The majority are fed up to the back teeth with extreme “animal rightists” like “asocial ape”, who are dead set peta enthusiasts who have a hidden agenda that NO animal should live with, work for or be eaten by humans, and he/she has already admitted those animals would be better off dead.

What a typically callous attitude, when your own ilk (Peta supporters) are before the Courts for killing and dumping dogs bodies in trash dumpsters. These same dogs they professed to have “rescued”!!!!!!

Why don’t you at least be honest and admit you don’t collect these cats to be spayed/neutered out of the goodness of your heart, but that it’s a step towards your final goal of “no animals living with humans” agenda!

STOP trying to force your beliefs about the way our “pets” should be treated onto the majority.

“People who love their pets” have finally woken from their apathy and are up and fighting AR and the likes of Peta etc., and you only need to look at what has happened to Levine’s AB1634 bill at the moment to see the groundswell of pet lovers fighting back against people with your attitude.

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO STEAL SOMEONE ELSES PET, SPAY/NEUTER IT, AND THEN DUMP IT IN RESCUE!!!!! That is typical AR at it’s worst.

That person is the one who should be charged with theft and illegally “fixing” someone elses property (yes, property.)

Let us finally wake up and understand what “Peta” and their followers true agenda is all about, and STOP FILLING THEIR COFFERS with millions of dollars which they in turn use against the genuine pet lover by putting their people up as senators etc., to table onerous Bills like AB1634.

yes, i feel personally obligated to my pets (and many others), but that does not give you the right to pass judgement as to whether or not i should share my home with them based on their s/n status. period. nor does it give me the right to pass judgement on whether you should have pets if i don’t like what you feed them or the state of your living environment. crikey, ever hear the folks that think it’s animal cruelty to have dogs in apts (you one of those?!)?! taking care of the (all) animals is but a small part of the equation. EDUCATING the public on responsible pet *whatever you want to call it* is a much bigger issue. you raise the level of awareness through means that work. stealing pets usually just pisses people off and they then write off all animal lovers as “thoses activists” and the press generally does also. it DOES NOT HELP THE ANIMALS AT ALL. NOBODY *wins* and the animals most certainly lose.

so maybe you want to live in a petless world, but i do not. and as long as people are stealing pets based on their so called *moral obligation*, then i’ll keep supporting the law that says they are property and yes, I do own mine, TYVM!

“despite what the legal system may say, you don’t own them. they own themselves.”

excuse me, i’ll re-phrase that: so you would assume i am not entitled/worthy to share living space with them because my one cat still has all his parts? and if we do not own them, they own themselves, what gives us the right to mutilate their bodies? or even trap them for that matter . . . ?

trucorgi said
“You have no moral or legal authority to trap and steal animals and alter them.”
you don’t know the laws in my county. furthermore, legal status of my actions doesn’t concern me. as for the moral aspect, i’m quite comfortable with our actions. seeing an animal suffering and doing nothing is simple cowardice.

trucorgi said
“If ALL dogs, cats, bunnies and hogs were steralized, one generation out, they would be extinct.”
if it got to that point, so be it. _homo sap_ has proven itself incapable of compassion to other creatures. better they were all gone, beyond our reach than one to suffer in a puppymill, a lab, or abattoir.

Leigh-Ann said
“If they’re fixed, I put a collar on them with a note and my phone number so I can track them if they come back. If the cat isn’t fixed, I take it and have it spayed/neutered, and then I try to adopt it out….”
good for you! that’s awesome.

Sandy said
“STEALING is wrong.”
that what slave owners in the southern US used to say when decent people helped their ‘property’ escape bondage.

BTW this is the original Sandy in here we now have two with JUST Sandy as the name. Itchmo?

“You have no moral or legal authority to trap and steal animals and alter them.”

I’ve been told by law enforcement and animal control where I live that if an animal comes onto my property, and it has no collar or microchip, that I may do with it what I please. In my case it’s always cats. If they’re fixed, I put a collar on them with a note and my phone number so I can track them if they come back. If the cat isn’t fixed, I take it and have it spayed/neutered, and then I try to adopt it out. I will post a “found cat” notice online, in the newspaper, and at the nearby vet’s office, and read all “lost cat” notices, but I will not take any animal to the city pound, and I will not let an unaltered animal wander the streets. I took one animal to the pound a couple of years ago and it either died or was euthanized, despite my promises to adopt it if no owner came forward. I figure getting a cat fixed, for free, is doing someone a favour.

So, at least in Las Vegas, a person does have legal authority to do what they want with animals that have no ID and are wandering the streets. I’d also like to add that of the half dozen unaltered cats I’ve taken in, had fixed, and adopted out, not one single owner has come forward to claim their lost pet. The unaltered ones are invariably sick with URIs, underfed, and in general poor body condition as well.

