giant machines in which unwanted, live baby chicks are ground up while alive and fully conscious? No.
Does AHA prohibit chickens from being hung upside down by the legs and feet (legs and feet that are often suffering from terribly painful joint diseases), being electrically stunned, and having their heads cut off? No.
Does AHA prohibit the cutting of the teeth of piglets? No.
Does AHA prohibit cutting off the tails off pigs? No.
Does AHA prohibit the use of electrical shock on cows? No.
Does AHA prohibit the use of restraints to forcibly inseminate a cow or a pig? No.
Does AHA prohibit the use of a gas chamber to kill despite calling it "inhumane to all animals"? No.
Does AHA prohibit the castration of newborn calves by a rubber band being placed around their scrotums to cut off blood supply? No.
Finally, under what warped definition of "humane" can a process that ends with animals having their throats slit possibly qualify? The kind where AHA is paid to say it is.
I hardly think the county is abusing animals and killing horses or taking money to hide animal abuse...
this is a lame attempt to privatize a county service..and we all know that the private sector really does a great job like Plains Oil Pipeline did a great job of killing all those animals
but I admit I don't know much about the psychological well-being of a chicken
or old ladies who deify cocker spaniels...
No comments:
Post a Comment