Stop Gas Chambers! Help me sign this petition!

[Latrans]

hello4yellow

It looks like a giant report that a doctor would write. I only read those stuff when I have to or by force. But thanks for sharing!

If this is a cause you really really care about, perhaps it'd be worth the pain?

[istalkercookies]

Latrans

hello4yellow

It looks like a giant report that a doctor would write. I only read those stuff when I have to or by force. But thanks for sharing!

If this is a cause you really really care about, perhaps it'd be worth the pain?

Okay.. Give me a day. It looks really long. Im a slow ready. emo

[~ Aki - Fairy ~]

hello4yellow

In my family, we only eat fish. They're over populated anyways.

Dogs and cats aren't overpopulated?

[istalkercookies]

~ Aki - Fairy ~

hello4yellow

In my family, we only eat fish. They're over populated anyways.

Dogs and cats aren't overpopulated?

Im in no mood to bicker. I feel like s**t. I just finished a 5 page essay, ran 3 miles, and did a bunch of push-ups. Talk to my hand for now. Ill come back later. talk2hand

[~ Aki - Fairy ~]

hello4yellow

~ Aki - Fairy ~

hello4yellow

In my family, we only eat fish. They're over populated anyways.

Dogs and cats aren't overpopulated?

Im in no mood to bicker. I feel like s**t. I just finished a 5 page essay, ran 3 miles, and did a bunch of push-ups. Talk to my hand for now. Ill come back later. talk2hand

If you want to be taken seriously/be treated with respect and have the cause you're presenting considered and taken seriously, it wouldn't hurt to post more maturely. Don't want to get into a discussion at present, don't comment period.

[istalkercookies]

~ Aki - Fairy ~

hello4yellow

~ Aki - Fairy ~

hello4yellow

In my family, we only eat fish. They're over populated anyways.

Dogs and cats aren't overpopulated?

Im in no mood to bicker. I feel like s**t. I just finished a 5 page essay, ran 3 miles, and did a bunch of push-ups. Talk to my hand for now. Ill come back later. talk2hand

If you want to be taken seriously/be treated with respect and have the cause you're presenting considered and taken seriously, it wouldn't hurt to post more maturely. Don't want to get into a discussion at present, don't comment period.

I find it rude to ignore people.

[~ Aki - Fairy ~]

hello4yellow

~ Aki - Fairy ~

hello4yellow

~ Aki - Fairy ~

hello4yellow

In my family, we only eat fish. They're over populated anyways.

Dogs and cats aren't overpopulated?

Im in no mood to bicker. I feel like s**t. I just finished a 5 page essay, ran 3 miles, and did a bunch of push-ups. Talk to my hand for now. Ill come back later. talk2hand

If you want to be taken seriously/be treated with respect and have the cause you're presenting considered and taken seriously, it wouldn't hurt to post more maturely. Don't want to get into a discussion at present, don't comment period.

I find it rude to ignore people.

Leaving a response until a later time, in a place where there's no time frame in which you must reply, is not ignoring. Ignoring is not responding period.
If you feel you have to reply right then, so you don't forget about it later, try something mature like, "I don't have time to reply to this right now, but I've already clicked the "you've been quoted" notification and will likely forget about it, but I do want to reply. Could you please quote this post so I remember to come back to it later?"

[Relic_League]

Shanna66

I never assumed you were one of the selfish ones. Just like I know my grand-father isn't the selfish one. I'm so sorry that happened; I have a very weak stomach so you're stronger than me when it comes to that bone e.t.c. :[

My mom cried just knowing she couldn't save our pet she stayed with him the whole night feeding him and keeping him warm incase he pulled through...he didn't. My mom couldn't put him in the box so I had to. :/

I didn't even know an infection like that existed. o-o


But I still believe the problem is in the bad owners of pets and that we have too many being born. Same with how there are bad parents and too many babies being born. Not all parents are bad, not all pet owners are bad. But I believe we need to protect the animals from those who are bad owners.

[Eisefin]

Kanto_Mint

But I still believe the problem is in the bad owners of pets and that we have too many being born. Same with how there are bad parents and too many babies being born. Not all parents are bad, not all pet owners are bad. But I believe we need to protect the animals from those who are bad owners.

But comparing overpopulation in humans to overpopulation in domesticated pets is ludicrous and only inevitably gets laughed at. Granted, we are animals, yes but we are also the dominant species and we have to make these tough decisions to preserve the healthy and the readily adoptable.

