5 comments to “Misdirection and cooption”

  1. Mel | February 24, 2012 | Permalink

    You always raise the bar on facts and information – thanks Paul – Great point, incisive point.

  2. Alonso | March 21, 2012 | Permalink

    “Should an animal welfare organisation develop an income stream from farmed puppies?” – no, it shouldn’t, and affiliation with the Pets Paradise ‘donation drive’ was a poor choice. But I disagree that NPR providing microchips constitutes LDH directly profiting from the bulk production of pets.

    You’ve mistaken cause and effect: pets are not produced so that they can be microchipped. Microchip registries exist because pets need them.

    LDH have found a way to profit from the provision of a service that benefits animals, not one that promotes the production of more animals. Irrespective of your opinions on whatever else LDH does, there’s nothing wrong with this in itself.

  3. savingpets | March 22, 2012 | Permalink

    “… I disagree that NPR providing microchips constitutes LDH directly profiting from the bulk production of pets.”

    Nope, you’re wrong. The more puppies the farmers produce and chip through the service, the more relationships with pet shops the NPR has, the more it profits. It’s not causation, but it most certainly is correlation.

    By your logic, any shelter can offer any service to puppy farmers and their ilk, as long as ‘the pets need it’. Should they offer whelping services to farmers through their shelter vets? Pets need vets and they were going to give birth anyway. Maybe groups could offer retail food deliveries to farmers – that’d be a great little earner for their ‘non-profits’ & pets need food after all.

    It’s ridiculous that anyone would find pet shops paying the Lost Dogs Home $10 per pet shop puppy an appropriate income stream for a group who claims to be working to reduce puppy farming and benefit pet welfare.

  4. Alonso | March 22, 2012 | Permalink

    I disagree with your logic here too. You admit yourself that it’s not causation, only correlation. Now please explain why a correlation that is completely unrelated to causation is a negative thing. You’ll also find a strong correlation between height and reading ability (because babies and young children are generally worse at reading than full-grown adults). By your logic, if we consider illiteracy a negative trait, then being of short stature must also be a negative trait.

    It is a logical fallacy to condemn the LDH for providing NPR chips. The need for microchips is now a fixed cost of producing companion animals. I’d much rather that that fixed cost go towards rehoming animals in need than go to some other company that won’t do anything benevolent with it (and once again, I’m only talking about this particular example; I’m not saying that LDH has a perfect track record for rehoming animals).

    Similarly, if a farmer were ever to actually go to a veterinarian for whelping help (and I’d applaud if one ever did rather than making a hash of it themselves…), I’d prefer if the cost of that went to support homeless animals, rather than buying after-work drinks for whatever other private vet would be consulted. Presumably a farming operation would be somewhat less viable if veterinary costs were sought more often, so I’m all for it.

    Fixed costs such as these (or the provision of food), are necessary for pet farmers: they’ll be paying someone at some point, and if they happen to pay someone who will pour that money back into animals in need, so much the better. The problem arises when LDH is directly implicit in increasing the productivity of farmers (as in the Pets Paradise example): that is, if causation is proven. The ‘guilt by association’ theme you are espousing here is nothing but a cheap scare tactic, and only detracts from what other meaningful criticisms you have.

  5. savingpets | March 22, 2012 | Permalink

    *whistles* wow.