Boston area pet shop burns to ground, arson suspected

[WildEyedLiberal]

A fire that killed more than two-dozen exotic snakes, frogs, fish, and other reptiles in a Cambridge pet shop Wednesday night was deliberately set, perhaps by the person who spray-painted the message ``No more exploitation of animals" on the store front, fire officials said yesterday.

State Fire Marshal Stephen D. Coan said that investigators were not focusing on any single motive for the blaze, which apparently started on the second floor of the Boston Tropical Fish and Reptiles building on Monsignor O'Brien Highway around 9:45 p.m. and sent animals slithering and scurrying from the flames and heat.

Referring to the note sprayed on the front of the store, Coan said: ``The investigation team is not ruling out the graffiti. We're looking at a number of potential scenarios."

Store owner Dianne San Filippo took offense at the message. ``One of our largest snakes was found melted in his tank," she said, standing outside her gutted store yesterday morning. ``Is that kind of death better than exploitation? I don't think so."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/09/29/pet_shop_blaze_deliberately_set_fire_officials_say/

I'm not trying to start an animal rights flamewar - I agree animals should be treated kindly - but isn't burning a pet shop to free the animals sort of like bombing Baghdad to free the Iraqis? :shrug:

I feel terrible for those poor animals and hope the injured ones recover well. Whoever set this fire is despicable, regardless of whether they were connected to the graffiti or not.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

1. I'm willing to venture a guess that ALF had nothing to do with this.

The people that use arson in the name of animal rights also are very strict about not killing animals. If anything, they would break in, take the animals, then set the store on fire. It sounds like the arsonists are trying to stir up some anti-animal rights sentiment.

[bicentennial_baby]

3. Bingo! We have a winnah!

I read it in the Globe this morning, and that was my first thought. Yep. :thumbsup:

:loveya:

[LeftyMom]

4. Smells of an insurance scam

Any asshole can buy spray paint and light a fire. The message is a diversion.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

5. Yeah, the insurance thing totally makes sense. nt

[LeftyMom]

7. A pet shop seems like a low priority in an area with animal labs, too

Really, nothing about this sounds like a bona fide AR action. It'd be the easiest thing in the world to remove animals from a pet store in thier tanks and cages, then just load them into a vehicle. I can't picture somebody leaving them to die if that was thier motivation.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

9. And regardless, they're still going to be someone's pets somewhere.

They'll still be pet fish and reptiles in tanks. There's not really any rescue in that situation, unless they were being kept in shitty conditions.

[LeftyMom]

10. and exotics are hard to place

The "pet store arson" theory would be a lot more believable if they were selling puppy mill dogs or something, provided the animals were removed.

[WildEyedLiberal]

8. I think you and LeftyMom are probably right

This would be like an anti-war activist killing Iraqis to make the war look bad. It just makes no sense. Insurance fraud is a good theory, especially given the lady's indignant quote about the "arsonists."

[LeftyMom]

2. no, you're right

Step one: remove animals

Step two (optional, don't do it if it endangers steps one and three): damage or destroy equipment in a way that will delay or prevent future exploitation

Step three: find safe homes for animals that can't be returned to the wild

Step four: stfu

It doesn't take a fucking brain surgeon to figure this out. :shrug:

[ThomCat]

6. I smell insurance fraud.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. There are two scenarios I see here

1) Insurance fraud - that's been explained here.

and the one that's been discounted - 2) An animal rights activist.

Let's be honest here folks, not every activist is exactly a Rhodes Scholar. Some are unintelligent zealots that might not think that far ahead as to what might happen to the animals if they burn the place down. And there does not have to be an organization behind something like this either for it to happen.

[LeftyMom]

12. I really doubt it's #2

People get interested in AR because they love animals. Even if they're absolutely fucking retarded they can figure out that burning a building down with the animals inside is not going to have a good outcome for those animals.

There are videos of property destruction and animal liberation on YouTube (yeah, what isn't on YouTube these days) and one of the things I find striking about every last one I've seen is that in the midst of the absconding with the animals and breaking shit, in a great hurry and at risk of being caught, one always sees people admiring the animals, taking them out of cages to snuggle for a minute, etc. If you don't love animals, you don't find yourself risking your freedom for thiers. If you do, leaving them to die is not something you'd consider.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. You give people waaaaay too much credit.

