> >Change comes SLOW.
>
>So why is charging loads for gerbils to artificially enhance their value
>any quicker than changing attitudes in other ways?
--------
The Most IMPORTANT reason- is that of protection. Our laws will not protect
an animal (read "property") if it has no "value".
The other reason is that of american psychology. Remember, not EVERYONE int
eh country LIKES animals (even cats/dogs)- you are NOT goign to get their
respect by tryign to warm them up to a cute fuzzie- yet you are STILL
subjectated to their treatment of you as a pet owner, their votes on
proposed laws, their rules for you as a tennet etc etc. You CAN get their
respect by acting serious about it and putting a big price tag on it to
impress them (big just meaning "significant", which would naturally still
vary species to species)
if you DONT get their respect and they do soemthign henious- you better have
a "value' on that animal becase if you dont- the courts dont CARE that
soemoen abused/killed/etc an animal- they get away with murder (think back
to the story about the animal shelter where the kids broke in and bashed in
the heads of the cats- stray cats have no "value" therefor the courts
wouldnt recognize charges involving the destruction of those cats- only that
of breakign/entering). If you have a value though, you can persue charges.
As for FASTEr- its FASTER because changing attitudes is slow becuase peopel
fear change, change is slow.
Its FASTER for PROTECTION. Our current laws may not be ideal- but we CAN
protect our animals under these laws to a fair extent- you just have to
"play their game" to do it. Playign their game means putting in writing
that the animals are your "property" (whether you think that or not) and
that they are worth a dollar amount (even thoguh WE know they are
priceless).
Even if we could get peopel interested in soem great ideal new law, it takes
TIME to get that law made official (Beauracracy, I swear, cross country
snail racing is faster than the time it takes our government to photocopy an
in office memo). In the MEAN time, Im not going to let them go
"unprotected" because I dont like the current law and want to wait for that
"better one". What happens if soemone abuses an animal while we are waiting
for that "new great law"???
>You can charge what you want but no-one has to pay it. If people do not
>value gerbils they will not pay the money for them.<
Thats true.
but peopel, knowing full well that I charge more (I tell right off, thati
charge X dollars more than local stores etc.) and they happily DO pay it.
That was the point.
(Coincidently, like peopel on this list, I USED to place all my animals for
free or a small $2 or $3. (I got really sick really fast of all the snake
peopel calling for free food!)) But when peopel did call for pets, and I'd
say this animal's' $3- over HALF the time, peopel gave me MORE. Id refuse
and theyd insist on payign $5 or $10 for an animal I said was $3. Why?
>it is not what
>someone pays that shows the value, it is what a person would pay a vet
>to save the animals life.<
I dont think thats accurate for several reasons:
1. there are very few vets who will treat small animals here. Most treat
only cats/dogs. There are many peopel in the rat/mouse circles who have no
rodent-treating vets in a drivable distance. The option to treat is not
there for them
2. when there are rodent treating vets in an area, it is not uncommon for
them to label themselves an "exotics" vet, and thus charge MORE than youd
pay any vet for a cat/dog treatment. It costs me $25 to have my cat see a
vet. if I was "poor" I could get a charity vet via the shelter for even
less than that. To take 1 rat/gerbil/mouse/hamster/etc in to the vet? $40.
Just for walkign inthe door. We had one rat with an injury once and we
were quoted a treatment fee in estimate of $850 - 1100 AND he was given only
25% chance at surviving the operation. Now I usually dont hesitate to do
whatever necissary to help an animal, but even my credit card can't carry a
balance THAT high! Am I "uncaring" towards rodents because I dont have a
thousand dollars laying around? I dont think so, nor would I judge soemoen
else as "uncaring" if somethign liek that happened to their
rat/dog/bird/hamster whatever.
3. How can you say what you would pay to save an animal- if that animal has
a healthy, trouble free life? if My rat or gerbil or whatever NEVER gets
sick and needs to see a vet, does that mean I DONT love it as much as one
that I take in for a $300 operation? (If this was how you told america to
measure an animals worth- Beleive me, youd have lawers argueing that because
an animal never needed to see a vet (or becuase it was killed
instantaniously (eg hit by a car))- then the animal has no "worth" becuase
there is no vet bill to proove it- so the abuser/killer/etc shoudl go off
scott free.)
>Surely this is the value that the courts
>should be applying and that is the sort of thing you should be
>campaigning for. <
Surely- but they don't. There's many cases of dogs even being neglected
when flown via airlines in their cargo holds in their crates- an animal was
so badly damaged that the vet bills were astronimacal (it needed stitches,
antibiotics, overnight hospitalization, and facial reconstruction due to
damage to the skull and jaw). You can probably imagine the many thousands
of dollars this all cost. The airline paid ONLY the maximum refund they
give for lost or damaged baggage (I dont know off hand what that was,
probably a few hundred dollars or soemthing). Yes they went to court, the
courts said the dog was property, the airline owed nothing. somethign liek
1,000 of our pets die or are maimed in air transit every year, and many
times this and other cases where an animals' "worth" is determined go to
court- andits the same thign almost every time. the animal is property- and
cheep, worthless property at that most of the time. Peopel get away with
murder (literally). (And yes, there are peopel workign on changing these
things, But I know the fight with the airlines has been goign on for years,
(I do support those workign on it, its important to me as we sometimes ship
animals between countries and air lines are the ONLY choice we have for
that) and so far all that has come of it basically is more "paperwork" for
tracking animals- not harsher penelties for those that were responsible for
the animals, or larger payments if an animal is hurt or killed.... CHANGE IS
*SLOW*.
>Would a court say a child's life has no value because
>it can easily be replaced by a fertile couple? Of course not. This is
>all about attitudes and not money.<
Tell that to our courts, culture, society.
Im no idiot, I KNOW an animals life doesnt REALLY have a money value. But
the majority of the peopel "out there" who make up our court juries, run
over animals with cars, run petshops and vet offices and shelters and are
landlordes to us etc etc... THEY don't get it. and THEY DO SAY "you can
replace that $5 animal". No they dont say that about a human baby- because
they DO NOT SEE HUMANS AND ANIMALS AS EQUALLY VALUABLE LIVES. Theres really
are many scientific psychological studies about this #$%^&*(#$%^&* attitude
of our country. Say its stupid all you want (ill agree with that), But no
matter hoe much WE think its stupid- theres no argueing with the fact that
thats the prevailent attitude. If you live here, you got to deal with it.
You can work for change- but change ain't overnight- in the meantime, you
better "play their game" to protect your animals the best you can.
ag
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
