20. Posted by birdielover at 12:27 PM on Dec 12, 2008 | Report this comment

I am so proud of the IU community for opening their hearts, minds, and ears to learn about the cruelty that pet shops promote behind the scenes. Pet Shops are more often than not very nice to their animals, but the places they buy the animals from are not. Puppy mill moms and dads are abused, never see the light of day, are kept in teenytiny cages, and have no veterinary care. When you buy a puppy from a pet store, the pet store takes the money you give them and buys more puppies from these abusive and disgusting puppy mills. Thanks IDS for publishing this article! Thanks RAW for running the adoption RAWks campaign! Please buy animals from certified and reputable breeders (who NEVER sell to pet stores) or adopt a homeless animals from a shelter or animal rescue. GO IU! Lets make IU the most aware and animal friendly campus in the US!

19. Posted by zombiecrush at 10:6 AM on Dec 11, 2008 | Report this comment

Hey, RAW, you know what- I'm really glad "pfft" commented on here, because people coming on here reading about this article- who may not know who you guys are -are reading these comments and learning more about you guys than your website would probably tell them! So, yay for discussion!!

18. Posted by raw webmaster at 10:30 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

to pfft!: We expect some level of criticism like yours, being that we're trying something new. We had the option of, say, picketing the fundraisers these students held for Delilah's, which you posit will "get shit done". What do you think the fallout of that would be? "Animal rights group pickets charity fundraiser for local business that burned down" might have been the alternative headline. Instead, as you can read in the article, we made a positive difference with these students. Some have even expressed an interest in becoming involved. It's hard enough to educate people about puppy mills and pet overpopulation; being demonized for coming down hard on what is perceived as the most ethical dog/cat selling petshop in bloomington will not help get our message out and thus will not, in the long run, be of much service to our cause: the animals. Say what you want about the tone of our website, but we're hoping that our approachability, in conjunction with our outreach to people who genuinely care about animal well-being (but in our opinion might benefit from some education about what really does and does not help animals) will make a difference. Serious is one thing, but cold and judgmental is another, and we're hoping to avoid the latter, as it is also a stereotype we seek to overcome. Make no mistake, we're serious about "making a difference". It's why we're trying something new. We want to prevent the kind of stereotypes such as those espoused by the more egregious trolls on forums such as this.

17. Posted by Another RAW Co-Founder at 10:25 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

Pfft!, your critique of our methods and rhetoric, however groundless, points to a pressing need to advocate for animals in a variety of different ways. Some people are totally turned on by (oh, wait, I'm sorry...compelled by) methods of advocacy that appeal to people's emotions, some prefer militant picketing and protest, some prefer scientific reasoning. The point is, anyone who works to better their community, whether for the welfare of animals, children, homeless, or the elderly (etc.) should be applauded, and I'm not afraid to say I think that includes RAW. When it comes right down to it, though, our approach does appeal to many IU students, and in fact, to many professional animal advocates within the Bloomington community, including officials from the Monroe County Humane Association, Bloomington Animal Shelter, and the HSUS. So thanks, but I think I'll stick to their "professional" opinions when evaluating whether or not RAW "gets shit done."

16. Posted by co-founder of RAW at 10:12 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

To Pfft: Since you are passionate about animal advocacy--why not join RAW and help us think through the complexities of re-defining advocacy at its core? I can assure you we are a "real organization"--well respected by our partners, the MCHA and the HSUS--and have extremely non-"silly" reasons driving our desire to reexamine and re-frame the term "sexy" for our own use. If you came to our meetings and truly understood our values--chances are that you would support our projects!

15. Posted by rawmember at 10:10 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

pfft! -- We actually work with MCHA, BAS, and HSUS. I'm a regular volunteer at the shelter -- and, like, OMG, I've had shelter puppy poop smeared all OVER me! G-ross!!! But seriously, I don't quite follow your comparison -- I fail to see the similarity between phrases like "Meat is murder" and "Advocacy is sexy" (for example). They're both catchy, I suppose, but give us a break -- we need to get people's attention, after all (if you've ever tabled, I'm sure you'll understand), and we'd just rather do it in a more positive way. Our experience has been that a positive, inclusive approach attracts many who feel alienated by the more aggressive, unreasonable tactics and positions they associate with groups like PETA. We also think a sense of humor and lightheartedness helps when you're trying to get people to think about issues that can be so overwhelming and depressing that many would rather shut down and ignore them. But I second Courtney's offer -- we'd be happy to have a conversation with you about methods as we're always open to new perspectives and information, and I'm willing to bet we'd agree on more than you think.