There are people in this country THAT STUPID. And unfortunately, some of them are on our side too.

Again, I'm not saying an acitivist did it, but I'm not dismissing it until I see more.

[idgiehkt]

13. No animal rights activist is going to hurt animals doing something like

that. That's ridiculous.

This was either insurance or a prank or some other twisted garbage.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Ridiculous?

Yeah, just as ridiculous as the statement "I hate killing, and I'll kill to stop it." Yet that one's a rather popular statement on the death penalty side.

Let's face it - some people just aren't that smart. I'm not saying it IS an activist, but I'm sure not going to dismiss it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

16. Way to bring in a strawman. The death penalty comparision? Please.

I'm inviting you to find a case in which animal rights activists killed the animals, in lieu of saving them. Really, I do. Especially to save them from a situation in which the animals lives were not in danger.

[idgiehkt]

17. I wonder if this thread will end up being a flame war.

I guess the lounge is kind of overdue for one...

The whole premise that activists would go 'no exploitation of animals, let's just burn them alive instead' would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

19. Not only tragic, but absurd & unfounded.

Though, who knows what those stupid activists will do next. There's a guy with some dairy cows down the road. I think I should go kill them, so they can be liberated. :eyes:

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftyMom]

24. Animal Liberation Republican Style!

I have a strangely appropriate earworm now

"To save you WE MAY HAVE TO KILL YOU!
For freedom YOU MAY HAVE TO DIE!
#1 at liberation
liberating life from bodies, helping spirits fly..."

It's talking about the Iraq war, but still an appropriate sentiment.

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/antiflag/operationiraqiliberationoil.html

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

28. I have some pet reptiles.

I hope nobody liberates them Republican-style.

[LeftyMom]

30. That would be vile. Good thing it's an imaginary tactic for animals.

People, not so much. :(

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. It shouldn't be a flame war.

All I'm saying is SOMEONE is dumb enough to actually do that. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how that's controversial, as Matcom has daily "news" coverage of people doing incredibly stupid things. That alone proves my point.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Strawman? You're bringing in the strawman!

All I'm saying is that there is definitely at least one, if not thousands of people in this country that are definitely dumb enough to do that. What part of that argument do you not understand? That has nothing to do with animal rights activists as a whole, nor does it have a single thing to do with prior track record. I'm not even saying that the perpetrator IS an activist, and I've said that explicitly from the start.

So back off.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

23. All I'm saying is you made an unfounded claim and then...

made a random comparison to death penalty supporters.

Don't tell me to back off just because I pointed out that your post made no sense and was not backed by any real-life animal rights actions.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. What unfounded claim??

That there exist less-than-intelligent activists? That's unfounded? How?

Edit hyphens added for clarity

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

26. The claim that it could be an animal rights activist when there are no

prior actions in which animals were killed in order to liberate them. Had there been, then your claim would be founded on something. However, animal rights activists do not and have not ever worked that way, therefore your claim is unfounded.

Animal rights activists are not a possible scenario.

[China_cat]

32. Are you forgetting about the 10,000 minks

turned loose in the DESERT in Nevada...a place where they couldn't possibly survive on their own? And the PETS liberated by PETA from other shelters where they would have had a chance to be adopted, killed in the PETA van by PETA employees and then dumped like garbage?

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/smithw/smith200507130830.asp

[LeftyMom]

33. Link?

Never heard of a mink release there. Nevada does have wild mink though, so depending on the area released mink might do very well.

[China_cat]

38. It was quite some time ago and I can't find a link to

any but more recent ones. This was out in the desert...a place where minks do NOT live.

I have found the links, however for this one; a mink release that got the animals killed by local people because they savaged a wild bird sanctuary and were killing pets and personal fowl. If this isn't harming the animals, I don't know what is. Not to mention harming other animals in the process.

http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/8/29/17407776.cfm

[LeftyMom]

39. Mink are predatory.

The problem wasn't releasing them into a habitat where they could thrive, it was people who killed them for behaving like mink. In the cool, damp areas of the country they're usually a native species anyhow, if a badly depleted one.

