(Picture Left: "Nia" and Chris. Nia is a fabulous "Throwaway Mama" Pitbull that we rescued from death at the AC&C almost a year ago. All this time, this loving and dog friendly, child friendly dog has languished in boarding. Our abilities to place loving Pitties like Nia is now further hampered by the ASPCA's distruction of Oreo and false rationalization for it.)Cubby's Daddy Writes: A high visibility organization with the massive funding and community standing of the ASPCA has a responsibility to set an example. By killing Oreo, the example they set is that it's ok to put down pitbulls because they are "aggressive" and can not be rehabilitated. The average person knows nothing about this breed except what they hear on the news. They think all pits are dangerous and should be put down. The ASPCA has done nothing but re-affirm that misconception. People are the problem, not the pitties.
Reply: The wisdom of your comment cannot be emphasized enough.
As powerful "role model" to almost the entire animal protection movement, the ASPCA has sent a silent message to the media and the public at large in its needless and unjustifiable execution of Oreo.
The message is that Pitbulls are aggressive and beyond redemption and should be put down in order to "protect the public."
What the ASPCA doesn't say is that according to insiders who knew Oreo, the dog was not aggressive at all. Vets had no problems in treating Oreo or volunteer dog walkers in walking Oreo.
Ah, but alas, Oreo (a former victim of beatings by her owner and being thrown from a rooftop) didn't fair well on her so-called, "Behavior Test." She charged a plastic hand dangled in front of her face.
My, my. Surprise, surprise.
I wonder what my dogs would do were I to dangle a plastic hand in front of their faces? Sadly, I can't answer that question as I've never had occasion to tease or torment my dogs with a plastic hand. I suspect, Chance, my Pomeranian might "charge" a plastic hand. Perhaps I should have him put down as a "danger" to the public?
What is particularly distressing about the ASPCA's killing of this particular dog is not just the actual execution, but the ASPCA's justification and rationale for it.
"Blaming the victim," so to speak.
One might be a little more understanding of the ASPCA position had they said something like:
"More than 90% of the dogs we get in from cruelty cases are Pitbulls. More than 80% of the dogs arriving at city Animal Control shelters are Pitbulls and Pit mixes.
Tragically, we don't have the responsible and capable homes to place all of these dogs into. We are forced to kill most Pitbulls because there is no reputable placement for the majority of them."
Had the ASPCA said the above, while representing TRUTH, it still would not have justified the killing of Oreo, because this particular dog DID have placement offer through a reputable and capable sanctuary ("Pets Alive"). If (as said yesterday) the ASPCA didn't like the particular shelter, they could have appealed to Best Friends in Utah who, almost assuredly would have taken a case as special as Oreo's and had the means to do so.
But, the ASPCA never bothered to ask Best Friends and ignored Pets Alive's offer.
In its arrogance, The ASPCA apparently didn't want another organization to succeed in what it failed to achieve: "Rehabilitation" and possible placement of Oreo into a loving home. It was more convenient and politically expedient to kill the dog and then blame Oreo for her own execution ("unadoptable.")
Thus, rationale for Oreo's death is put on the DOG, rather than the vicious human individual who so cruelly beat and tried to kill her OR the culture that is so ruthlessly breeding, abusing and discarding this breed of dog en masse.
The ASPCA's inexcusable killing of Oreo sets back the Animal Protection Movement at least 100 years.
The message is: "It is easier and more convenient to blame and kill the animal victims of abuse than to challenge and go after the human perpetrators." -- PCA
******
Reply: The wisdom of your comment cannot be emphasized enough.
As powerful "role model" to almost the entire animal protection movement, the ASPCA has sent a silent message to the media and the public at large in its needless and unjustifiable execution of Oreo.
The message is that Pitbulls are aggressive and beyond redemption and should be put down in order to "protect the public."
What the ASPCA doesn't say is that according to insiders who knew Oreo, the dog was not aggressive at all. Vets had no problems in treating Oreo or volunteer dog walkers in walking Oreo.
Ah, but alas, Oreo (a former victim of beatings by her owner and being thrown from a rooftop) didn't fair well on her so-called, "Behavior Test." She charged a plastic hand dangled in front of her face.
My, my. Surprise, surprise.
I wonder what my dogs would do were I to dangle a plastic hand in front of their faces? Sadly, I can't answer that question as I've never had occasion to tease or torment my dogs with a plastic hand. I suspect, Chance, my Pomeranian might "charge" a plastic hand. Perhaps I should have him put down as a "danger" to the public?
What is particularly distressing about the ASPCA's killing of this particular dog is not just the actual execution, but the ASPCA's justification and rationale for it.
"Blaming the victim," so to speak.
One might be a little more understanding of the ASPCA position had they said something like:
"More than 90% of the dogs we get in from cruelty cases are Pitbulls. More than 80% of the dogs arriving at city Animal Control shelters are Pitbulls and Pit mixes.
Tragically, we don't have the responsible and capable homes to place all of these dogs into. We are forced to kill most Pitbulls because there is no reputable placement for the majority of them."
Had the ASPCA said the above, while representing TRUTH, it still would not have justified the killing of Oreo, because this particular dog DID have placement offer through a reputable and capable sanctuary ("Pets Alive"). If (as said yesterday) the ASPCA didn't like the particular shelter, they could have appealed to Best Friends in Utah who, almost assuredly would have taken a case as special as Oreo's and had the means to do so.
But, the ASPCA never bothered to ask Best Friends and ignored Pets Alive's offer.
In its arrogance, The ASPCA apparently didn't want another organization to succeed in what it failed to achieve: "Rehabilitation" and possible placement of Oreo into a loving home. It was more convenient and politically expedient to kill the dog and then blame Oreo for her own execution ("unadoptable.")
Thus, rationale for Oreo's death is put on the DOG, rather than the vicious human individual who so cruelly beat and tried to kill her OR the culture that is so ruthlessly breeding, abusing and discarding this breed of dog en masse.
The ASPCA's inexcusable killing of Oreo sets back the Animal Protection Movement at least 100 years.
The message is: "It is easier and more convenient to blame and kill the animal victims of abuse than to challenge and go after the human perpetrators." -- PCA
******
No comments:
Post a Comment