Huh? The media tells us there's no demand for dogs? I don't think so, or at least I'm not aware of it.
I'd say that flouting regulations already in place is equivalent to "breeding under the table", whatever that means.
Huh? The media tells us there's no demand for dogs? I don't think so, or at least I'm not aware of it."There is demand for dogs, in spite of what the media tells you," Esch's neighbor Menno Esch said.[/b]
I'd say that flouting regulations already in place is equivalent to "breeding under the table", whatever that means."Many are breeding dogs under the table because of this type of harassment that's here tonight. If you deny this kennel, you are opening the door for more kennels to operate under the table."[/b]
As long as they consider millers to be "area famers" it will a long, uphill battle. Although, I suppose if we could dispel that attitude that the remaining breeders would run better operations.[/b]
I can't speak for everyone fighting the puppymills in Lancaster County, but I feel that the general consensus is to drive the huge, horribly maintained mills out of this county. The new law that was passed last October requires expensive changes in order to comply: cages will have to be enlarged, dogs can't be left 24/7 in cages with no excersize, temperature controls will have to be provided, dogs will have to be seen by vets, etc. All of this costs, and the millers notoriously don't want to cut into their profits (case in point is the kennel I posted about last summer: the inspectores wanted the owners to provide flea treatment for their infested dogs; the owners found it more cost effective to pull 80 dogs out of their cages and kill them- this case helped to outrage public sentiment and helped the 2008 law to pass) Another article I posted a few monthe ago predicted up to 300 kennels going out of business this year due to the new law-who knows? (you can find both of these articles in the Basset Hound Politics archive)And is the agenda of the puppymill fighters to make sure that the dogs are living in humane conditions, or simply to shut down all commercial breeders? Since I'm not there, I have no way of knowing, so I'm curious.[/b]
These operations are run by Greed (some of these guys are said to be making in the hundred's of thousands of dollars yearly)and are set up with the belief that dogs can be housed like chickens. They don't want to comply with existing laws because it cuts into their profits, and they don't want to comply with the new laws for the same reason. And all the Stolzfuses, Esch's, Kings and Eby's control the officials in their districts and get passes on inspections. New public awareness due to education by the many anti-puppymill groups, and support by the media and Gov. Rendell are starting to change the culture, but it's a hard fought battle.I wonder why such a difference between the way they treat the dogs and their other livestock.
Rather than trying to drive them out of business, would it not be more productive to simply try to get them to run their dog operations with the same care and pride they do the rest of the farm?[/b]
Sadly, the photo you posted is pretty mild- there are some pictures of really horrific puppymill conditions out on the web that actually make your photo (awful as it is) seem half-way humane! Thanks for posting-Anyone who considers buying a puppy from a pet store should see pics like this one first....[/b]
Sadly, the photo you posted is pretty mild- there are some pictures of really horrific puppymill conditions out on the web that actually make your photo (awful as it is) seem half-way humane! Thanks for posting-[/b]
There is no question those that wrote the original PA legislation want to se an end to not just commercial breeding but all breeding of dogs. One just needs to look at the orginial legislation to see that. The problem is just as we consumers are often lax in investigating and dueing due dilgence on our purchase we often fall into the same trap when it comes to legislation. Put a label on a piece of legislation a bill to regulate puppymills and huge numbers are for it when in fact it adversely effects sportsmen and hoby breeders as well.And is the agenda of the puppymill fighters to make sure that the dogs are living in humane conditions, or simply to shut down all commercial breeders? Since I'm not there, I have no way of knowing, so I'm curious.[/b]
I'm sorry but in this country making a profit is niether a moral nor illegal quait the contray it is a way of life. General speaking acompany or individual can make an extra buck scaming the american poublic but that profit is always short lived. What hobiest and those trying to shut down puppymills fail to realize is they provide a service that the consumer is willing to by extra for, as most pet shop dogs sell a much higher prices than a typical hoby breeder would sell a pet quality dog for.These operations are run by Greed (some of these guys are said to be making in the hundred's of thousands of dollars yearly)[/b]
I doubt you will find much of a disparity in how a particular individual treats his livestock be it chickens, horses, cows or dogs. Some will treat them like royality other humanly and unfortunately other will not. but As PA has proven over and over again in recent months that the new law they passed was unnecessary to prosecute and end inhumane treatment of livestock. They had the power to do before but were relunctant to do so. As we see over and over again in the articles posted the matters comming up are be ajudicated under the prior law.I wonder why such a difference between the way they treat the dogs and their other livestock.[/b]
Saddly this is not resevered to commercial breeder. In fact there will be many that will argue that the hobbiest are responsible for some of the most aggregious problems through their practices of line breeding and the use of linited sires which limits the gene pool and tends to concentrate such genetic problems Manyh genetic problems in particular breeds can be traced to this. Von Wilbrand's in dopermans where over 2/3 are carriers is just such an example. see The Price of Popularity: Popular Sires and Population Genetics Popular Sire Syndrome and Concerns of Genetic Diversity and how the very nature of closed purebred registry politic prevent the fix of know gentic problems in breeds see The Backcross ProjectOne of the very sad things about puppy mills is that the thousands of "pets" they produce and send out into the public are seriously screwed up.[/b]
Surely there are some horrific example of cruelty at some comercial establishment but not all or even most are. Why are comercial breeder painted with the same brush as a select minority. There are equal numbers of horror storys of "dog rescuer" that get over their head hand have huge number of dogs living in absolute squalor. but we don't paint all rescues with that same broad brush.Sadly, the photo you posted is pretty mild- there are some pictures of really horrific puppymill conditions out on the web[/b]
Ah but that IMHO is the most hornerious part of the legislation.
