Comments on: Blowing Off Some Steam about Wellsford and Politicians

By: Katherine

Katherine — Thu, 05 May 2011 04:09:18 +0000

Thanks for the inigsht. It brings light into the dark!

By: Beverly Gailey

Beverly Gailey — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 03:51:37 +0000

There’s some serious weirdness around this whole episode, and it’s not just the guy who owned the dogs or the guys who shot them. What about the wallies who offered a man who lived in a quarry more dogs? What goes on in their heads?
Incidentally, going veggie to spare the animals sounds great, but don’t kid yourselves that animals don’t die so you can get your crops. I used to farm beef cattle and sent several hundred a year to the freezing works. Now I grow vegetables commercially, I kill many more animals to protect the crops, mainly sparrows, than I ever did when farming beef. basically, nature’s got no morals. and if you eat, something dies.

By: Andrew Sabine

Andrew Sabine — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:41:12 +0000

Peter,

You make some great points but why stop there? Our nation has an econmy that is half-run by animal cruelty. When most of our eggs come from battery hens, most of our pork from factory farms, most of our cows live lives that are polluted with torture, rape and murder, not to mention the fact that any animal products are a product of animal exploitation, how is it possible that politicians can single out the smallest case of abuse? Not to say that it these are not grotesque acts, but the leaders of today are willing to denounce these minor acts in the scheme of things and then go off to McD’s to order a Big Murder with Rape burger. Do you think that these incidents are what is required to normalize an abhorrence for abuse in general?

By: Peter Sankoff

Peter Sankoff — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:12:19 +0000

I appreciate all the support, but why are we getting riled up about a comment that doesn’t relate to the blog, doesn’t make any time of reasoned or supported argument, and seems merely designed to work everybody up?

By: Ana Lenard

Ana Lenard — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 03:57:43 +0000

That’s a terrible thing to say! SAFE are an amazing organization who do the work that no one else is willing to do, and they are far better organized and more respectable than many organizations out there. And the people who for SAFE (like me) HARDLY line their pockets…believe me. If you are so critical of SAFE, where is YOUR big animal rights organization?

By: AaronC

AaronC — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:37:19 +0000

I’m looking forward to you providing some evidence of this gem. Why would you think that? On CloseUp SAFE was revealed as one of the best organisations to donate to because their integrity is outstanding. Something tells me you have a vested interest in animal exploitation, and they have blown the whistle on what you do?
Do you exploit animals for profit? How do you do it exactly and why are SAFE the bad guys? I think they are awesome. Rock on SAFE!

By: Garry Valk

Garry Valk — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:48:54 +0000

Again, I agree with everything you’ve said, Peter. The problem with the Nats (and all politicians, at least publicly) is that they see punishment as self-justifying, like eating or sex. Being a politician means making baddies pay. This is a government that wants to have a 3 Strikes Law. So raising penal sanctions for those who are cruel to animals is no biggie to them and fits with their views. And the lack of consistency is palpable and is hypocrisy. I can’t imagine when MAF or the SPCA will ever be well funded enough to properly stop cruelty to animals.

And again, I’m glad you’ve addressed the issue of the owner and the number of dogs he owned.

Also, I think you should probably filter the comments on this blog.

By: David Tong

David Tong — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:54:39 +0000

Gem,

How is that accusation relevant to the article under discussion?

By: gem

gem — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 04:11:35 +0000

SAFE only exist for one reason to line their own pockets they do nothing and are so concerned about their image that they border on being traitors

By: AaronC

AaronC — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:06:37 +0000

I hear you buddy, loud and clear. My biggest irk with the animal welfare act is that its a set of guidleines, not rules, therefore whoever can afford the better lawyer, wins. Result: Battery Chickens, Sow Crates, and who really knows how baby cows die in unnamed places. What kind of law of the land is that?

The good news is that this bad news IS on the table, and more and more people are becoming aware. Sadly those of us who have been on about this for years just have to wait for the stragglers *ahem, LEADERS (wtf?) to catch up. It will be a big year for animals this year, the slaughter and abuse will continue, but I have a positive feeling that more and more people will start to give a damn. I’d love to see us all working together cohesively like a resistance movement. We are too often fragmented, and working alone dont have the impact we would have as a movement. I really hope we can do something decent with the review of the animal welfare act, that was supposed to happen last year. //rolls eyes, reaches for another dose of optimism..