As for the Nevada desert thing, I never heard a thing about it and I have family in Reno and my late grandmother lived out in Crescent Valley, a teeny tiny town in the middle of nowhere, so I likely would have. Not to mention that I've seen a million articles written by both sides on the history of direct action generally and I don't recall a single US case that wasn't in the PNW or the Great Lakes, as the weather there is conducive to raising mink, where the hot, dry summers of the high desert would not be, except in certain microclimates with hills or mountains and water, but again those are areas where native mink do well naturally.

[China_cat]

40. But if they hadn't been released, they wouldn't have been killed.

[LeftyMom]

42. If they hadn't been released, 100% of them would have been killed

Usually by anal electrocution. That's what fur farms are for.

[flvegan]

48. You and your

knowing what you're talking about.

[LeftyMom]

49. Sorry, bad habit.

:blush: I'll try not to do it again.

[China_cat]

50. Not 100% of them

The best would have been kept for breeding. The method of harvesting the fur would still have been kinder than being bashed to death or poisoned.

[flvegan]

51. Way to justify it!

Nice work. Better to be kept in tiny cages, exploited, have your "kids" taken from you and anally electrocuted to make a coat for some dipshit debutante.

Much better than "here's your one shot at freedom..."

Oh, and bashed to death and poisoned are the works of the local people, and most stories like that should be taken with a whole shaker of salt. I once read where 10,000 mink, having been freed, were all almost INSTANTLY run over. Uh huh...got it.

[LeftyMom]

53. "Harvesting the fur"?

What a clean euphamism for a dirty thing. They kill them. There's nothing humane about it, because low cost and undamaged pelts mean more than preventing suffering on the fur farm. Perhaps some "lucky" ones will be kept for a time as breeders, true. They'll continue to live thier lives in cages, they'll continue to be fed the bodies of mink slaughtered before them, and eventually thier utility as breeders will decline due to age or health and they too will finally be sent to die.

For what it's worth, strychnine poisoning is one method used to kill animals without harming thier fur on fur farms. In any case, you already realize that I'm not advocating bludgeoning or poison for mink, I'm advocating that people stop breeding them for fur, and take the appropriate measures to live with mink as they do with other predators in places where they live free.

[China_cat]

57. I agree with stop breeding them

but you can't just turn loose animals that have been cage bred for generations and expect them act as wild animals. Sure, they can survive in the context of being able to find food but for them, the smell of humans means supper and it puts them in an untennable position. Spay/neuter them and let them live out their lives as they have been...cared for and not gut shot, stabbed, clubbed, hit by cars, torn apart by dogs. There's more than just releasing them into a wild they are not equipped for to stop fur farms. (And when the wild population DOES get too high, you see easing of restrictions on trapping. You really want them ending up in traps?)

[flvegan]

45. Your second statement

Smacks of a lack of knowledge as to facts.

Animals euthanized by a shot of penta are far better off than being shot with a .22 or put in a gas chamber. Or, maybe you disagree. Maybe one thinks that death via a gunshot (hopefully a good one) or a slow death in a hot box with 20 other animals is humane.

Or maybe folks just like to take swipes at PETA, and just don't know SHIT.

[China_cat]

52. The 'facts' are in the reports from the shelters

where the PETA employees picked up the animals they killed. The shelters were assured that the animals were being taken to be put up for adoption at a shelter that was less burdened. They were then euthanized IN THE VAN...not in a legal lethal room...and dumped in dumpsters not belonging to PETA. (The people doing this were not even legally in possession of the drugs used...two drugs that are legal only for licensed veterinarians.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/smithw/smith200507130830.asp

[LeftyMom]

54. Nice source.

The shelters making the complaint got big donations from the Center For Consumer Freedom, a lobbying group for animal industries, chain restraunts and tobacco companies, shortly after the report, so thier motives and veracity are suspect at best.

