babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » environmental justice   » sexism, ageism, pit bulls, the SPCA, and a question to babblers

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: sexism, ageism, pit bulls, the SPCA, and a question to babblers
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 28 December 2007 09:10 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A situation I've been informed about:

In Quebec (or perhaps in many more places), the SPCA does not allow males 25 and under - or under 25? - to adopt pit bulls, and I think similar dogs too. Do you consider such discrimination to be legitimate, or do you think it violates charter rights, is sexist and ageist, and should be challenged in court?

Personally, I think it is fair. I've done a bit of reading up on this issue since pissing off an ex-girlfriend whose crazy for animal rights. She said there's not much really wrong with pit bulls, other than the fact that since they're so strong, they're the dogs that the crazy owners who are into dog fighting will go for. But also crazy owners who are not particularly great anyway. If we were to "discontinue" pit bulls, she argued, all that would happen is that the problems would shift to the next strongest breed.

If anyone cares she sent me the following two links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwI_qlq5vHs (4 minutes long)
http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm

And so I think I might see the SPCA's rationale. There is stupid moronic dog fighting taking place. If men under 25 have a harder time getting pit bulls, they're less likely to participate as they have no chance of winning in the main arena. Maybe by the time they're 25 they'll lose interest. That's my best guess of what they believe.

What do others think?

[I put this in environmental justice because that's the closest thing that comes to animal rights]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 28 December 2007 09:28 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with you - it's fair.

I suppose they are basing their decision on some kind of statistical correlation. I think protecting dogs from abuse trumps "the universal and inalienable right to have a pit bull". In other words - if you want to use rights language - the rights of the dogs are more important in this case, i.e., they have more to lose if their rights are violated: You have to weigh abuse versus "not having a pit bull" or "being discriminated against in the matter of having a pit bull".

If the SPCA had the money, they could investigate people on an individual basis (the way adoption agencies do) and not have to rely on statistical correlations. But they certainly do not have that kind of money, which is one reason they kill so many animals every year - but at least they are not tortured.

[ 28 December 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401

posted 28 December 2007 09:52 AM      Profile for jrose     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And so I think I might see the SPCA's rationale. There is stupid moronic dog fighting taking place. If men under 25 have a harder time getting pit bulls, they're less likely to participate as they have no chance of winning in the main arena. Maybe by the time they're 25 they'll lose interest. That's my best guess of what they believe.

I think if they have statistics, and facts, to back up such a claim, then for the welfare of the dogs the SPCA should uphold this policy. But, if they are simply branding a section of the population because they MIGHT participate, without properly attributing it, then the policy may be problematic.

Overall, I do think that the main objective here is to look out for these animals, who for the most part are loving dogs. Many shelters refuse to adopt black cats during the entire month of October, in fear they will become part of some Halloween charade.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 28 December 2007 04:17 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*shrugs* How old is Michael Vick and his dog fighting gang? If they are under 25 then maybe the policy is valid, if they are over, it isn. I suspect young guys want a cool 'manly' tough dog but aren't seriously looking to compete in dog fighting. Dog fighting participants I suspect are older and more financially established since you cant just have one dog for that sort of thing
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca