Message from discussion
Petsmart in the UK - animal abuse exposed
From: "new mommy" <ma_n_p...@REMOVE.worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Petsmart in the UK - animal abuse exposed
Date: 1999/12/06
Message-ID: <82giut$28b$1@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 557281510
References: <38484c12.137890724@news.agm.net> <82ehf3$233$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net 944492317 2315 63.10.80.23 (6 Dec 1999 14:58:37 GMT)
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Dec 1999 14:58:37 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
I hope that Petsmart does a similar investigation here in the US, as I'm
sure that if it went on in the UK & they were unaware of it, that it can &
will go on here in the states.
--
shelly, pregnant & already mommy to Happy, Ozzy & Baby
<flyer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:82ehf3$233$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Helen,
>
> I truly share your concerns about animal abuse, whether it comes from
> the private sector or commercial enterprise. However, how does
> boycotting a company, that appears, from what you posted, to be
> attempting to address their problem areas, help?
>
> ""Petsmart says it is absolutely determined to make whatever changes
> may be necessary to get things right. It says:
> "We have strict animal welfare procedures and we want to make sure that
> all our staff know about them and stick to them. To help us do this, we
> are setting up an external Advisory Panel, made up of
> independent expert consultants, veterinarians and educators to
> investigate immediately all of the issues raised and carry out a
> comprehensive review to make sure we do things right. We are also in
> contact with the RSPCA who have agreed to review on paper our
> standards and procedures."
>
> Petsmart have also set up an Animal Welfare Hotline for staff to use
> and asked the company vet to review every one of the 92 stores. This
> will be followed by spot inspections by a team of managers. Petsmart
> says it has many experienced and dedicated staff around the country who
> are passionate about the care and welfare of animals, who share it's
> concern over Weekend Watchdog's report. ""
>
> It appears to me that a boycott, at this time, would more than likely
> send the message that nothing they do is going to be satisfactory.
>
> Certainly, the policies outlined above should be tracked, and all
> violations should be reported. If the company does not live up to
> their, apparently new, "standards and procedures", then a boycott most
> certainly would be in order.
>
> It appears that the company has already acknowledged a problem and has
> taken positive steps to address same. I guess the argument could
> always be made that these steps are not enough, but since the company
> appears to be in a receptive mode, a correspondence to them with
> recommendations would seem to me to be more in order than a boycott.
>
> Again, I do share your concerns, just disagree with the boycott
> approach, in this case.
>
> To all readers, I have zipped up my flame suit and am awaiting
> incoming.:^)
>
> Don G.
>
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
|
