Skip to main content

Home/ Teleperra/ Group items tagged agenda

Rss Feed Group items tagged

pepa garcía

TwitLonger - When you talk too much for Twitter - 0 views

  •  
    Thanks to the 562 people who have signed the petition to FARM to ban H$U$ from the (so-called) "animal rights" conference. Please read the thoughtful comments. As expected, Paul Shapiro and the well-financed corporate butchers of H$U$ delivered a slick and sleazy presentation that bemoaned animal eating, a position not normally offered elsewhere, bemoaned pig confinement, while having a mass murderer of pigs employed as a director, and while conducting experiments on wild horses with drugs made from pig eggs, and bemoaning battery cages for chickens while promoting the egg industry's agenda for battery cages for chickens. Down with H$U$, the meat industry's self-appointed voice for "animal rights"!!! TAKE BACK THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT FROM THE BUTCHERS OF H$U$!!! No one elected Wayne Pacelle and H$U$ to be a voice for animals or animal rights activists!!! Hey Hey Ho Ho, H$U$ has got to go!!! http://www.change.org/petitions/farm-farm-animal-rights-movement-ar-2012-ban-hsus-from-the-2012-animal-rights-conference
pepa garcía

apología de bonacic en web de ruiz esquide: : Senado - República de Chile : : - 0 views

  •  
    Antecedentes sobre perros y su impacto en la salud púbica, ganadería, fauna silvestre y calidad de vida de las personasCristian Bonacic Especialista en Biodiversidad y Bienestar Animal Departamento de Ecosistemas y Medio Ambiente PUC Cristian Bonacic MV, MSc, PhD (Oxford)Especialista en Biodiversidad y Bienestar AnimalDirectorDepartamento de Ecosistemas y Medio AmbientePONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICAD DE CHILERepresentante de UFAW (Organismo de Bienestar Animal Internacional)Investigador Asociado de la Universidad de ColumbiaMiembro del Grupo de la Comisión de Sobrevivencia de Especies de la UICNMiembro de EcoHealth Alliance (http://www.ecohealthalliance.org/about/experts/33-bonacic)Como Médico Veterinario e investigador en conservación de fauna y bienestar animal quisiera ponerme a su disposición para aportar antecedentes objetivos sobre la importancia de una ley de tenencia responsable, que incluya el retiro de mascotas de las calles y zonas rurales y la eutanasia cuando un profesional Médico Veterinario lo indique (riesgo de enfermedades transmisibles al Hombre y agresividad hacia el Hombre y otros animales).Mis primeras sugerencias  sobre tema perros son las siguientes: 1.  Una  ley de tenencia sin la posibilidad de aplicar  EUTANASIA no serviría de nada. Se define eutanasia como el cese de la vida de un animal en forma indolora que solo  profesionales especialistas (Médicos Veterinarios), pueden aplicar en animales enfermos o que representan un riesgo para las personas (agresividad, transmisión de enfermedades ). Los perros en forma masiva en las calles y zonas rurales exponen a las personas y a los animales (perros, ganado y fauna silvestre) a un problema sin control. Por lo demás la eutanasia a mascotas y animales plaga, animales de consumo humano y dañinos ya se aplica diariamente en Chile. 2. Existe legislación en todos los países OECD y Norteamerica que obliga a las autoridades sanitarias a retirar a los perros de las calles por sus
pepa garcía

