- Joined
- Apr 29, 2003
- Messages
- 42
- Purraise
- 1
Hello, heres the scoop. I will admit that a few months ago I didn't know much about the over population of pets. About all I did know was the final conclusion. However I took it upon myself to learn as much as I could from all sides of the issue.
So armed with my knowledge I drafted a carefully worded letter to the editor and sent it in. The letter did get printed but he left out what I felt was a critical part. The part cut out simply stated that many pet stores get there pets from less than reputable sources and people should avoid them. These sources are what we all know about, puppy and kitten mills. I ended that paragraph with a simple statement. "No reputable breeder would sell their pets to a pet store". I suggested instead suggested that they get new pets from the animal shelter and wrote how friendly they are and how they genuinely care about the welfare of their animal (because they really do, I've witnessed it first hand).
Now I'm a big boy and I can take the cut, I know how things work. Their are only two pet stores in my city and one is shameful to say the least. The puppies in that store don't get ANY human interaction, except when they are fed, until they are sold. They are actually kept behind a glass enclosure like a mall display. Of course if this place is a sponsors of the paper do you think the editor is going to print a letter critical of pet stores, nope. What really bothers me is that the people who read my cut letter won't get a critical part of the message. I guess I was wondering is any of you have met up with the same kinds of sugarcoating of the issue by editors, politicians, etc.
All this is taught me is that you can't depend on other people to get your message out. You have to do it yourself if you want the entire message to get out. Thanks for listening.
Matt
[edit] Sorry for being long winded, I just had to vent.
So armed with my knowledge I drafted a carefully worded letter to the editor and sent it in. The letter did get printed but he left out what I felt was a critical part. The part cut out simply stated that many pet stores get there pets from less than reputable sources and people should avoid them. These sources are what we all know about, puppy and kitten mills. I ended that paragraph with a simple statement. "No reputable breeder would sell their pets to a pet store". I suggested instead suggested that they get new pets from the animal shelter and wrote how friendly they are and how they genuinely care about the welfare of their animal (because they really do, I've witnessed it first hand).
Now I'm a big boy and I can take the cut, I know how things work. Their are only two pet stores in my city and one is shameful to say the least. The puppies in that store don't get ANY human interaction, except when they are fed, until they are sold. They are actually kept behind a glass enclosure like a mall display. Of course if this place is a sponsors of the paper do you think the editor is going to print a letter critical of pet stores, nope. What really bothers me is that the people who read my cut letter won't get a critical part of the message. I guess I was wondering is any of you have met up with the same kinds of sugarcoating of the issue by editors, politicians, etc.
All this is taught me is that you can't depend on other people to get your message out. You have to do it yourself if you want the entire message to get out. Thanks for listening.
Matt
[edit] Sorry for being long winded, I just had to vent.