[flvegan]

55. So, you were there, huh?

"The shelters were assured..." is bullshit. PETA has been cleaning up after that county for years. "...put up for adoption at a shelter that was less burdened..." Really? Where? Which shelter? PETA's? They don't have one. What are the specifics? Oh, that's right...there aren't any, because it's crap, just like your source.

Hey, Iraq had WMDs and Osama and Saddam were best chums. Welcome to the 32 percentile.

[China_cat]

56. Gee, the police blotter, mug shots

and newspaper accounts must all be wrong then. And if PETA doesn't have a shelter, why do they claim that they do?

Authorities in Ahoskie, North Carolina dropped a disturbing bombshell yesterday with the news that they had charged two employees of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty. PETA's Andrew Cook and Adria Hinkle were arrested late Wednesday night after police saw them dump bags containing seven dead puppies and 11 other dead animals in a grocery store's dumpster. Their PETA-owned van, seized by police, contained another 13 animal bodies

from consumerfreedom.com

And since you don't like them, how about a link to a press report from Canada?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/tgr062205.htm

Or how about a Norfolk newspaper? Home base of PETA?
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=93730&ran=57036

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. There's a good phrase that refutes all of that.

"There's a first time for everything."

There is no debate about this. It COULD have been an activist, unless you have an alibi for every single animal rights activist in this country (or at least in the area where the arson occurred). Sorry, but you're flat out, completely and totally wrong. The possibility exists.

Once again, I think for the fifth time, I AM NOT SAYING AN ACTIVIST DID COMMIT ARSON, ONLY THAT THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS.

[flvegan]

47. Wrong.

The person stops being an "activist" for animals the minute he/she acts without concern for the animals he/she is determined to help.

An arsonist did this, it would appear.

As far as there being a first time for everything...hmmm...where were YOU when the fire was set?

[VeggieTart]

35. Even so...

Your average animal-rights zealot would free the animals, misguidedly thinking they could survive, and then burn the place down. They would not burn the place down with the animals still inside. I have read of some rescues of farm animals, or activists going to document conditions on animal confinement facilities rescuing some very sick animals and humanely euthanizing those who are extremely ill.

[Darth_Kitten]

46. I agree, there are some really dumb people in this world.

And let's not jump all over the pet shop owner........maybe they are nice, honest people who really love exotic pets. :)

[Whoa_Nelly]

21. How insane! Was the arsonist expecting PeeWee Herman to show up?

[KFC]

31. My first thought

:thumbsup: Aaaaaaaaaaahhh!

[Taverner]

27. This has insurance scam written all over it

"Blame the wild-eyed extremists" has always been a common thing...

Whether its a Green Beret blaming the murder of his family on wild eyed hippies or this...

[LeftyMom]

29. Any out group will do Racial minorities and unpopular political groups too

Any member of the out group will do. :(

[pitohui]

36. how horrible

what's wrong w. people, using the color of ideology to burn animals alive? i suppose they thought it didn't matter because they were "only" herps and fish

reading further, i see it's probably it's one of these people who only think mammals are "real" animals with real feelings

they probably deliberately hoped to kill the "evil" snakes which feed on mice as the snakes are always going to be carnivores if allowed to live

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

37. It's more likely an insurance scam.

Animal rights activists don't believe in "only herps & fish."

[flvegan]

43. Jump to conclusions, much?

You automatically assume. Big shock.

[BreweryYardRat]

41. *growl*

All in favor of flaying said arsonist...

[flvegan]

44. This wasn't the work of the ALF or any activist.

I agree with the insurance fraud take on this. Probably has anti-terrorism insurance, even.

[Shell Beau]

58. So that person would rather them burn alive than have them

"exploited"? Makes perfect sense. :sarcasm: Some pet stores can be nasty places for animals, but that is certainly not the answer.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

59. I'd call insurance scam or just sick arsonists before anyone even remotely

involved in the animal rights community.

[Shell Beau]

60. That is probably true, but there are some crazies

out there who think they are doing good for their cause!! Those anti-abortion people come to mind when trying to save a fetus, they blow up a building and kill people in the process. Extreme case, but still...