Saturday, February 7, 2009

Yeah but, No

PETA is never one to miss an opportunity for free publicity in their efforts to stuff more money into their mattresses and kill more animals solve society's problems:

In the wake of a savage attack on an 8-month-old boy by a pit bull terrier in Newport News this week, Daphna Nachminovitch of PETA outlined the organization's "controversial" position on pit bulls.
PETA supports legislation that bans the breeding of pit bulls, along with spaying and neutering legislation as the most effective way to combat the "tragic companion animal overpopulation problem."
*screeching brakes* We have no pet overpopulation problem. Nathan Winograd has definitively debunked that myth. We have a failure to get enough shelter pets into homes. Groups like PETA and HSUS share in the blame on that issue. But it is a solvable problem. We are a no-kill nation. Join us.

Back to PETA nonsense:

Although the pit bull that attacked a child at a baby sitter's home on Barclay Road in Newport News was neutered, PETA's position is about more than behavior. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would lead to the phasing out of a breed.

Right. The phasing out of a breed of beloved pets for many families in this country. Of course this fits right in with PETA's pet extermination plan (kill as many pets as possible, prevent the rest from reproducing) but it certainly doesn't fit in with the average pet owning American's civil liberties and Constitutional rights. But hey, don't let that stop you:

PETA argues the breeding ban would save a lot of canines from suffering.

Actually, what would save a lot of dogs from suffering death by lethal injection is to steer clear of PETA's slaughterhouse shelter.

More from the article:

PETA wouldn't be true to form if its position wasn't controversial. But maybe these proposals are worth further consideration.

Although all dogs are capable of biting a child, it goes without saying that the injuries inflicted by a pit bull will usually be worse than those inflicted by a Chihuahua.

M'kaaaaaaaaaaay. By this logic, I guess we could say that injuries inflicted by a hockey stick will usually be worse than those inflicted by a soccer ball. So, ban hockey? Methinks the author misses the point here. It is certainly tragic that this infant was mauled by a dog while in the care of a babysitter. The breed of dog is about as relevant as the color of the babysitter's skin. What we have here is a failure of a babysitter to properly care for a baby.

Sadly, just two days later in Newport News, a baby died while in the care of a babysitter - this time being choked to death by the chest strap of a car seat. So what do we do now? Ban babysitters? Ban car seats? Ban Newport News because two tragic incidents occurred there this week? If those suggestions sound ridiculous because they wouldn't address the real issues or solve any problems, then welcome to my world. Because that's exactly what I think about Pitbull bans.

As for PETA, do us all a favor and stick to what you know. *crickets*


Caveat said...

That sociopath is still getting ink?

Media = Big Suckers

We await Peta's kill numbers for 2008, Patrick reviews 2007 just to refresh everyone's memories.

taar.rescue said...

PETA talk on dogs seems to be a lot of twisted logic that makes little sense to me. It is amazing that they can get the media to print anything they say.