For a small idea why sportsmen are still not satisfied with the comprises made and the word and promise of those in charge that the legislation doesn/t affect them.However, we cannot support repressive laws that trample our constitutional rights, especially in regard to due process under the law and protection against wrongful searches and seizures. HB 2525 still allows a dog warden’s unsubstantiated “reason to believeâ€� a violation has occurred to be considered as legal grounds to obtain a warrant for search or seizure. Dog owners thus are reduced to second class citizens by being denied “probable causeâ€� protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights that require an officer to present hard evidence to a judge in seeking a warrant. Belief is not the same thing as evidence based on good police work
...
Nor can we support laws that leave enforcement and prosecution up to the opinions of dog wardens or supervisory personnel, who sometimes may have personal agendas in opposition to animal ownership or hunting, or laws that deny accused dog owners the right to their day in court and to a full appeal.
We also must oppose laws that make irrational and impossible demands on dog owners, such as a requirement for a dog owner to be available for inspection within 36 hours of a notice by a dog warden or to set up a time for inspection that is agreeable to the dog warden, or face the loss of his/her kennel license. This requirement might be workable for a full-time commercial kennel, but shows utter disrespect for the lives of the vast majority of kennel license holders, whose kennels are mostly an avocation. Many kennel owners have jobs, prior commitments, personal and business travel plans, and other factors that make compliance with this requirement impossible. Many professional trainers and handlers also must travel extensively away from their kennels, sometimes for weeks at a time. While family members or employees are available to care for the dogs, they cannot be expected to participate in an inspection, which requires detailed knowledge of individual dogs, paperwork, vaccination records and management practices. Remember that these kennel owners are accused of no crime or violation of the law. This requirement is for a routine twice-annual inspection.
Nor can we support a law that will destroy a vital part of the kennel industry for no good reason. HB 2525 will make it virtually impossible for dog daycare services to stay in business, as it requires even very small businesses to be licensed, taxed and regulated as if they are huge kennels. HB 2525 counts every dog as a different dog for every day it is in daycare. Thus, a daycare service for 10 dogs would be regulated as if it is a kennel for more than 2,000 dogs. We believe this part of the legislation will destroy dog daycare services, which greatly increase the quality of life for thousands of Pennsylvania dogs every day of the week.[/b]
That is pattently false. the size and some other space, and temperature and living condition isssue only effect commecial kennels which by the way can be requires for tranfers as few as one dog for wholesale purposes. but the majority of the legislation effect all kennels and dog owners. which specifical deals with licensing /appeals and enforcement. The undermining of due process and lessing the threshold for searches should concern every one especial those involved in rescue.These provisions effect kennels selling 60 dogs per year, so sporting kennels are not effected-or apartment dwellers
( come on Mike- you can't really believe that aprtment dwellers should be quaking in their boots!?[/b]
To me it is extremely dangerious often times racist, to try and reculate culture. I find it a particularly disturbing trend of the Urban dweller moving to rural areas to escape the ills of that culture only to try and instill the same culture all over again on the rural residents. It still amazaes me when years later they are bewilder that the problems they thought they escaped by moving appear in the once rural setting.For me, this issue is not only about the dogs but also the culture of Lancaster County where I live- it's personal on alot of levels[/b]
-I am deeply distrubed by the implications of that statement. One should be far more concerned attending a HSUS event with a pro -hunting bumper sticker given teir knowd association with terrorist and terrorist organizations. If you were to attend such an event all you would recieve is an education in sporting dog culture and events. For the record Dean has nothing to do with the E-town event other than attending they are put on by Tim. Dean runs the Northern Lancaster Beagle Club events.would I show up at one of Dean's basset events at the Etown Beagle Club? Probably not unless I took the "No Puppy Mills " stickers off my car-[/b]
1. coated wire cage foors of proper cage and spacing is far more sanitary that the original foor requirment and it appear that many also agree. It is why the flooring requirment were removed from the legislation and sent to the special comittee. The old cage size number of dogs etc were routinely not met by the dog owning population as a whole. And if larger cages are required to humanely treate dogs why limit should only less than 1% of all dogs in Pa which are housed in commecial kennel be the only ones required to be treated humanely. Should not every dog is the state injoy the same priviledges?The main reason we needed a new law of course, it that the new dog law will improve daily life for the dogs, who under the old law could be kept 24/7 in tiny cages where they could barely stand with no vet care and in freezing/sweltering enclosures on wire floors which damaged their feet-
And hopefully the cost of complying with the new requirements will drive some of the mills out of business (see the article I posted a few monthe ago in the archives speculating that as many as 300 may be going under due to the new requirements -that figure seems high to me, and I think is being circulated by the puppy mill lawyers to support their pending law suit))[/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.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]
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]
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..
"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]
Florida Breeders Bill To Be Considered Tuesday, April 1•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]
Strict Breeder Oversight Bills on the Move in MinnesotaIf enacted, SB 554 will:
•Require all dogs six months of age and older to be spayed or neutered.[/b]
Nevada Bill•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]
Indiana Breeders' Restrictions Bill•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]
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.•Label anyone who sells five dogs in a year a "pet dealer".[/b]