14. Posted by pfft at 9:50 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

I never said you guys were unintelligent. I've taken a class with Prof. Miller and think she's brilliant. I'm saying: you guys talking about things being "sexy" is silly- and so are some of your tactics. I just think, like PETA, you guys are a little silly. I didn't mean any of you personally are dumb or ditsy, I meant the way the organization comes off is. Like I said- I'm all for all the help the animal welfare movement can get- but I just wish this article would have taken a more serious stance, and I think it would have if it had talked a group with a more serious image.

13. Posted by co-founder of RAW at 9:11 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

I meant to write "comprised of"--we need an editing function on here :)

12. Posted by co-founder of RAW at 9:0 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

To Pfft: I am here to check your claim that RAW is composed of "ditsy people looking for entertainment value". RAW is a powerhouse of intellectual energy. The four co-founders of this organization are graduate students and Associate Instructors with impressive academic records. As a PhD candidate in English, I have several publications in major peer-reviewed journals from rigorous academic presses--and have won prestigious awards and fellowships in Romantic and 18th-century studies. My colleagues are brilliant scholars who are not only published researchers, but have designed and taught courses here at IU on animal ethics and law AND who have helped to organize a major conference here of world's experts on animal studies. Our faculty adviser is an award-winning, internationally-acclaimed fiction writer, an editor for the Journal of the Institute of Critical Animal Studies, and Animals and Society: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, and a pro-bono animal attorney. And finally, our undergraduate RAWfficers are savvy, innovative thinkers who are at the top of their game--one of whom recently won the highly-competitive Culbertson award. It is unlike me to boast about our accomplishments, but your insistence on our collective "dumbness" merits a response. RAW is the first successful animal advocacy group on this campus, and we have a long list of hard-earned successes that we have accomplished without reverting to violent methods. We are revolutionizing the term "sexy" to include critical thinking and education. Sorry, but you are going to have a really hard time backing up your argument that RAW is not "professional or to-be-taken-seriously". In fact, we would welcome a discussion with you in person about the reasoning behind our methodologies--which we can back up with hard-core scholarship.

11. Posted by pfft! at 8:17 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

RAW is dumb. I mean, yay for all the voices calling for people to treat animals more humanely- but you guys claim on your site that the things Peta does (you don't point to them specifically) like throwing red paint and picketing is "violent" and therefore "not sexy" but you give off the same image as them: ditsy people looking for entertainment value. You don't come off as professional or to-be-taken-seriously at well when you talk about picketing as being not sexy. Picketing gets shit done. Raw doesn't. They should have interviewed a real organization like the Monroe County Humane Association for this article. I'm surprised you guys didn't get quoted as saying "OMG-like Delilah's is so nasty. It smelled like poop. NOT sexy!!!"

10. Posted by rawmember at 5:44 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

Check out RAW's website to learn more about our projects and views: http://www.indiana.edu/~iuraw/

9. Posted by clue please at 4:23 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

Lovealldogs, a "right" is simply a legally enforceable obligation. Just because a being has some rights does not mean it enjoys all legal rights that one could possibly have. Without the modicum of laws providing some animal rights that we have now (primarily anti-cruelty statutes) animals would be subject to being treated like any other property--so that owners could vivisect, beat, and torture them without any legal consequences. Thank Creator we acknowledge in our laws that animals are different from chairs, paper, or cars that we can do as we please with. Just as children were once considered legally to be merely property, animals were once considered to be merely property. Having essential rights such as not to be tortured does not mean they have exactly the same rights as minimal human rights (such as rights of representation). The acknowledgment of some animal rights are not to be feared. Rather, we need to acknowledge that most animals, as feeling sentient beings, have some basic rights and to define the contours of those rights with compassion and common sense.

8. Posted by co-founder of RAW at 4:13 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

TO lovealldogs: thank-you so much for your ridiculous comments. They really made me smile:)I had no idea that I, or my fellow RAW members, had the slightest intention of "exterminating all companion animals"--especially since I have two dogs, whom I cherish with my whole heart. I cannot imagine a world without my animals, but I can imagine one in which dogs, cats, and other companions are not treated as cash crops and sold for profit. If dogs were ever on the brink of extinction, we would fight to protect them. Further, lumping RAW in with all other animal advocacy groups is entirely ignorant. Our group is innovative and inclusive. It is painfully obvious that you have not been to a single meeting--and that you have not read our website. Many of our values and methodologies fundamentally set us apart from animal activists whose tactics we do not condone. As for ???'s notion that we need some "real reporting" on this issue--why not join RAW and help ensure that our message gets the mainstream attention it deserves? We are working like crazy to educate the IU and Bloomington communities about the benefits of adopting animals (rather than buying them)--and we welcome your help in our efforts. Courtney