The Politics of Pet Dogs and Kennel Crates | Psychology Today - 0 views

  • Apparently, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) recently began an ad campaign condemning the use of crates for dogs, under any circumstances. Thus a recent half page ad in the Wall Street Journal has the heading "Be an Angel for Animals" and goes on to say "Don't ever crate or chain them."
  • "No matter what a pet shop owner or dog trainer might say, a dog crate is just a box with holes in it, and putting dogs in crates is just a way to ignore and warehouse them until you get around to taking care of them properly."
  • PETA is not against the practice of crating, but it is actually against the practice of pet ownership.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Thus they state "we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of 'pet keeping'-i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as 'pets'-never existed."  They also go on to say, "This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering".
  • The crux of their argument against pet keeping seems to be that we are "depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. They are restricted to human homes, where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to." I must admit that I found this to be particularly puzzling and unsatisfying. My wife and I have raised five children, and have nine grandchildren, and when they were young they were taught to obey simple commands and requests as part of their socialization. Our children were only given the opportunity to eat and drink according to our scheduling, and certainly were not allowed to urinate anytime and anywhere that they chose during the period of their toilet training. We certainly did not feel that we were engaging in child abuse by utilizing these basic child-rearing practices. To treat a dog in much the same way that we treat our own children, including providing the love and support that they need, does not appear to me to constitute animal abuse, or an argument against the keeping of pets.
  • It seems to me that their actual desire for banning crating is that in so doing they would make keeping dogs in the house more difficult and the housebreaking of puppies less reliable.
  • This advances their anti-pet agenda by taking away some of the pleasure of pet keeping and in that way it would further their programme aimed at denying us the companionship of our dogs and cats.
  • Tying a dog out for a few minutes on a shopping trip does not constitute dog abuse, but legislating against such a common practice could discourage people from having dogs since it would mean they could not take their pets with them when they move around town. This appears to be the kind of thing that PETA really wants to advance— to bring about an end to the keeping of dogs and cats as pets—not the protection of animals.
pepa garcía

CAPA Modified - Parvo is Not a License for Shelters to Kill « YesBiscuit! - 0 views

  • Parvo is preventable and treatable and every animal shelter has an obligation to both prevent and treat this disease.  Parvo in shelters is prevented through the practice of vaccination prior to or immediately upon intake, good housing practices and standard disease prevention cleaning protocols.  The disease is further prevented by ensuring the community’s dog owners have easy access to low cost vaccinations for their pets.
  • Treatment options for parvo dogs include in-house care if sufficient resources exist to provide isolation and appropriate veterinary care.  If the facility is not equipped to provide treatment, parvo dogs may be transferred to another shelter with appropriate facilities or to a private veterinary clinic.  Donations may be solicited from the public if necessary.  The media can help in educating the public and spreading the word about the shelter’s efforts to save lives.  The days of blanket killing of shelter dogs for parvo or exposure to the disease are over.
  • Killing dogs who have tested positive for parvo without providing treatment is unacceptable.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Killing dogs who have not been tested or treated, who have been “diagnosed” by someone other than a veterinarian, who are asymptomatic but have been exposed or who are merely “suspected” of having the disease is also unacceptable.  What are your local shelter’s protocols for handling parvo dogs?
  • Austin Pets Alive has a ward set up for parvo dogs, run by volunteers.
  • Shelters who fail to vaccinate all animals prior to or immediately upon intake are failing to prevent the spread of disease.
  • Shelters who fail to utilize standard disease prevention cleaning protocols and/or maintain good housing practices are failing to prevent the spread of disease.
  • Prevention and treatment are not luxuries. 
pepa garcía

Pet Overpopulation, Puppy Mills, and Lessons from Proposition B : Nathan J Winograd - 0 views

  • To claim to want to shut down puppy mills, but to ignore or fight reform efforts to stop shelter neglect, abuse, and killing (as groups like HSUS and PETA do) is not only ethically inconsistent, it is morally bankrupt.
  • Neglect is neglect, abuse is abuse, killing is killing regardless of by whose hand that neglect, abuse, and killing is done.
  • To look the other way at one because that neglect, abuse, and killing is done by “friends,” “colleagues,” or simply because the perpetrators call themselves a “humane society” is indefensible.
  • ...27 more annotations...
  • These organizations have built a dependency model where you give them money and they promise to take care of things, rather than empowering the grassroots to actually go out and solve the problem.
  • community education and protest
  • make it easy for people to do the right thing, and they will
  • we must expose these organizations for what they really are
    • pepa garcía
       
