Beijing Sets a ‘One Dog’ Policy to Combat Rabies

[nkace]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/world/asia/09dogs.html?ref=health

[kpickell]

Ingrid Newkirk is an idiot. I regret ever having sent that anti-animal pro-kill organzation a cent of my money. First they encourage killing all pit bulls, then they lie to shelters and kill every single animal they said they were rehoming, and now they are encouraging the chinese goverment to actively take and kill all the dogs found in that country, and is applauding the mass killings of dogs. How can you people support her!?! Ugh.


“It’s sad that it comes to this," [Ingrid Newkirk] said, “but for the dogs’ sake, restricting people to one dog stops impulse acquisition, encourages better care and will reduce the numbers who are suffering on the streets.”

Wrong on all counts. She'll use any excuse she can to applaud the killing of dogs. This does nothing to address the rabies problem.


The Humane Society of the United States said the Chinese policy failed to address the underlying reason for the rabies crisis.

“The focus should be on rabies vaccination rather than a limitation on the number of dogs in a household,” said Wayne Pacelle, the organization’s president and chief executive. “Large-scale vaccination programs aimed at reducing and eradicating rabies programs do work in large nations.”
Exactly.

[janie]

kpick, can you point out to me the part where it talks about killing the dogs? And also where it says that she supports the killing of the dogs? I'm confused where it says they (PETA) "encourage actively taking and killing dogs."

Also, I don't think PETA killed every single animal they had in their care. I thought I read stats from their site that said otherwise.

[Eclipse]

I hate such policies. That's low self enpowerment appartment living situation. And look how many dogs were killed in other areas for these laws.

[janie]

Actually, I found out that you're wrong.

Read this:
http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/stop_china_cruelty

It seems like PETA is against the killing of the dogs because of rabies.



In a hideously cruel response to an outbreak of rabies in late July, authorities in Mouding County in Southwest China ordered the killing of more than 50,000 dogs, including 4,000 who were immunized against the disease. Officials clubbed many animals to death in the street right before their guardians' eyes. Animals who were not beaten mercilessly died equally violent, gruesome deaths by poisoning or electrocution. Last week, the Chinese government issued orders to kill an additional 500,000 dogs. None of these beloved companions will have the benefit of a humane death, because there isn’t a single law in China that prevents cruelty to animals.

China has a long history of cruelty and violence toward animals. In live-animal markets, animals—including dogs and cats—are skinned alive for their fur; merchants hack flesh from animals, piece by piece, until they finally bleed to death; and animals routinely suffer from broken limbs because they are thrown from the tops of transport trucks onto concrete floors.

Please demand that the Chinese government halt the planned slaughter of dogs and enact strict anti-cruelty laws immediately. PETA will collect these letters, and our president will personally present them to the Chinese government. Also, be sure to forward this alert (http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/stop_china_cruelty/forward) to your friends and family members and ask them to speak up today.

[Eclipse]

I would be surprised if PETA supported this.

My understanding is PETA (Ingrid Newkirk) has a strong belief that if companion animals cannot live a quality life, they should be euthanized ( No no kill shelters?).
They want to work towards eliminating domesticated animals by slowly making them extinct by stopping all breeding.

Overall the people who accuse PETA of killing/euthanizing animals are being complelty unfair and I think are just using this as a loop hole. That is if PETA kills animals, they it's ok for them to continue to eat meat and wear fur etc.

I'm surprised it does seem to point out that PETA supports this one dog policy knowing that many dogs in multiple dog households are going to die over this:(.

[janie]

Policy = less suffering.

[kpickell]

kill them all = less suffering. :rolleyes: It's a lame cop out because they don't want to deal with the problem, so they'd rather kill them. It's disgusting that Ingrid is quoted as supporting this.

[janie]

kill them all = less suffering. :rolleyes: It's a lame cop out because they don't want to deal with the problem, so they'd rather kill them. It's disgusting that Ingrid is quoted as supporting this.

Did you even see the link I posted??? :confused:

She isn't supporting KILLING. She's supporting the POLICY. Read the letter PETA is urging everyone to send in OPPOSITION to the KILLING.

[Alli]

My understanding is PETA (Ingrid Newkirk) has a strong belief that if companion animals cannot live a quality life, they should be euthanized ( No no kill shelters?).
They want to work towards eliminating domesticated animals by slowly making them extinct by stopping all breeding.

I doubt that will ever happen.

[Gammerus]

I doubt that will ever happen.

they still strive for it. they are completly against keeping pets. I can see fish, reptiles, and small mammals, but dogs and cats enjoy our company.

[Jessica Alana]

they still strive for it. they are completly against keeping pets. I can see fish, reptiles, and small mammals, but dogs and cats enjoy our company.

However if they stopped being bred, they eventually wouldn't exist. So they wouldn't be missing anything.

[Sevenseas]

but dogs and cats enjoy our company.Yes, assuming that they are one of the lucky ones that don't get neglected when the family has a baby or don't get killed when someone has an allergy or don't get killed because they lose a leg and the "owner" doesn't want to look at the dog or cat anymore.

And chickens, cows, pigs, turkeys etc. don't enjoy being killed for the pet food we feed to them.

[Diana]

Chinese government seems to like the number one. One child, one dog, and one political party. At least they are consistent.