In the time that it would take to educate owners and for the stray population in all animals to dwindle down to an acceptable number, shelters would have already run out of room, run out of funding, and have to close down. This process we breeders have been working at for years to preserve the healthy, educate owners on the causes of poor, uneducated breeding, the negligence of not spaying and neutering your animals, and so on. This is years of our own contributions but it hasn’t stopped people yet and the numbers of abandoned animals only rise.

I have mentioned it, others in the thread have mentioned it as well, that gas chambers, while unethical and even inhumane (I addressed this in my first post, even, which you seemed to disregard wholeheartedly), it is the shelter’s only line of defense to ensure that they can keep their doors open for the animals. If they have no room, no funding, not enough medical care to go around, or the food/water to provide for all of the animals then how do you expect them to remain open?

They need to keep these chambers around until the spike in abandonment/negligent breeding dwindles to the point where they can handle the influx. Otherwise, more than half of the United States’ shelters will have to close their doors and the rise of abandonment/negligent breeding/sickly strays will only continue to rise because now the facilities that took these places are gone.

You have to see that, don’t you? You have to see that this problem isn’t going to stop in the next year. I have been breeding and educating people for years and the overpopulation in my area is still on the rise – just like any other place.

[Relic_League]

Eisefin

So if another creature came a long who became the "dominant" one; you would be happy to become nothing more than a disposable pet to it?

Call it ludicrous but there is always a chance another animal could come a long better than us. And honestly; were not dominant in the wild; only in our own protected areas.

I don't see it as laughable; anything over populated should be killed based on this logic. If we can not afford it; it should die. If the view is "we can't keep it; so kill it" it should be used for everything else. What makes their life worth less?

Breaking necks; is a lot more humane by the way; they're dead before they know it.

Also we should give more money so that they can give food/water and tighten the laws on who can own a pet. Which you seemed to ignore. I think laws can help a lot with animal protection. :]

I can see it; but doesn't mean I have to like it. It wont stop in the next year. But if we make the laws stricter on who can have a pet that would help a lot. It helped adoption places a lot; so it should help shelters.

Also I think people need a reason to buy a pet. Not a reason that sounds too casual they might just get rid of it. "I want a pet as a replacement for a baby for my girlfriend." Is not a reason; they found out she was pregnant and were going to kill it.

The value of life should be cared for more; it is inhumane and that is why I just can not support it. I can not genuinely support an inhumane way to kill an animal. Which I hope people can understand. Of course I don't want shelters to close; but killing in an inhumane way is also wrong. The law has a lot of power; and if the whole of society cared it would help a lot. Genuinely a petition to tighten laws on pets I'd be a 100% for.

[Latrans]

Eisefin

They need to keep these chambers around until the spike in abandonment/negligent breeding dwindles to the point where they can handle the influx.

A) That is not even the only solution to this problem

and

B) It doesn't excuse the inhumane treatment of those animals.

[Eisefin]

Kanto_Mint

Eisefin

So if another creature came a long who became the "dominant" one; you would be happy to become nothing more than a disposable pet to it?

Call it ludicrous but there is always a chance another animal could come a long better than us. And honestly; were not dominant in the wild; only in our own protected areas.

I don't see it as laughable; anything over populated should be killed based on this logic. If we can not afford it; it should die. If the view is "we can't keep it; so kill it" it should be used for everything else. What makes their life worth less?

Breaking necks; is a lot more humane by the way; they're dead before they know it.

Also we should give more money so that they can give food/water and tighten the laws on who can own a pet. Which you seemed to ignore. I think laws can help a lot with animal protection. :]

I can see it; but doesn't mean I have to like it. It wont stop in the next year. But if we make the laws stricter on who can have a pet that would help a lot. It helped adoption places a lot; so it should help shelters.

Also I think people need a reason to buy a pet. Not a reason that sounds too casual they might just get rid of it. "I want a pet as a replacement for a baby for my girlfriend." Is not a reason; they found out she was pregnant and were going to kill it.

The value of life should be cared for more; it is inhumane and that is why I just can not support it. I can not genuinely support an inhumane way to kill an animal. Which I hope people can understand. Of course I don't want shelters to close; but killing in an inhumane way is also wrong. The law has a lot of power; and if the whole of society cared it would help a lot. Genuinely a petition to tighten laws on pets I'd be a 100% for.

