It is believed (and tracked) according to a well-known source, [NO, not M. Clifton or CDC data]— that MORE than 50% of the fatalities by canines are by shelter, “re-homed” (like Craigslist) and rescued animals. If you think this is wrong, we ask you to prove it. It doesn’t take that much to figure out that animal extremists have invaded the shelters. They are pushing mandated altering. They are saying don’t breed or buy. They are claiming they can’t get animals adopted.
In CA, rescues are allowed to take out dogs that have FAILED temperament testing if they believe there is a reasonable chance for “rehabilitation.” But die hard animal extremists will save nearly every single dog, even known biters. This is not that uncommon. They also are not required to prove the rehabilitation. Rescues are not required to be 501(c)(3) organizations, they are not required to be certified, and there is no standardized rules that they have to follow, other than whatever the local county may require, which is definitely not standardized in CA. But wait.
The shelter animals only comprise less than 15% (approx) of all animals owned in the United States. Then if we take the number of fatalities by canines against humans, we have a small number (compared to how many millions of dogs there are— which are not killing.)
So how is it that the shelter dogs, re-homed dogs, and rescued dogs make up over 50% of the dogs that inflict fatality? It would seem that shelter, re-homed and rescued should not even be represented in the fatality numbers— since dog-human fatalities are very very rare……. Think about it.
We believe that efforts to stop the selling of animals in legal methods, to stop the breeding of animals via legal methods, and to curtail the breeding, selling, and sale in general of animals is anti-commerce in general, and does not serve a rational basis for most of society. The ARs love to claim it’s a health and welfare issue but the facts (not fallacy and deception) have long proven that the government does not usually target the areas where most of the unwanted animals come from, which means the least viable economic areas. This has long been proven by the kill rates in CA shelters. They usually just transport animals OUT of the poorer shelters into the richer areas. This is no secret. Then we have ARs like Best Friends spent $140,000 going to the Middle East just to bring back street dogs, when all they had to do was go to California, Los Angeles, and pick up 500 unwanted dogs from the shelters they keep ranting about. Instead HSUS puts out new LAWS that simply stop the breeding/sales of desirable pets and animals, for example, by trying to force changes in APHIS, because HSUS’ PM campaign/lawsuits against Hunte and Petland met with dismal failure. Those lawsuits were never intended to be won, they are simply more bullshit by HSUS to drum up media attention. For example, on the HSUS site, HSUS never mentions that being involved with ASPCA and other AR groups in the Barnum Bailey (Feld Entertainment) lawsuit, that HSUS and the rest, are sued civilly for RACKETEERING. HSUS NEVER mentions they lost their case and appeal. Why tell the truth? HSUS never tells the truth. That’s why. HSUS makes it look like they win all their cases. Rather, HSUS has won cases all right, but go look at their “litigation” page if you can find it. Many of their cases haven’t been updated for years, and those cases were lost by HSUS.
People should not be forced to choose only from rehomed, rescued, or shelter animals. There is no law that says “breeding” an animal is a right, and there is no law that says people MUST be forced to pick animals from certain sources. This simply drives up the prices for animals that are more desirable, which has the exact opposite effect of “no profiteering” that ARs claim to hate. When “non profits” can sell, rehome, and give away animals, but the general population cannot do so, this is indicative of purposeful suppression of commerce across the board, both by legal methods (making the laws) and by strangling off competition in a free enterprise. It also results in the market being much less competitive, since people are not free to buy what they want, but are both forced, pressured, and made to feel guilty for WANTING to buy any animal at all. This is no different than claiming all women should head straight to Zero population growth centers and adopt children from another country, or from drug moms, CPS seized children, and juvenile delinquent teenage mothers. After all, are those sources not the “abuse” in society of people? Are not the “rescued” animals the alleged result of “abuse” by humans? Are not the ARs simply turning society inside out so we are all led to think that humans are bad and animals are all good? Yep.