7. Posted by rawmember at 3:39 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

lovealldogs and etbmfa: RAW doesn't designate itself as an animal rights organization, although the IDS writer used that term. If you took the time to look at our website, you'd know that, and you'd also know that we oppose some animal advocates' extremist and alienating tactics. Although our members may have a variety of views, as an organization we do not oppose breeding or pet keeping, and neither does the HSUS. We simply think animals are more than just commodities and that breeders should be responsible, considering the health and well-being of all animals (current and future generations) impacted by their actions. Your tactic of lumping all animal protection advocates together -- as if we don't have a wide range of views on these enormously complex issues -- is careless and misleading. Certainly, there are some extremists -- as with any moral cause -- but they are in the minority. Our group aims to be positive, inclusive, reasonable, and open to learning new things and listening to other viewpoints. We'd encourage you to do the same.

6. Posted by etbmfa at 3:16 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

Animals need loving care NOT "rights"!!! Animal Welfare or Animal Rights? Here are some of the differences: As animal welfare advocates. . . • We seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals. • We support the humane treatment of animals that ensures comfort and freedom from unnecessary pain and suffering. • We believe we have the right to "own" animals -- they are our property. • We believe animal owners should provide loving care for the lifetime of their animals. As animal rights activists. . . • They seek to end the use and ownership of animals, including the keeping of pets. • They believe that any use of an animal is exploitation so, not only must we stop using animals for food and clothing, but pet ownership must be outlawed as well. • They want to obtain legal rights for animals as they believe that animals and humans are equal. • They use false and unsubstantiated allegations of animal abuse to raise funds, attract media attention and bring supporters into the movement. (The Inhumane Crusade, Daniel T. Oliver) For a TRUE animal WELFARE group go to www.naiaonline.org

5. Posted by lovealldogs-- at 2:23 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

It's not about how the dogs are treated at places such as delilah's. It is about where the dogs come from before they get there. Youtube or google "puppy mills" and you might think a little differently.. Puppy mills have dogs trapped in cages their whole lives, beat out dogs vocals so they can't bark, and don't tend to dogs who have been hurt or sick. Dogs often bite eachothers limbs off and are left unattended. Places like Delilah's and the place in the mall get their puppy's from mills...that is where its unethical.

4. Posted by Professor Alyce Miller at 1:3 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

Many thanks goes to the wonderful student organization RAW (I am thrilled to be their faculty advisor) for helping to educate people about the plight of animals (and the breeding animals left behind) who are sold at pet stores. Responsible breeders do not sell animals to pet stores. Animals sold in pet stores represent only the tip of the iceberg of a nasty, cruel business of breeding animals for big profit. For more information, read online about the horror of puppy mills (Indiana is a huge puppy mill state). There are so many great alternatives to buying animals from pet stores: shelters, breed rescue organizations, etc. You can still get the kind of animal you prefer, and you won't be contributing to animal misery. Contrary to the comment below, buying from pet stores is discouraged by responsible breeders, veterinary groups, etc. Kudos to RAW for their good work!

3. Posted by lovealldogs at 12:30 PM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

Don't fall for this groups tactics, animal rights people want to exterminate all domestic animals and they start with our children. There is nothing wrong with owning or purchasing a pet. Not all shelter dogs fit into family homes. There is nothing wrong with wanting a pet. Realize that the ultimate goal of all animal rights groups is the extermination of all companion animals. Both the director of Peta and HSUS state the following: I don’t use the word "pet." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance -- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's President, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223. We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding -- Wayne Pacelle - Former National Director of Fund for Animals.

2. Posted by ??? at 11:40 AM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

Hmm. Good for RAW, but I hope some real reporting will be done to talk about the actual animal welfare issues surrounding this controversy. That is what is needed...

1. Posted by really! at 6:4 AM on Dec 10, 2008 | Report this comment

I think at the very least Delilah's needs to ensure some safety for the animals this time-sprinklers, perhaps a security system will all help to avoid a massive loss in the future. 20 dogs perishing in a fire is awful, having a repeat would be worse. I hope they learned from their previous mistake, and take further action to protect the animals especially if they expect the public to get them bak on their feet.