I just read yesterday that in two more states, legislation to allow recovery of damages (non-economic in one case, and I believe economic in another) for the killing or injury of a pet has been DEFEATED.  Not surprisingly the VETERINARY associations come out hard to fight these bills that woudl allow owners, in most cases to recover modest amounts either for veterinary expenses or for loss of a pet. 

It is because the veterinarians and the industries (pet food, etc) fight these provisions that they are defeated, and who benefits?  THE ANIMAL ABUSERS.  Yes, you can thank the veterinarians and the pet food industry the next time somebody's neighbor kills their dog, and they can't recover any damages.  The vets and PFI, while protecting their own economic interests, are also making it impossible for us to see stiffer penalties for animal abuse and murder.  They are ORGANIZED lobbies who give BIG BUCKS to politicians and PURCHASE the defeat of these bills, which undoubtedly would be supported by the public.  It's veterinarians and PFI who keep arguing that YOUR PET IS NOTHING MORE THAN A PIECE OF WORTHLESS PROPERTY, like a depreciated toaster oven.

How can they keep beating down this legislation when surely, public sentiment would be on our side?

IT IS BECAUSE PET LOVERS have not formed a lobby.  We do not give money to politicians.  We are not an organized force.  If we were, we would CREAM these people.  But we're not.

I'm very happy Defend Our Pets is out there, but DOP seems focused on the pet food thing exclusively.  The poison pet food and the companies that profit from killing our pets that way are a big part of the puzzle, and are a major problem.  But so is negligence by those we pay to provide service to our pets -- veterinarians, groomers, etc.   

I think we need a PET LOVERS LOBBY.  I say "Pet Lovers" instead of "Pet Owners" because there are many breeder associations out there, CFA, etc, working HARD to defeat bills that would give our pets greater value in the eyes of the law.  They argue this based on PROPERTY RIGHTS, "OWNERS" rights.  So I am not talking about all PET OWNERS, some of whom desire only to exploit and profit from the animals they "own."

I am talking about PET LOVERS.  Those people who LOVE their pets and feel that they should have value in the eyes of the law -- even if it is only referred value as a result of being loved by us.

HSUS, PETA all those big organizations -- they care only about the scores of nameless, faceless animals.  They advocate for food animals, circus animals, zoo animals, and lab animals. 

But when it comes to fighting against veterinary malpractice for example, they are deliberately silent.  And I have been told by a rep of HSUS that even though they know vet mal is a problem, THEY WON'T take it on PRECISELY because they "need" vets to help them on those "larger" issues -- e.g., circus animals, farm animals, lab animals, etc.

What does that mean?

All those animals -- circus animals, farm animals, lab animals -- have legal advocates protecting them.

Our pets HAVE NO ONE.  NO ORGANIZED LOBBY to protect them, advocate for them.

Do you think that most pet "owners" are pet lovers?  Do you think that pet lovers would join forces to become an ORGANIZED LOBBY on behalf of our pets? 

If we did, we would have the POWER to REFORM the PFI, and HOLD VETS accountable, and this would establish precedent that would INCREASE punishment for animal cruelty of all kinds when committed upon "owned" animals.

Would YOU join such a lobby?

Stefani Olsen
The Toonces Project
http://www.TheTooncesProject.com
"Is Your Pet Safe at the Vet?"

I probably would but I would need to know alot more about what they want to do and how they plan to go about it.

I also agree PETA & HSUS doesn't care about animals at all.

If PETA wasn't a domestic terrorist group that would be one thing. Not to mention if it was up to them you wouldn't even be allowed to have "pets" I have done plenty on research on these groups and its very sad the damage they do to animals and people. Their affiliation with certain groups speaks volumes. Thats about all I'm going to say on that.

And just because someone says something negative about a group does not mean they are bashing. Besides if you can't speak the truth then why bother. Any affiliation with either of those groups would have a huge bearing on whether I would join a lobby or not. In this case if there would be any affiliation what so ever then no I would not join.

The truth is relative.  I have an opinion, it doesn't mean its the TRUTH.  Scientists actually use the word CERTAINTY in relation to proof.  I think only one entity knows the REAL TRUTH. (and that's all I have to say about that  )

Re: "Seems like vets are already liable for bills due to malpractice if you can prove it."

I wish that were true, Klondike -- and it is theoretically, but not in practice.   Because to prove it, of course, you have to take them to court.  The amount you would spend far exceeds any amount you could recover.  Example:  One of the largest malpractice verdicts in teh country was Bluestone v. Bergstrom in California.  The owner was awarded $39,000.  Guess how much he spent prosecuting the case?  Over $300,000.  Suing for vet malpractice is impossible for all but the richest of the rich, and even then you would not do it to get back your expenses, you would do it to prove a point (since what you would spend on bringing the suit would just put you further in the hole.)

Also, I believe that most people believe that malpractice suits have driven up the cost of insurance because, we the public, have been midled to believe this by repetitive marketing paid for by the medical lobby and the politicians they have put in office.  It is insurance Co profits that are the big problem. 

In fact, only a fraction of the individuals harmed by medical malpractice ever bring a lawsuit.  Depending on which source you believe, medical "care" gone wrong is either the third-leading cause of death in the US, or the 8th leading cause of death.  If its that bad for humans who have the alternative of a lawsuit, you can only imagine how bad it is for pets who have no legal rights.

The damage caps on malpractice that are sweeping the country have merely made medical institutions, researches, pharmaceutical cos, and others less likely to take steps to reduce life-threatening drug reactions, malpractice, etc.  It has put profit over people's wellbeing.  That's my belief, based on research I have done. 

Thanks for your kind words about the Toonces Project and support for a national veterinary quality database.  Also, I agree w/you that PETA is not a terrorist group.  I don't agree with a lot of what they do, but the AETA was passed by anti-animal people and mostly the brainchild of the biomedical research industries in the wake of the exposure of Huntington Life Sciences unspeakable cruelty to "laboratory beagles."

Ok so lets nit pic. They supposedly aren't a terrorist group but they affiliate with a known domestic terrorist group and they have been more than questionable and have done even worse at times. As far as a relative in the FBI doesn't have any bearing what so ever on this. I really don't care what the FBI has found or not found. We all know how thorough they are. It does not make me think any differently. Its totally irrelevant who works where and who's relative works where. This is just a general discussion not a court case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals

Truth, not truth, or opinion I'm not going to nit pick every word on every post or analyze truth, opinion, or whatever. Not my job to nit pick or be analyze. Just making generalized statements. Not sworn statements.

Anyone that has done any research on PETA and HSUS knows what they are all about and it isn't the caring of pets. In the very beginning it was, but that has all changed.

I guess thats all I'm going to say on this. I was just stating which way I would go, if I would join and what I figure into the decision of joining or not. Thats all. Nothing hidden and nothing to read between lines.

It would be nice if we could get back to the original reason for this thread. 
The affiliation with certain groups would have a direct bearing on whether I would join or not.

No grudge. No ones perfect even the FBI.

Please make no mistake. I DO NOT represent anyone or any company on these forums. I speak for myself only. Sorry you can't handle that.

It would be nice to get back on topic.

Thankyou for posting that too. I knew you would. At least its not modified. I pm'd you so that the board would not be tied up with all of this. I figured you might respond as an adult as to what your problem is with me. I figured (being the adult I am) I would keep it off the forum since this is not the place. I guess you feel differently.