Susan Kennedy wrote:
>
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
>
(snip)

> Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not
> with us?
>
ARAs aren't suggesting domestic animals be let loose to fend for
themselves nor do they intend to raid homes and farms slaughtering
companion and farm animals.

A phase out is the usual proposal and would be relatively quick if all
breeding of domestic species ended. Most males of domestic livestock
are already castrated so, since food animals are under strict human
control, it would not be that difficult to castrate all of them.

The best case scenario would have livestock pastured for the remainder
of their natural lifespans, sheltered and supplementally fed, if
necessary, by the same farmers who have been making money off them,
their offspring, their mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers,
great grandmothers, great grandfathers, etc. The animals would cash out
their profit-sharing.

We all know that won't happen, so, sadly, existing livestock would
probably have to be slaughtered as scheduled. Without replacements in
the pipeline, chickens would be gone in months, furbearers and hogs in a
year to a hear and a half, cattle in two to four.

Phasing out companion animals could follow the same pattern, except
large populations of feral cats and dogs would make spaying female
"pets", instead of males, more effective. Existing feral populations
could be managed as they are now, spay/neuter/release followed by
lifetime care until attrition takes the last of them or they could be
left alone and unaltered with the inevitable winnowing of those less
suited to an independent life among human and non-human enemies.
Eventually, truly wild strains of formerly domestic species would be
distilled from feral populations.

> And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were.
> In fact, she even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone,
> rather like my 3 year old grandson.

Unlike your 3 year old grandson, you are free to euthanize your cat when
its bid for attention becomes too annoying.

Humans think it's cute to say we are slaves to our companion
animals, but it's not. The fact is we exercise ultimate control over
every facet of the life and death of our "pets". If they rebel, they
are "unmanageable" and we euthanize them, surrender them, abandon them
or tether them in the yard.

> In point of fact, by insisting that other people follow your beliefs, > aren't *you* the ones who wants control?

As Rat says elsewhere, persuasion is the only certain way to secure
rights for animals. No law in the world is capable of enforcing
humility, generosity, concern or genuine respect for anybody or
anything. The only thing laws can do and should do is better regulate
the way humans treat the animals we use.

I know there is a danger in codifying the unjust status of animals as
property. A well regulated system of exploitation is still
exploitation, but, food and fiber animals need relief now and it would
take a cold-hearted rightist to reject welfare reform that offered real
and enforceable improvements for farm animals. most of which are living
and dying in intensive production systems.

There are no national standards set for the housing and care
of food and fiber animals. Many state anti-cruelty statutes have an
exemption for farming. A simple rule (species specific) governing the
number of animals per acre would be a great place to start.
>
(snip)