Apparently Joe the Plumber and the Tea Party support Puppy Mills.
No, I am not making this up. Here's the link you want, but you will also note that there is no link to the actual legislation in question. As for the "press contact" here, it's to a Ron Paul nut-job.
Hmmmmmmm....
If you go here, you find out what's going on, and you get a link to the legislation in question:
A conservative group in Missouri is picking up the backing of the Tea Party and Joe The Plumber in its quest to stop the Humane Society and other animal rights groups from passing "radical" anti-puppy mill legislation.
The measure, which can be read in full here, is called Proposition B or the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act." It aims to help eliminate the "3,000 puppy mills" in Missouri that constitute "30% of all puppy mills in the U.S.," according to Michael Markarian, the Chief Operating Officer of the Humane Society.
"This measure would provide common sense standards for the care of dogs," he told TPM, including sufficient food and clean water, vet care, regular exercise, and adequate rest between breeding cycles, among other things. Markarian said the measure only applies to "commercial dog breeding facilities" that have more than 10 breeding females who they use for "producing puppies for the pet trade."
And guess what? The Humane Society is right on this one.
I am hardly a supporter of the Humane Society of the U.S., am I?
But you know something? If the Pope started saluted the raping of little boys, that would not make it right, and if Hitler said it was cruel to kick puppies, he would not be wrong. Come on folks; start thinking on your own and reading legislation written in plain English! Agreeing with the HSUS on this one does not show you are a weak-kneed "animal rights lunatic." It simply shows you have a brain... and a heart.
Ten breeding females is a lot of breeding females, and providing food, clean water, vet care, regular exercise, and adequate rest between breeding cycles is hardly jack-booted authoritarianism.
Read the damn law! It's right here to be read.
What does it say that providing minimal care in a commercial dog breeding facility is considered controversial in this country?
Pathetic.
9 comments:
It's a good start. I have a problem with some of the definitions though.
The title specifically says that it is trying to prevent puppy mills. It then mentions selling offspring as "pets" and then defines a "pet" as being "any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof."
So does that mean if I am selling Akbash dogs they aren't covered since they are used to being with sheep out in the middle of nowhere? What about any other livestock guardian dog?
What about sled dogs? They normally aren't kept anywhere near a house.
And it specifically exempts hunting dogs - what a crock! How did the hunting lobby manage that one? How would they define a "hunting dog"? Technically, that could be any sighthound, scenthound, retreiver, spaniel or terrier. A hunting miniature poodle, anyone?
I also wish they would have not been so stingy on their outdoor space requirements. Twice the size of their indoor floor space? That's hardly enough room to run and frolic.
And I am sure that there are some bigger hobby breeders who would have an issue with the ten female dog restriction.
But, again, it is a good beginning to what hopefully becomes the end of a cruel practice. Let's hope their neighbor states take note.
Dear Patrick,
Whenever good dog legislation is proposed it is opposed on the grounds that it isn't perfect. I recall one Maryland anti-chaining law that was condemned because it didn't allow for sled dogs.
All legislation is imperfect. That's why amendments are necessary. Demanding perfect legislation is demanding no legislation.
Donald McCaig
Well said Don!
Somewhere betweem Jack-booted authoritarianism and anarchy is the shifting compromise upon which all civilization depends.
Fence and gates. Laws and amendments. Both were ancient when the Old Testament was new.
P.
One of my favorite sayings is:
"Do not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good."
Seahorse
In dire economic times such as we have experienced the crazies come out of the woodwork. They're loud and promise better times to those who are suffering. Add to that the reluctance on the part of the American public to actually research an issue (must be a liberal plot)and you have scenarios such as the one described here. Paranoia reigns supreme. Please remember that Hitler gained his foothold during dire economic times in Germany. We have sunk to a new low if protecting helpless animals is now a government-backed takeover of our liberties. I don't forsee an improvement until the economy improves substantially. Naturally those who cannot protect themselves will suffer the most. Those who oppose this kind of nonsense need to get some guts and speak as loudly and forcefully as these fools.
Here's a chart comparing what's already on the books & Prop B
http://www.totaldobe.com/propb_acfa.pdf
Prop B duplicates a lot of what is already Missouri state law, so why do we need another law?
A few points:
1. A law is not the same as a regulation. Regulations are put out by departments of the state or federal government and are enforced (generally very poorly) by the agency in question, while laws are codified by elected representatives and can be enforced by the attorney general and other arms of the state (such as the police).
2. A chart like this is clearly designed to create the conclusion you have jumped to, and it was created by people opposing the legislation in question (i.e. the puppy mill industry). In short, it is a lie. And how do we know it is a lie? Simple....
3. No one spends money or time opposing a restatement of current law being enforced. In fact, the Dept of Ag does not have the resources to enforce the regulation, but when it becomes a law, rather than a regulation, it becomes a larger legal issue subject to more enforcement resources and avenues. In short, Prop B is legislation with some teeth, which is why the puppy mill industry is spending money lying about it.
And are you part of that lying and dog-abusing industry?
We have to assume so, as you have not used your real name, have not enabled your profile, and have chose to remain anonymous . I am simply pointing out the obvious here.... Honest men and women have real names.
;)
They also don't oppose legislation designed to make sure more puppies get food, water and shelter. But you know that, right??
P.
Actually, no, I am not part of the industry, I am just a person who lives in Missouri who sometimes reads your blog. I have never posted on here before, and replied quickly when I read this, hence the anonymity. I always thought anonymity was good on the internet! Plus, I had a hard enough time remembering what my google account name & password was, let alone creating whatever that open ID thing is. I don't know what it is.
I've done no research on my own on this law, only what has been emailed to me from a breed specific group I've been a member of for several years. I should know better than to comment here without proper research!
I saw the chart come through & it seemed to make sense, that we didn't really need another law.
Brooke
Anonymity is never good anywhere in a free and open society.
If you do not want your name attached to something do not do it.
If the thing is worth doing, it is worth doing well and signing with pride.
As for research, yes this site demands it. See my posts about parrots and those who forward spam emails. Our nation has not been improved by this kind of thing.
Corporations are now paying people to forward their lies to the point that comedian Jack Black has put up a Youtube series about "Nathan Spewmanm, the Misinformant" to satarize it.
See >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj4uBwpimjg
and >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR3C0S7yiv8
As for the puppy millers, they want you to know that if this law changes, they will have to make "huge new investments."
Hmmmmmm. That sounds like change to me. Needed change.
And though you say you are "not in the industry," you also seem a bit oblivious. Over 1/3 of all the puppy mill production in America is in your state of Missouri. What actions have you taken to illuminate the problem or change that reality? If you have been silent, you are "in the industry" whether you attend the meetings and pay the dues or not.
Think about the high price of silence when the smell of death is in the air, as it has been for decades in Missouri.
P.
Post a Comment