Thoughts on Pitbulls, PETA, NKN, and Humans

Concept: "PETA wants Pitbulls dead"

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Controlling-an-animal-as-deadly-as-a-weapon-2629558.php

“We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating new ones. Legislators, please take note.”

Sounds like a ban on breeding. Breeding dogs of any sort is horrible when there’s pleanty of good ones in a shelter that need love.

I know Miami-Dade bans the ownership of Pits. Miami-Dade has a load of shady people who don’t give a shit about the feelings of animals. It’s horrible. I’ve witnessed it.

Any shelter or rescue who takes in a Pit Bull, especially a mature one, runs risk of being liable if that dog attacks a child. They seldom know it’s history. Pits have a history of violence. Not because of the Pit bull being a Pit bull, because humans can be cruel and fucked up. 

There are Rescues that specialize in them, and I think that’s awesome. They take long and decent amounts of time, that general dog Shelters don’t have, to learn the insides and outsides of Pits before turning them over to a home.

They also take time finding out if a home is the right home for a pit. (Support your local Pit Pull Rescue if you have one and take a shine to them!) 

“There is no bad pet, only bad owners.”

A lawsuit (which humans love) could ruin a shelter, resulting in more lives lost that could’ve been saved.

Why? Because of a that new lack of funding, due to that 1 Pit Bull.
Funding now in the hands of the family who’s kid got chewed on. Hell, the kid could’ve been antagonizing it, but that doesn’t matter to the family or the judge!

It’s a freakin’ shame…!!! 

It’s not the dog’s fault! =( But this is reality.

So there’s a tough choice. Euthanize 1 dog that will be sitting there for possible years because of this social stigma by people, caused by people, or save 1000s that people have no stigma about, that could only be in a shelter for 1 week because they are not known to chew on people, or at least chew on people to the point of mutilation or death.

It’s tragic no matter what, but which is less tragic?

It’s almost like the abortion debate…. Which is less tragic? A unwanted kid being terminated before it feels pain, or letting it being born into a world unwanted. It’s both sad, which is less sad?

I don’t think anyone in rescue wants to see a dog be put down. I don’t want to see ANY animal put down (I don’t eat animal products!). I work with rescues, I see them work their ass off to see animals find good homes, often for low pay or NO pay. 

So maybe what I said can be construed (twisted) to mean, “Oh, she wants Pit Bulls dead”. No Kill Nation (just an example) would say I want them dead by what I’ve said. I really really don’t, but it’s the power of twisting words to suite an individuals’ cause which people are notorious for.
I like the concept of No Kill, but I don’t know how such a mission can exist humanely (leaving space available for new animals in need, and not having animals simply rotting in cages).

I don’t like any particular organization, I’m a neutral/realistic party. Any organization with a large amount of passionate people will be labeled by their fruitcakes. 

I like the concept of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I believe in that. The acts of people FROM a group called that (PETA) isn’t always what I’d deem “Ethical”. 

(Same with NKN)

Do they, as a whole, do some good? Yes. Do they have loonies, as a whole, doing crazy shit to get a message across (which is often lost)? Yes. Do they have smart people who know more than I do? Yes. Do they have people that are nothing but attention whores spouting nonsense? Yes. Welcome to humanity.

So when I hear “Peta want *XXX* dead” or “HSUS hates *snakes*” there’s always a bigger picture. Some good pictures, some bad pictures. 

Is my stance perfect? No. Is it spoken from my experiences? Yes. Will everyone understand it? No.

Am I trying to help animals? 100% as humanly possible.