      cómo es en chile? hay informes sobre las condiciones etc. de los criaderos de perros?
  • legislation that prohibits puppy mill dogs from being sold either at pet stores or online,
  • , when we work to reform local shelters, we are also working to impact the puppy mill trade.
  • When shelters turn away good homes because of poor customer service or arbitrary rules, we fuel the pet shop trade
  • when shelters go head to head with the competition, they win.
  • uring the 1990s, at the height of its adoption success and popularity, the San Francisco SPCA had seven offsite adoption locations throughout the city seven days a week. Consequently, the number of pet stores which sold puppies was reduced to zero.
  • T]he more animals dying in a given community (which traditionalists claim means lack of homes), the greater number of pet stores that sell dogs and cats (which shows homes readily available). Generally, pet stores succeed when a shelter is not meeting market demand or competing effectively, and because animal lovers do not want to go into a shelter that kills the vast majority of the animals…
  • we can file civil lawsuits and push for criminal prosecution.
  • we can attempt to regulate and/or eliminate puppy mills directly through legislation, as several states have done
  • severe lack of state inspectors
  • Protest, educate, litigate, legislate, push for enforcement, and reform the shelter. And oh yeah, don’t buy from a pet store, sign my pledge, and send me money. (Just kidding.)
  • the bill will require commercial breeders to provide each dog with sufficient food and clean water, necessary veterinary care, housing, sufficient space, regular exercise, and limits on how many times per year a dog can be bred.
  • It continues the breeding, buying, and selling of dogs.
  • It specifically excludes dogs in animal research labs. It excludes breeding operations who sell “hunting dogs.” And it excludes animal shelters
  • the opposition is using the support of groups like the Humane Society of the United States to claim this is part of a radical animal rights agenda.
  • Compromises must often be made to achieve piecemeal success which can be built on over time.
  • For example, I would support laws banning the killing of animals in shelters altogether. But given tremendous opposition from the shelter killing industry, and the support of that industry by powerful groups like (ironically) the Humane Society of the United States, the ASPCA, and Best Friends, local and state governments are not willing to do that at this time in history, so I work on legislation like the Hayden Law and Assembly Member Micah Kellner’s rescue access bill in New York State to reduce the number killed. T
  • Historically, HSUS has a disturbing pattern of raising money on an issue, and immediately moving on, just as they did when they raised $30 million on Hurricane Katrina rescue, spent $4 million, shipped the animals off to kill shelters, announced “Mission: Accomplished,” and went  home $26 million richer with two criminal investigations on their fundraising practices in their wake.
  • we need local and other national groups to act less like simpleton cheerleaders of HSUS and more like what they should be—groups whose mission is to advocate for dogs.
  • HSUS taking some of its $110 million annual budget (of which only ½ of one percent goes to shelters)
  • ASPCA taking some of its $120 million in annual revenues,
  • Best Friends taking some of its $40 million per year it takes in to rescue only 600 animals per year (at a whopping $70,000 each
  • If HSUS and others fully commit resources and energy into creating a safety net for dogs currently in puppy mills who will be discarded when Proposition B passes, any potential downsides resulting from this legislation would be eliminated.
  • In truth, I believe people are ready for laws banning puppy mills altogether and that would make sense, so long as we do not inadvertently open up markets to puppy mills from places like China, where medieval levels of barbarity would likely be the norm and they would remain out of regulatory reach.
pepa garcía

