Bill Brady- What's with this guy? (Warning: Graphic video)

Just an FYI for animal lovers/ advocates in Illinois.
I came across this video this morning. Two days after he won the primary for governor, he posted this ad for mass gassing dogs in shelters. Gassing is one of, if not, the cruelest forms of euthanasia. Some of these dogs take a really long time to die/ several tries & suffer horribly before they do. (beyond that fact, I will keep my opinion of him to myself)


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by DogsDogsDogs


Well I watched the video and it seemed horrendous, and I am staunchly against shelters that kill animals.

On the other hand I visited the website www.whoisbillbrady.com... that is responsible for the youtube video and I am on Bill's side with a lot of the other issues. He seems like an extreme conservative, maybe a little too extreme, but at least in the right ballpark.

I think we would have to read the actual bill proposed to decide if his intention was to Euthanize animals, or if that was just the extreme interpretation of a small part of the bill.

One thing for sure, Illinois needs a hardened no-nonsense governor to end the corruption in that state. I don't know if this guy is the guy for the job, but if he has already made a lot of enemies, then that is a good indication that he might be the right guy.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I LOVE animals. I'm pretty close to a left-wing bleeding-heart hippie when it comes to the protection and well-being of animals. But I have to ask: what method of euthanasia do you propose? Gassing is the least expensive option (I think, but don't quote me on it) and thousands of dogs at shelters all across the state are a drain on the economy, so they have to be euthanized by some method (as much as it breaks my heart to see it done). If people would spay and neuter their pets like they are supposed to maybe the shelters wouldn't be so full.

/TOA

When they gassed the Jews during the Holocaust it was horrifying and to this day we still condemn it and definitely never question how horrifying and inhuman it is to do to people. Because it is simply an abomination.

But when these poor dogs, innocent creatures which do not harm unless they are not taught to by humans or have just grown too old, we as civilized people can condone gassing dogs? I know there is a giant different between people and dogs, but I mean no one even cares!

It's just disgusting, it is cruelty to animals and should be abolished.

reply to post by The Old American


I don't believe in Euthanizing animals at all. There is no acceptable method for killing a healthy being.

Here are some better questions. Is dog meat edible? Are there starving people in the world? Are there other more pressing economic drains on the economy? Are there very, very unhealthy and miserable human beings? Should we not be as "merciful" to those humans as we are to dogs?

Gassing hundreds of dogs to save a few bucks without addressing the issues of how those dogs got into the shelter is inappropriate. "Euthanizing" sick dogs when we won't do the same for humans is illogical. Saving a few bucks on dog food to help the economy is ludicrous. I work for the state government, there is plenty of more pressing wasteful issues that don't require anything to die.

And, in case you missed the point of my post, I was trying to say that the politician doesn't sound like a bad candidate, and I don't believe the bill is intended to gas a bunch of dogs. I think it was taken out of context and exaggerated to the extreme to make for a good political ad.

When I was a kid we had to put our beloved lab to sleep and my dad said something profound;

"They look to us to do the right thing by them".

I think your post is important in that context as you are doing the right thing by upping the awareness and exposing the cruelty. S&F

reply to post by howmuch4another


This is exactly true, Much. As desperately as it hurts, sometimes it's the last great act of love we can show them.

reply to post by getreadyalready


:-) I glanced & didn't misunderstand. I'm just working my way back. If it were up to me, every person who dumped an animal at a shelter (that couldn't for whatever reason, go into the adoption program- assuming there was one) would have to witness the death of that animal. You'd probably be shocked to know the number of elderly, now sick animals dumped by their owners- who have almost zero chance of rescue & no shot at adoption, just because the owner can't be bothered or don't have the guts to send them home, peacefully, in their master's arms.
I need to consider what you've asked. I think that in some (all?) Oriental countries & supposedly in Mexico, dogs are consumed as food. lol This is not something I would bring up to my rescue friends & associates for obvious reasons (lest I become dog food).

Someone mentioned to me earlier that Mr Brady was a conservative. I am a cross between a Paleocon & a Libertarian, so I'm disappointed. Wonder if I- or someone could reason with him? Spay & neuter and controlling commercial breeding or careless breeding would go a long way. Rescue exists (& it's growing exponentially almost in spite of the financial crisis) in almost every state. There are people nationwide who communicate/ inform/ seek other potential rescuers & will vet/ certify & transport dogs to where they find a safe place.
Depending on the public, it's possible to set up a no kill situation that's virtually all volunteer & funded by donations. The only real issue would be the buildings. (If they're gassing, I doubt they're doing it out the back of a truck) Thad McCotter (who is, I think, the republican senator from Michigan) is one of the kindest people I've ever corresponded with & a major animal lover. (He even sends you a handwritten reply- that's the only time I've ever seen someone do that) but that's another story.
I do agree that we have to dramatically reduce the size of the federal government- cut & cut again, if we're ever going to recover. The biggest problems I've seen in shelters here is corruption, nepotism & incompetence- HUGE waste, financially. Things are getting better- I don't know how much cheaper, in Texas. There are a lot more volunteers (including vets & vet techs), which has to save money.
I'll look into this further with Mr Brady- contact his campaign if they'll talk to me.

reply to post by Misoir


Thanks so much for your voice & your support, Misoir. You'd sure think we could do better.

reply to post by The Old American


American, some of the roughest, gruffest people I know can't resist critters. :-D Course, then, they're busted & we all know the real them. Injection is the most humane. Someone pointed out to me earlier today that the vet tech risks being bitten, but dogs bite & there are heavy leather gauntlets that protect them. See my long winded explanation to Get Ready. I'm not a fan of *mandatory* spay & neuter (& especially HSUS), but it should be strongly encouraged and there should be some controls on breeding. If they're violated, then it should be mandatory at that point.
(shoot. I forgot what else you said. I'll edit)

reply to post by getreadyalready


What if we turned the tables and Bill Brady was advocating for the gassing of PEOPLE? Would you still support his extreme positions on the issues?



People made this mistake once in Germany....

reply to post by getreadyalready


My original "reply to" was replied to the wrong person. It was supposed to be to the OP. But, in response to your reply to my reply, while eating dog meat repulses me personally, that's a good solution to the hunger problem around the world. Though it may cost us more to process and ship the meat to other countries than just euthanasia. Perhaps if the recipient country could help cover the cost, it may then be more economically feasible.

/TOA

To clarify a little, since I was a little more sarcastic than usual yesterday.

#1. I am not a fan of eating dog meat either, but at least it would serve a purpose and not be a complete waste of a life.

#2. As far as gassing people, I think it is equally appropriate to gassing dogs. For some reason it is ok to Euthanize a suffering animal, but it is not ok to have the same mercy on a human? For some reason we can discuss mass euthanizations of animals for the good of the society, but we can't discuss the same for humans? I don't think we need to gas a bunch of people, but I think we need to define our positions better. If it is "merciful" for one then it should be "merciful" for the other?

#3. I entirely agree with the no-kill shelters. However, I recently learned that the loophole to the no-kill shelters is that after a certain amount of time, they transfer their animals to another city where they may have a better chance at adoption. That other shelter may not be a no-kill shelter. I learned this after adopting a dog from a local no-kill shelter and talking bad about the humane society, and then learned even the no-kill shelters could eventually result in euthanizing the animal, but they keep it out of sight.

reply to post by DogsDogsDogs


I love animals, especially dogs. I have a little Chihuahua Papi and I just think what if for some reason he ended up in a dog pound and no one adopted him and they gassed him. He's like my kid, people who don't love animals don't understand how much like children they are.