Quote:
|
The bumper sticker comment was not an insult, just a statement of fact: I just wouldn't display possibly offensive stickers at an event run by those who might have strong feelings aginst my position. Seems rude to me.[/b]
|
Any gathering of people of any reason that can no accept a dervisity of opinions are the ones that should not be allowed to exist. What is rude is any group that expects univeral agreement on any issue whether it is material to the groups existance or not.
Quote:
|
The Amish and Mennonites who are yelling about the puppymill issue as a "support your local farmer issue" are trying to make it an issue of an attack on their traditional farming culture, in my opinion with some hypocrisy. The way I see it puppymills have nothing to do with traditional farm culture, and everything to do with greed.[/b]
|
Just as animal rights activist rally against caging egg laying chicken is not an attack on frarming practice but rather all about the greed of farmers? The comercial raising of dogs is a farm issue. The practice in the US began as US Department of agriculture program to support small local farmers and keep them afloat see;
What IS a Puppy Mill?
I have never understood when someone else makes a fair profit it is greed but when I do it it is just compensation for services rendered.
But if the goal is to end puppymills then why not spend the effort in areas that will do so. This in not done by trying to legislate them out of existance but rather educate the consumer and eliminate the road block that are but up that are kill hobby breeding. Such as restrictive zoning regulation on the number of dogs in resdidential areas. Zoning restriction for kennel license to comercial zones etc., that have a chilling effect on the hooby breader making it impossible for the hoppy/reputable breader to supply enough dogs to meet demand. I find it ironic that all those so vemently oppsed to puppymills are not out there rallying againt this onsaught of restricts on dog ownership and breeding that only severse to perpetuate puppymills because only large commercial facilities are the only ones with enough capital to fight or comply with the regulations.
Quote:
.
"This legislation is not a final step but just the first in an atttempt by animal rights activist to curtail all breeding." Mike Tefts
Again, I know you don't beilieve it, but we're not PETA Mike. Really. We just want the mills out of this county.[/b]
|
and there in lies the problem it is not about the welfare of the dogs or humane treatment of dogs it is about ending comercial breeding. I for one am not comfortable ,with the govement deciding what is and what is not "commecial breeding" Once a certain type of breeding is curtailed simply because of volume and/or who they sell to it only a matter of realtively little time before all breeding is regulated.
As for not being Peta I suggest you serious look to the powers that wrote and sponsered the legislation and you will find the who's whos of animal rights wacko's at the top of the list. These are the same people that predicted armegedeon when legimite changes were made to protect the rights of sportsman and individual dog owners that were trampled all over with the earlier versions. Such as it was admited to by the PA Dept of Ag that none zero of the 3,000 kennel in pa were in compliance with the original legislation. They are same groups that tried to ram the legesilation through without hearings. The same groups that vow to be back next year to put back in what the senate removed. There is not a very good reason to believe this legislation is anything but a first step. One just has to look at the highly restrictive breeding measures being pushed through 30 states by HSUS as a sampling of what is to come. Restriction that as few as 10 dogs consitutes being regulated. When in the faces of these action one would have to be blind not to see what is coming down the road.
see below for a spattering of restrictive breeding legislation comming down the pipe.
NY SB 4961 Seeks to Classify More as Pet Dealers - Action Needed Now!!!
Quote:
•Redefine "pet dealer" to mean "any person who ...keeps on his or her premises more than four intact female dogs six months of age or older for the purpose of breeding such dogs."
•Remove existing statutory language that exempts breeders who sell less than 25 animals per year from being classified as pet dealers.[/b]
|
Florida Breeders Bill To Be Considered Tuesday, April 1
Tennessee Breeders Bills
Indiana Update:
Alabama Spay/Neuter Bill Introduced
Quote:
If enacted, SB 554 will:
•Require all dogs six months of age and older to be spayed or neutered.[/b]
|
Strict Breeder Oversight Bills on the Move in Minnesota
Quote:
|
•Changing the definition of "breeder" to those who own 6 or more intact adult females, defined as any dog over 24 weeks old, for breeding purposes and who are engaged in the business of direct or indirect sale or exchange.[/b]
|
Nevada Bill
Quote:
•Define "Breeder" as "a person who breeds cats or dogs for sale".
•Require an annual application and $500 license fee for anyone who breeds cats or dogs for sale.
•Require an inspection of "the premises upon which the breeder proposes to operate" prior to a license being granted and authorize the Nevada Department of Agriculture or any authorized representatives to conduct a records inspection at "all reasonable times." The bill is unclear as to whether these inspections could include private homes.
•Prohibit breeding a single cat or dog beyond two litters during its lifetime.[/b]
|
Indiana Breeders' Restrictions Bill
Quote:
|
•Label anyone who sells five dogs in a year a "pet dealer".[/b]
|
There is an asault on pet breeding in this contry by those that want to end all pet ownership under the quise of "ending puppymill" Them is the facts.
Michael Tefts