On Human-Nonhuman Relations: On Rights and Animal Rights (Part One). - 0 views

  • Regan also articulates his firm belief that ‘moral philosophy is no substitute for political action’, but insists, ‘still, it can make a contribution. Its currency is ideas’. This assertion was made many years ago in 1983. However, it appears that large sections of the animal advocacy movement was not (and is not) listening to this important message. Many factions in the modern animal protection movement do not agree that a well worked out philosophical position assists in the furtherance of altering the moral standing of nonhuman animals. Moreover, many of those that do seem to agree with the general point that social movements require a solid basis for claims-making, appear not to accept the case for animal rights in the first place. Recent developments in the animal movement tends to confirm such a view. For example, Francione [4] states that ‘the modern animal “rights” movement has explicitly rejected the doctrine of animal rights’. In fact, it might be tempting to claim, analogous to Gilroy’s [5] declaration that ‘there ain’t no black in the Union Jack’, that there ain’t much rights in ‘animal rights’ either. This tends to beg the question, if not rights violations, what do modern animal advocates substantially rely upon in order to make claims on behalf of nonhuman animals? Francione argues that the contemporary animal movement appears content to rely on a new formulation of traditional ideas, which he labels ‘new welfarism’. He describes this conception of new welfarism as a ‘hybrid position’ which may be understood to be a more progressive, or in Francione’s terms, a ‘modified’ welfare position compared with traditional animal welfarism, especially in the sense that this ‘version of animal welfare…accepts animal rights as an ideal state of affairs that can be achieved only through continued adherence to animal welfare measures’.
  • However, for Francione, new welfarists – despite what sets them apart from traditionalists of the genre - should be regarded as committed to the endorsement of measures ‘indistinguishable’ from policies put forward by those ‘who accept the legitimacy of animal exploitation’.
  • Advocates who wish to pursue a position based on rights thinking are very few in number and, furthermore, do not often feature in ‘leadership’ positions within the current animal protection movement.
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • Francione’s work, especially because it includes a strong critique of new welfarism, has not so much been regarded as a source of philosophical clarity within a social movement, nor helpful in terms of strategic thinking, but rather labelled ‘disruptive’, ‘divisive’ and ‘elitist’.
  • For understandable psychological reasons, ‘victories’ on any scale tend to be loudly trumpeted within social movements.
  • Why, since the modern animal protection movement has rarely if ever pursued an abolitionist agenda for any prolonged period, are many advocates apparently and unequivocally so sure that it is doomed to failure? Why are they so convinced that it will take hundreds of years? Why, moreover, that a philosophical grounding in widely accepted ideas of rights undoubtedly represent demands that unrealistically call for ‘too much’?
  • Francione agrees with Regan that philosophy and political action go together.
  • Indeed, in contrast to many in the movement, he claims the latter requires the former to inform its direction:
  • it is my view that the explicit goal must be abolition and that abolition must shape incremental change.
  • basic rights
  • a paradoxical situation in which the so-called ‘animal rights movement’ virtually rejects genuine rights theories while embracing a non-rights animal liberation position as its main philosophical stance.
  • ‘as a practical matter, [animal welfarism] does not work. We have had animal welfare laws in most western countries for well over a hundred years now, and they have done little to reduce animal suffering and they have certainly not resulted in the gradual abolition of any practices… As to why welfarism fails…the reason has to do with the property status of animals. If animals are property, then they have no value beyond that which is accorded to them by their owners.
  • Benton and Redfearn write: ‘Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation is…within the utilitarian tradition, and it may be that the animal welfare movement’s concern with animal suffering is a measure of the pervasiveness of utilitarianism as the ‘common sense’ of secular morality’
  •  
    This tends to beg the question, if not rights violations, what do modern animal advocates substantially rely upon in order to make claims on behalf of nonhuman animals? Francione argues that the contemporary animal movement appears content to rely on a new formulation of traditional ideas, which he labels 'new welfarism'. He describes this conception of new welfarism as a 'hybrid position' which may be understood to be a more progressive, or in Francione's terms, a 'modified' welfare position compared with traditional animal welfarism, especially in the sense that this 'version of animal welfare…accepts animal rights as an ideal state of affairs that can be achieved only through continued adherence to animal welfare measures'.
pepa garcía

Animal Jazz Session - (Santiago) - 0 views

  •  
    "Junto a La Marraqueta Jazz Fusión Criolla Ven a disfrutar y compartir la pasión por los animales, la música y el vino, en la primera noche animal Organizada por CEFU. Te esperamos el jueves 4 de junio a partir de las 20:30 horas en el International Sporting Club de Santiago, Bellavista 180 (esquina Loreto). Recibe tu entrada que incluye una copa de vino, escribiendo a: cefueventos@gmail.com"
pepa garcía

Conferencia 30 mayo: LAS POLITICAS VERDES Y EL PARTIDO ECOLOGISTA EN CHILE - Facebook - 0 views

  •  
    10:30 - 12:00 Ecocentro Seminario 774-6 Ñuñoa Santiago, Chile
1 - 11 of 11
Showing 20 items per page