intends to phase out euthanasia and progressively increase the pet “live release” rate from 61 percent to above 90 percent sometime next year. Only terminally ill, injured and suffering pets as well as vicious dogs will continue to be euthanized.
A commendable legislative measure to spare more pets - Our Take - BradentonHerald.com - 0 views
-
-
Manatee pet rescue and animal welfare organizations aim to boost pet fostering and adoption and promote free or low cost spay and neutering programs.
-
Thus, it would be illegal for shelters to kill animals when a qualified non-profit rescue organization expresses a willingness to spare the creature.
- ...12 more annotations...
Flies and cockroaches carry antibiotic-resistant bacteria from factory farms, study fin... - 0 views
-
factory-farm animals consume a jaw-dropping four times as many antibiotics as do people in the United States
-
And we know that a kind of antibiotic-resistant staph infection called MRSA now kills more people than AIDS
-
and infects people who never set foot in a hospital, which is the site where MRSA is thought to have originated
- ...4 more annotations...
Senate Rejects Feinstein's Egg Bill -- SAN FRANCISCO, June 19, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewsw... - 0 views
-
"The egg industry is seeking to establish egg factory cages as a national standard that could never be challenged or changed by state law or public vote,"
-
S. 3239 and H.R. 3798 would codify a controversial deal between the United Egg Producers (UEP) — the egg industry trade association recently sued for an alleged price-fixing scheme — and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which is now endorsing the same egg factory cages it had long opposed.
-
"The Rotten Egg Bill would be disastrous for laying hens who would be forever locked in cages — as well as for millions of voters whose rights would be traded away," said Miller
- ...1 more annotation...
Animal Legal Defense Fund - 0 views
Oreo, Yes on Oreo's Law What You Can Do - 0 views
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...
-
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'.
Dogs 'wreak havoc on habitats and threaten endangered species' | Mail Online - 0 views
-
What they found is that dogs, their worldwide numbers estimated at 500million,
-
can cause more damage to wildlife and livestock than wolves and other apex predators.
-
One study cited by Young concluded through genetic testing that dogs - not wolves, as originally suspected - were responsible for a rash of livestock killings in the mountainous Basque country between Spain and France.
- ...5 more annotations...
‹ Previous
21 - 33 of 33
Showing 20▼ items per page