The laws are already trying to burden down on pet ownership as of right now. Did you know they’re trying to forbid pet ownership of everything excluding a cat and a dog? That mean no reptiles, no birds, no amphibians, no rodents, no exotics, nothing outside of the fluffy cat and dog category (unless you go fro a hairless), and even then they’re planning on restricting ownership of breeds and contemplating still to kill of numerous breeds they deem unsafe or not wise decisions for pet ownership. If the government gets involved in anymore pet ownership laws then we’re not going to be capable of owning or breeding anything for the betterment of the species and its entirety.

A lot of us are more in tuned to what the government is planning here in America. Hundreds of breeds and species are already illegal to own in most states, just for being what they are, but people still own them. The government restricting anything won’t stop people from owning or breeding what they shouldn’t be doing. All that’s going to do is make life harder for us owners that aren’t negligent, that are trying to make a difference, and that are trying to help. But you seem to be missing that point entirely, especially this part:

Quote:

Also we should give more money so that they can give food/water and tighten the laws on who can own a pet.

Yes, we should, and people do. But of the thousands of people that do donate each and every day, putting their necks out there to help out the shelters and those in unstable living conditions to own their animals, it’s only so much in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of strays already on the streets, being hoarded away in homes, coming out of breeder mills every day, and negligent backyard breeding. But providing money and services, which thousands of us do already (we even have special programs made specifically for that) is not enough to counteract the entirety. It’s not fast enough and it won’t be fast enough for years and years to come.

As far as breaking necks, you have to be properly trained and have the strength to do that. Also, do you have the strength to grab a Newfoundland by the neck and twist it accurately enough to kill it instantaneously? No lingering pain? No misshaps? No accidents? No, I honestly doubt it. I am a hunter by trade and often times if I don’t kill the goose on the first go around and it is still flopping by the time I come to retrieve it I have to pick it up and whip it around in a loop-de-loop to break the neck. That in itself is a lot of strength I have to exert to bust the neck of a goose, which has some hellish strong muscles. That took me years to get around to doing perfectly and even I cannot do it accurately y100% of the time.

Not to mention the number of employees that would take to break the necks of hundreds of animals each day, the time it would take, and the accidents that would occur (break wasn’t clean enough, animal suffered, employee got bit/scratched/mauled, et cetera). Then there’s breaking the necks of other species. Reptiles, amphibians, rodents, birds, et cetera. You have to take into consideration that they are in shelters too and the sheer amount of time it would take to execute each and every one of them. There would be no time to service other animals, there would not be enough hours in the day to do everything.

We have to do what we can currently to provide what’s best for the healthier animals. If that means, for right now, clearing enough space in the least cost effective manner then that’s how it has to be. Unless someone comes up with a better way to mass-euthanize animals in a least costly manner in the next year or so. But for right now, cutting off the chambers will only cause a cataclysm of issues and all hell will literally break loose on our streets.

People will take matters into their own hands by just killing them on sight, which they could do so in a manner much more inhumane than the gas chambers themselves. My case in point, teenagers throwing dogs off bridges because they don’t like strays in their towns. Go ahead and look that video up. Watch the dog’s legs snap beneath its body as it writhes in pain. The town didn’t have a shelter, didn’t have euthanasia methods, so they kill them their own way.

Also:

Quote:

So if another creature came a long who became the "dominant" one; you would be happy to become nothing more than a disposable pet to it?

It won’t happen. We are already the established dominant species. To say otherwise you might as well go back to the wilds right now and leave civilized society behind right now.

Quote:

Call it ludicrous but there is always a chance another animal could come a long better than us. And honestly; were not dominant in the wild; only in our own protected areas.

Actually, there isn’t. We control the population of other animals. We breed them, we house them, we document them. We have the technology that they lack. But by calling us the dominant species, I am not going on a power trip of the extremes. I am trying to relay to you the seriousness of our own actions and their impacts on the animals around us. Because we are in control, we have to make those decisions because it’s for their better good.

If we didn’t take these matters into our own hands then life would be worse for the animals, domesticated or otherwise.

Also, we were. Want to know why? If we weren’t, then we wouldn’t be where we are today. We wouldn’t be living on pretty much every piece of land on this planet that is inhabitable by both animals and people.

Quote:

I don't see it as laughable; anything over populated should be killed based on this logic. If we can not afford it; it should die. If the view is "we can't keep it; so kill it" it should be used for everything else. What makes their life worth less?