See below. This was posted to a cat list I’m on. Very concerning. I haven’t had a chance to investigate yet. All mine are chipped, even my indoor cat. Not sure if I will chip in the future. I may have to resort to tattooing my social security number on my pets. OFA requires permanent ID in the form of a chip or tattoo to register hip and eye certifications, so responsible breeders don’t have much choice. I only register my chips with AKC/CAR. I do not want a big brother company like Petdata with ties to HSUS having info in their database on the reproductive status of my animals. They sell their data. CAR is about returning lost/stolen pets to their rightful owners, not collecting data for animal rights.

> Implanted Microchips Cause Cancer
>
> By Jane Williams GFN contributing writer—
> (For Publication in the January 2007 “American Family Voice”)
>
> At the National ID Expo in Kansas City, Arkansas Animal Producer’s
> Association
> President Michael Steenbergen asked, “What safety studies have been
> conducted on the chips that are inserted into animals?” His
question was
> met with total silence. Did these manufacturers not know, or were
they
> unwilling to admit that research has confirmed that implanted
microchips
> cause cancer?
>
> Melvin T. Massey, DVM (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine) from
> Brownsboro,Texas, brought this to the attention of the American
Horse
> Council when he wrote, “I am a retired Equine Veterinarian and still
> breed a few horses. Because of migration-infection s-increased risk
of
> sarcoids I will not want to have microchips in my horses.”
>
> The Institute of Experimental Pathology at Hannover Medical School
in
> Germany reported , “An experiment using 4279 CBA/J mice of two
> generations was carried out to investigate the influence of parental
> preconceptual exposure to X-ray
> radiation or to chemical carcinogens. Microchips were implanted
> subcutaneously in the dorsolateral back for unique identification of
> each animal.
> The animals were kept for lifespan under standard laboratory
conditions.
> In 36 mice a circumscribed neoplasm occurred in the area of the
> implanted
> microchip.
> Macroscopically, firm, pale white nodules up to 25 mm in diameter
> with the microchip in its center were found. Macroscopically, soft
> tissue
> tumors such as fibrosarcoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma were
> detected.”
>
> Ecole Nationale Veterinaire of Unite d’Anatomie Pathologique in
> Nantes, France, reported, “Fifty-two subcutaneous tumors associated
with
>
> microchip were collected from three carcinigenicity B6C3F1
micestudies.
> Two of these 52 tumors were adenocarcinoma of the mammary gland
located
> on the dorsal region forming around the chip. All the other 50 were
> mesenchymal in origin and were difficult to classify on
morphological
> grounds with haematoxylineosin.”
>
> Marta Vascellari of Instituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle
> Venezie at
> Viale dell’Universita in Legnaro, Italy reported examining a 9-year-
old
> male
> French Bulldog for a subcutaneous mass located at the site of a
> microchip implant. “The mass was confirmed as a high-grade
infiltrative
> fibrosarcoma, with multifocal necrosis and peripheral lymphoid
> aggregates.”
>
> The Toxicology Department of Bayer Corporation in Stillwell, Kansas
> reported,
> “Tumors surrounding implanted microchip animal identification
devices
> were noted in two separate chronic toxicity/oncogenici ty studies
using
> F344 rats.
> The tumors occurred at a low incidence rate (approximately 1%), but
did
> result
> in the early sacrifice of most affected animals, due to tumor size
and
> occasional metastases. No sex-related trends were noted.
>
> All tumors occurred during the second year of the studies, were
located
> in
> the subcutaneous dorsal thoracic area (the site of microchip
> implantation)
> and contained embedded microchip devices. All were mesenchymal in
> origin and consisted of the following types, listed on order of
> frequency:
> malignant schwannoma, fibrosarcoma, anaplastic sarcoma, and
histiocytic
> sarcoma.
>
> The following diagnostic techniques were employed: light
microscopy,
> scanning electron microscopy, and immunohistochemistry. The
mechanism of
> carcinogenicity appeared to be that of foreign body induced
> tumorigenesis. ”
>
> Additional studies related to cancer tumors at the site of
microchip
> implants have been conducted in China; however, at this time these
> studies are
> not available in English. At this time, no long term studies are
> available
> covering more than two years. It only seems logical to conclude
that if
> carcinogenic tumors occur within one percent of animals implanted
> within two years of the implant that the percentage would increase
with
> the
> passage of time. Additional studies need to be conducted, but don’t
hold
> your
> breath for the manufacturers of microchips to conduct such research
and
> be leery of any such “research” they may conduct. Even the limited
> research available clearly
> indicates that implantation of microchips within an animal is
> gambling with the animal’s well being.

Kevin’s link (above) is to a summary of one research study done on rats. 1% developed a tumor. I’d rather take that 1% risk than the immeasurable risk of losing my dog, or having her stolen, without a microchip to identify her.

Asocial Ape says: dogs _shouldn’t_ be bred. all dogs, cats, bunnies, hogs, &c. should be spayed/neutered.

If ALL dogs, cats, bunnies and hogs were steralized, one generation out, they would be extinct.

do you have any links to the chip/cancer connection? my dog is my only chipped pet as she is the most likely to land her butt in the high kill shelter (still VERY unlikely, but just in case), but was thinking of doing the cats before a cross country move . . . .