Fresno Famous

Property vs. No Rights

@Travelingbiker Calling animal rights a "farce" is a bit off. There are a number of laws against animal cruelty on the books. Maybe you're arguing semantics, I don't know, but protections = rights in most people's books. I'd just assume reduce the overpopulation of dogs and especially cats; there are enough nosy neighbors around to rat on people circumventing the law that this will be enforceable enough when the economy improves. There's been plenty of campaigns and activism to promote awareness of the issue, so to the poster who suggests that legislation was a first strike, I don't know how you could miss the many attempts to get folks to alter their behavior.

>>>I don't know who you're

>>>I don't know who you're arguing with...perhaps you should do some reading yourself (this thread)--no one's debating the property status of animals.

--->You suggest I haven't read this thread, then you claim no one is debating whether animals are property or not.

Please try reading the post called No Animal Rights Submitted by Famous Guest on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 00:48.

>>>I wonder if motive for this legislation (which I have not read) is, at least in part, to protect "us" from each other, e.g., personal health, safety, and maybe even nuisance concerns resulting from strays...

--->That would be a good motive, but even if that were the case, we have laws now that address those problems that aren't being enforced properly. Creating more laws that criminals are going to continue breaking, which will have no impact on the problem, and will only result in limited what responsible pet owners (ack! That's right,people own pets because they are property, lol) are able to legally do.

Re:

I definitely disagree with you on the "no animal rights" front, but that is probably its own discussion. To this thread, I wonder if motive for this legislation (which I have not read) is, at least in part, to protect "us" from each other, e.g., personal health, safety, and maybe even nuisance concerns resulting from strays...

I don't know who you're

I don't know who you're arguing with...perhaps you should do some reading yourself (this thread)--no one's debating the property status of animals. But animals do have protections under California law. Whether you care to admit that or not.

Animals are in fact

Animals are in fact property. Whether you like to admit it or not. Try getting caught stealing one and you'll discover it first hand.

Read Up

California Penal Code section 597 - 599

here if you want it straight from the source:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01...

here if you want a slightly more readable version:
http://www.anapsid.org/pettrade/penalcode.html

I can saw my coffee table in half without cops showing up; can't say the same for a dog. So calling animals property and leaving it at that isn't accurate.

You should do some reading.

You should do some reading. Under the law, animals are property, not people. And that's the way it should be.

There is no way to enforce

There is no way to enforce this. I have been complaining about the noise generated by a neighbor who has 9 dogs... The police say its an SPCA issue, the SPCA says it's a police issue.

No Animal Rights

No animal rights...so does that mean I can toss a kitten on a barbeque and watch it burn alive? Does that mean I can sodomize a sheep on my own land? Can I use garden shears to cut off a dog's feet? Does that mean I can mutilate whatever creature I happen across to my heart's content? Without animal rights, they're just property, so by your reasoning I'd have to take that as a 'yes.' I hope you just wrote that without thinking, because if that's truly your stance, I hope you do get the fuck out of the state.

Here's why I'm opposed to it...

We already have many laws on the books now regulating responsible animal ownership that aren't being enforced.

The net effect of this legislation will not solve any problems, they'll only affect law following, pet owning citizens to do what they wish to do while remaining in compliance with the law.

These laws are an effort by the animal rights lobby to incrementally move us toward a place where no pets are ever owned.

We must resist these efforts at all costs. Animals rights is a farce... There is no, and should be no such thing as "animal rights."

We need a small, limited government that protects us from each other and preserves our civil liberties.... Not a huge, inefficient government that legislates every detail of our lives, such as who I can marry and whether or not I can have a litter of puppies.

question

travellingbiker,
why are you opposed to this bill?

There's no way that'll happen

There's no way I'll ever lift one finger to contribute to the SPCA. They're a horrible organization that supports terrible legislation like this bill.

50,000 animals entered Fresno SPCA last year

50,000 animals entered Fresno SPCA last year. Did you know that the Fresno SPCA has the highest intake of animals per year in the country? I invite you who are opposed the Spay and Neuter bill to volunteer at the SPCA for a month and then give your oppinion on your rights as a human to make animals miserable.

Though my reaction is less spirit...

I often wonder why the first reaction to a problem is to legislate. It seems like there are other, probably more effective, ways to deal with this issue.