Because a human’s life is put above that of an animal’s life. In some countries, they do kill of children for just being female, for having a mental disability, for having special needs in any way from a physical deformation or otherwise. We do not in America because we have laws that protect both humans and animals, but we also control the breeding of animals, their care, and their very rights while there is also a restriction on humans and their rights.

But in the end, animals (domestic or exotic pets) are considered property and they always will. And that won’t change anytime soon.

[Eisefin]

Latrans

Eisefin

They need to keep these chambers around until the spike in abandonment/negligent breeding dwindles to the point where they can handle the influx.

A) That is not even the only solution to this problem

and

B) It doesn't excuse the inhumane treatment of those animals.

Then instead of saying this, how about coming up with something to say in defense of the animals that doesn't say "BAN THE CHAMBERS"! I am stating reasons why they need to stick around for the time being, but not one is stating any other helpful reasons.

[Latrans]

Eisefin

Then instead of saying this, how about coming up with something to say in defense of the animals that doesn't say "BAN THE CHAMBERS"! I am stating reasons why they need to stick around for the time being, but not one is stating any other helpful reasons.

Reasons for what? Reasons why they need to go away? Personally, I think cruelty is plenty reason enough.

As for other solutions; kill them a different way. One that does not involve sticking dozens of frightened animals into a room that smells like panic and killing them slowly.

[Relic_League]

Eisefin

I haven't heard a single word on the internet, on TV or anywhere about the law being involved about pet ownership laws in the UK. So unless that is more a US thing; I wouldn't know.

Again I am not in the US; I live in the UK. I know very little of US laws; just as most people in US know very little of the UK. So I'm sorry but no I don't know much of foreign rules e.t.c.

I'm not missing a single point; I just have a different opinion to you. That is all.

Changing laws helped protect a lot of things; people can still do it but it is very difficult thus the neglectful ones do not tend to bothers. Orphan laws changed a lot; so did laws on what to do with people under 18 who needed to get out of abusive homes; but not being adults had very little power. Laws do help.

We don't need more animals being breeded. Just like we don't need more children in the world; we don't need more animals. Less breeding could help too; significantly.

The training difficulty varies on the animal yes; sheeps apparently are very easy while others are not. I'm not saying they should break their necks; I just meant it is more humane. And animals should be worth the time.

So save the healthy animals and toss the "damaged ones". Again that is like saying we should kill all babies born with something wrong with them; because it is not cost effective. You can't apply morals a long side cost effectiveness. Point of cost effective plans is that they are not usually morally good. So human babies born with a problem; should be killed. We'll save money that they'll cost us. You can not use morals and then claim cost effectiveness; the two do not go together. If society wants to save money; cost effectiveness they need to drop some more morals then; you can not do that; it is very naive in my eyes.

Most people already kill animals on sight. :/

So? More dominant creatures can come a long; depending on if you believe in evolution or there might be un-discovered animals. Saying it wont happen is like saying you know the future off by heart. You know evolution is wrong or you know religion is wrong. You can not state something factually without facts. It is very weak.

Animals were better off without humans around most would say. (Not me but I know many with said opinion.) And it is very true.

Your country protecting animals and humans is very good. But what I am trying to get you to see is by you saying: "Get rid of the ill animals in a cost effective manner; because they cost too much." Is not a morally good view. Thus why don't we get rid of any of the "ill" babies. Some grow up to be murderers, *****, rapists or that fourteen year old girl on the news who but a deadly chemichal in home made brownies to try and kill two young boys. Some people would say we should spend less time on them; and more on other things.

Morals vs cost effective. You can not have both. "Save the for example any "ill" human babies, kill sick animals." You can't morally say you can do it to one and not the other in a cost effetcive way. You make a choice of morals or saving money. Thus why some countries kill babies with mental problems. They made a choice - money or morals. Which is something I don't see people doing now. Morals vs money; make a choice. You can't have both.

Though I do respect you a lot for trying to help animals so much and it is amazing; and yes the chances of a new dominant species coming a long is slim; but it could happen. Depending on your beliefs of the world of course.

And honestly someone could make a petition to make the boxes legal again if this makes things worse. But people can't help dislike inhumane killing.

Less breeding + stricter laws + maybe check up on a yearly basis? It makes life more difficult but people have strict rules to keep their job, to keep their children or just to keep a house. If it is worth it; it is worth it. :]