Your situation sounds much like my husband's only instead of having to deal with the AVMA, he has a union that has no concept of what their real job really is other than to occasionally slap somebody on the wrist.

Out of curiousity, what would happen if all of the vets that hold strong believes in what being a vet really means went against the the political tide of all the arrogence that is going on? Other than being labled as an outcast, would you be threatened to lose your benefits for shouting out against what is going on?

My other question that I wouldn't expect you to be able to answer would be if these people are becoming vets but refusing to put up a fight for some of the very species they take off and see every day, what's the point of becoming a vet in the first place? It's not as though being a vet is a glamorous or otherwise. It's alot of hard work that has the ability to wear on a person, especially on those endless euthansia days.

As for the soccer mom, I don't have an answer for that as I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the whole greyhound issue. Living in MA, we have a number of dog tracks around that the state refuses to shut down because the tracks make the state money even though they keep discovering mass graves of dogs that have been pointlessly been put to sleep because they're not winners. Just last week they found such a grave that consisted of 50 dogs on site of one of the tracks.

But here's the kicker. The state continues to leave the tracks open and complain about these mass grave sites, however, if a person operates a greyhound rescue and meets the states rules regarding foster care, ect.. these shelters can apply for a grant to help with funds.

I'm all for helping out any good resuce league, but what the state is doing is disgusting. They continue to keep tracks open, but as a way to smooth things over with greyhound people and others, they are handing over cash as a way to apply a non-verbal gag order? It is not stated what would happen to a greyhound rescue league that spoke out against the state while recieving state funds. I'm almost willing to bet there would be threats of lawsuits and such rescue leagues would be shut down.

It's this kind of stuff that keeps me awake at night. If people are going to fight for animals whether they be wild or domestic, fight for the animals, not political agendas or financial gains. Humans are supposed to be the intelligent voices for animals, however it seems as though some organizations seem to have long forgotten what the whole point was to begin, which you've already said. How sad!

Gil: Oh my gosh. Please don't assume I have any specific beef with large animal practitioners. I grew up with and was trained by some of the greatest large animal people imaginable. The issue's more a pro-economics, ag industry-protective stance vs. taking an animal welfare point of view; that of protecting the practitioner more than playing an active role in society. Both are necessary. But in the context of the AVMA one is getting the short end of the stick, IMHO. The recent animal terrorism legislation is a perfect example. If you didn't know the history of the bill and the players involved it might seem like a subtle point. But if you dig deeper it comes down to the above distinctions: protectionism vs. activism. I just happen to favor the latter.