Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (102977)	5/3/2005 2:33:05 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I do not assume that people who use work animals hate and torture them. Can you show me where I indicated I believe that? I get really upset when I find that is the case, though. I personally cannot understand why anyone who loves dogs and reads just the most reputable and well documented web sites about the abuse of Iditarod dogs would still think that this was a defensible tradition. I wasn't even thinking about this subject until you brought it up yesterday--I have no particular agenda to cause problems for anyone. But once I find out really disturbing information about something, I cannot then just look the other way. My animals are very well taken care of, but if they were not, I would expect my neighbors to call the Humane Society and report my neglect or abuse of them. At the same time, when I saw a sweet little dog being kept outside without any shelter last winter, in very cold rain/hail conditions, with freezing temperatures, I did my duty as a good citizen and reported the situation so it could be investigated. Now the dog's owners keep it inside when it is cold or wet outside. It made me really sad to see the dog just standing there with rain falling down on its face and body, when its owners were inside their very comfortable house with the heat on. What trouble could a friendly little dog be that its owners would keep it that way? Is this thing of looking the other way or not being concerned when animals are mistreated part of a conservative belief system? Would a conservative or libertarian be less likely to report or even perceive animal abuse because their underlying philosophy is against regulatory agencies or the intrusion of government into private life? My question is serious--I have a lot of trouble understanding it. Is it just a liberal value to care enough about helpless creatures who cannot defend themselves that you would challenge something traditional like the Iditarod? When you say "There is a point at which my involvement in the affairs of others becomes nonsense," what kind of a value is that? When you say that if you saw somebody abusing animals you would try to stop it, why would you defend the systematic abuse of Alaskan sled dogs once you knew that it existed? Is it because it is further away and less personal to you? The site I posted quoted the ASPCA and reputable news organizations. It talked about hundreds of young dogs being culled very violently--shot and even stabbed to death--when it turned out they were not really fast racers. It talked about dogs being chained up for their whole lives, living in their own feces, etc. None of these are even remotely acceptable ways to treat dogs. I was very happy to read that some sponsors have now stopped supporting the Iditarod because of dog abuse. I will now do every small thing I can to spread the word. It is romantic to see this an an age-old Alaskan tradition, but life moves on and our views of what is humane evolve over time. Our awareness of what is defensible and what is not changes. Dogs are very social animals, and the recommended ways to treat them so that they thrive and have happy lives are entirely contradictory to the way sled dogs are treated. Let's be clear that this is a way for people to make money and gain recognition and fame. While these people do hope the dogs who actually get into the race will race well, their concern is entirely selfish. Any sport that is for the entertainment of people but causes the systematic death of dogs by culling, and where the dogs live in conditions that are unhappy for dogs, seems morally indefensible. There is really no way to justify it continuing once the stories of dog abuse become more widely disseminated--and they will. The animal rights movement is growing and becoming more sophisticated at using celebrities and the press to make sure horrible conditions for animals are widely known.