Monday, July 12, 2010

Humane Double Standards: NFP's and everybody else

What's IRS tax filing status got to do with animal care and expertise?

That's what I want to know.

As fallout from the Death of Oreo's Law continues, and pet lovers spot abundant hypocrisy in responses from a certain Oreo's Law proponent . . .

Why aren't "animal rescue organizations" clamoring to be inspected for compliance with the minimum standards of care so often required of dastardly "breeders"?

Aren't they supposed to be the shining examples? 

Apparently not.  

Nonprofit Doesn't Mean "Good"

It doesn't mean "humane."

It doesn't mean ethical.

Looks like it doesn't mean competent, either:

People thought he was so cute and everyone wanted to adopt him. Three of them even tried and returned him the next day. We told people it would take at least two weeks before he stopped trying to bite you, but …still, he came back, all full of himself, and almost…proud that he outlasted another one. Giggle. We couldn’t stand it, it was so funny and so cute and he was such a holy terror.

"Giggle." ???  How clueless can you get?

Blue Dog's Modest Proposal

Not long ago, Blue Dog State answered an honest question, which later morphed into last week's blog on the merciful death of Oreo's Law and the humane food fight that rapidly ensued.

In response to Yes Biscuit's request for "criteria or guidelines . . .to be sure that rescue is a reasonable place to send the animals" Blue Dog suggested. . .

501(c)3 “rescue” organizations should be designated “pet dealers” under NYS law, subject to the same scrutiny, the same inspection for conformity to the same minimum standards of care as other pet dealers operating in the state of New York.

Support for the suggestion was. . . well . . . mixed.  At least in that forum.

Some felt that my modest proposal would mean the end to foster homes, but I believe that issue is readily fixable.

On the other hand, I'm not too big on double standards.  

I don't see why NFP status should provide a shield from inspection and regulation

As far as I'm concerned, it is either appropriate and necessary to regulate facilities selling animals in volume. . .or it is not.

So, let's give it another shot:

Take the dang Poll!

Note that Blue Dog's Modest Proposal assumes the presence of regulations governing  commercial kennels or pet dealers which typically exempt smaller "hobby-type" facilities.

Also, you may have to hit the lefthand "submit query" in order to vote.  The righthand "submit query" leads me to the poll results.  Go figure.

Proposed: 501(c)3's should be regulated like pet dealers or commercial kennels.
Thumbs up! tax reporting status is meaningless in this context.
Thumbs down! NFP's are just different. Hell if I can explain it.
Licensing and regulation of facilities selling animals is unnecessary. Period.
License and regulate any person or facility selling any animal under any circumstances. free polls
What say you all?


bealsie2 said...

Oh my god! A person with a clue! I've been saying this since Oreo's law was first proposed!

EmilyS said...

eh.. one of the dirty little secrets of the so called "no kill" movement is that a good proportion of its proponents don't actually care about the conditions under which an animal is kept. As long as it's "not killed" (though of course euphamasia is acceptable).

Anonymous said...

God you are idiots.

I wish everyone I had to deal with on a regular basis was as utterly devoid of intelligence as this group is.

When I have a bad day I know I can always come here to get a good laugh at your expense.

Keep up the great work. One of my friends who also happens to be my attorney (or maybe the other way around) keeps telling me every page of this blog is a goldmine of libel for both of us, but I would be really upset to lose the laughs.

Matt DeAngelis
Power hungry Connecticut Resident

PS = Maybe someday we can talk about saving animals.

BlueDogState said...

Not much on freedom of speech for anyone but yourself, are you, Matt?

But it doesn't matter.

Try this concept: if it's true, it's never libelous.

EmilyS said...

crazy Matt responds! This is the guy that the so called no kill movement is holding up as an example???

I guess I should feel honored that little old nobody me gets slandered by big important Matt!

EmilyS said...

btw, just in case Matt doesn't have the honest to print my reply on his blog:

[quote] asshat, if you’re going to reference me, have the courtesy to actually quote me. None of the things you attribute to me are my actual words. It is the height of dishonesty to use italics in a way that implies you are quoting, when in fact you are just making shit up.

It’s that kind of dishonesty that causes people to mistrust you. And your woefully misnamed movement.

EVERYONE KILLS animals, including YOU. Including EVERY “no kill” shelter. Including the sainted Winograd (who now brags that he insists that OTHERS use the term “killing” rather than euthanasia).

How extraordinarily hypocritical that he, and you, want to call the killing that YOU do “good” killing (euthanisia). Because you are so pure and noble, it’s ok for YOU to kill a animal you think is suffering, but anyone else who does it is cruel, stupid, venal, an enemy of the “movement”.

Yes, I believe Oreo was suffering, from an incurable mental disorder which made her irredeemably vicious, and she was a dangerous, miserable animal. She would have been dangerous and miserable in your care as well.

I believe in the goal of saving as many animals as possible. I believe in not killing for reasons of breed, space, minor health or temperament issues. I don’t believe in wasting resources on animals that are suffering and/or dangerous. As a pit bull owner and advocate, I absolutely do NOT believe in wasting resources on a pit bull that bites people. To do that is a betrayal of the thousands of perfect bombproof pit bulls that get killed every month in this country.

BTW: how many pit bulls have you pulled from NYACC since the Oreo incident? [/quote]

Caveat said...

Since the shelters/rescue/animalib groups are basically pet shops these days (and in many areas are trying to become the sole source for pets through various tactics including legislation at all levels of govt) it is ridiculous to give them special status. You are 100% right on this issue.

Anonymous said...

Matt has been fired from PetsAlive as of last Thursday