Okay, let me REPEAT something I said in my AVAR post.  We do NOT -- repeat
***NOT*** know at this point if the things said actually do represent the
stance of the AVAR ITSELF.  We know that they represent the stance the full
time employee, their director, and it appears from what he said himself,
that they represent what the current president of this group believes.
THAT IS WORLDS AWAY FROM IT ACTUALLY BE VOTED UPON OR DOCUMENTED GROUP
GOAL OR POLICY.
 
I have heard from some vets and some vet students and NONE of the ones who
contacted me -- including one who had been contacted to possibly organize
a student branch at her university -- had EVER heard the more extreme sorts
of things which were written to me by T.B. in those letters.
 
My personal suspicion is that those things are the PERSONAL beliefs of some
individuals who have failed to separate their own beliefs from documented
or voted-upon group choices.  I could be wrong.  Except for those two
people they have been quiet so far, which is what one would expect if they
are doing the responsible thing of coming to a group decision.
 
Does it make sense for vets and vet students, and anyone who is a donor to
find get clarifications on aspects which bother them?  Of course, but that
is not at all the same as assuming that the personal opinions of two people
(one voting and the other collecting a salary) are anywhere near the same
as finding out an actual board vote, or something written into the founding
documents (though the current present IS one of the founders so vets had
better check those), or included in the goals since the start by board vote
(ditto to the checking).  If they really want to get rid of all pets, if
they really want to oppose legality of pets including ferrets, etc.  then
that's something people should ask about and learn -- NOT assume from the
personal opinions of two people.  Boards do NOT work that way -- IF they
are going to work, and when they do work that way if they aren't cleaned
up there can be some awful results expected down the line since dictators
or loose cannons on boards or working for them pretty consistently spell
trouble unless brought under control.
 
It's pretty obvious that the members of AVAR need to find out just WHAT
that group stands for simply because what has been written to me differs so
dramatically from what the member vets and member vet students said that
they had been told it stands for.  Hopefully, it will be the more moderate
and logical stance and the things said will just be two opinions, but that
is something it would be wise to clarify for yourselves.  I gather from
an off-hand comment from one vet student that there may be at least one
alternative such group for vets and vet students, so perhaps it would be
wise to also clarify if any such are being moderate and logical or are
actually working toward extreme goals which might not actually represent
you.
 
I really ENJOYED Jaime's points about there needing to be something beyond
"property" which involves humane care and responsibility for a living
being.  There's no way that farm lobbies would let it be applied to
anything they consider stock, I'd expect, but with provisions for allowing
euthanasia when that is the most loving option I'd think it is an approach
which it would make sense for pets.
[Posted in FML issue 2932]