HSUS plays "responsible breeders" for foolsGet a clue, sweetheart. The days of Camelot are over.
Roger Caras is dead and buried, too.
The American Kennel Club doesn't call the shots, Robert's Rules of Order count for shit, and declaring yourself a responsible, ethical, hobby dog breeder means nothing--nothing at all--to animal extremists.
Oppose "puppymills", do ya?
First of all, if by "puppymills" you mean "abusive, unlawful dog breeding facilities that violate generally accepted animal husbandry practices" . . .well, all I can say is: whoop de doo.
How do you feel about global deforestation, kiddie porn, and adult illiteracy? For, or against? Any motherhood statements you need to get off your chest on, maybe, the torture of civilian combatants in Guantanamo? Puppymillers like you and me
On the other hand, if by "puppymiller" you mean what the Humane Society of the United States means, better think again. Because HSUS and its extremist supporters are coming after you if you breed dogs. They don't care how much you love your dogs and how careful you are with your pups. HSUS's latest crop of anti-puppymill proposals have nothing to do with cruelty to animals. Instead, these proposals outlaw ownership or mere temporary custody of intact dogs (and cats).
Custody of the happiest, healthiest most well-cared for dogs (and/or cats) in the world would be a criminal act under these proposals, if you happen to have "too many."
Groomers, trainers, boarding kennel operators and doggie daycare facilities, huntsmen/women and mushers, vets. . .all potential "puppymillers" in the eyes of the Humane Society of the United States. "Too many" intact dogs in their custody could lead to criminal charges. Not because the animals were mistreated in any way. Oh, no. Just because they had custody of the wrong number. HSUS's numbers game: who wins, who loses?
Pet-Age got it wrong. Dogs are born intact, and some people choose to keep them that way, whether they intend to breed them or not. Its called personal preference, and its not criminal.
Yet.
These aren't proposals to protect animals from "puppymillers." While disguised by anti-puppymill rhetoric, these proposals are designed to shut down breeders and take their animals. Period.
True agenda: seizure and destruction of animals
Under HSUS's New York proposal alleged custody of the wrong number of cats and dogs may lead to seizure and forfeiture of the animals. Amazingly, in New York forfeited animals may be killed or sold off by the agency that seized them BEFORE the owner gets his day in court. So, HSUS and its acolytes could accuse someone of owning "too many" intact dogs and/or cats, seize them, kill them. . .and THEN the owner gets to go to court. Some shit, huh?
Pencil in a number. Any number.
Consider yourself "safe" because you don't have 50 (or 40 or 75) intact dogs and/or cats?
Then you're an idiot.
The ASPCA is already signalling that twenty dogs could identify a breeder as a "puppymiller." There won't be any way to stuff that genie back in the bottle, folks. Numbers were made to change. Once criminal animal cruelty can be charged based only on alleged numbers of animals present--and not the quality of care they are provided--home and hobby breeding of dogs and cats will come to a screeching halt. Ditto sports and hunting kennels, or any other place where intact dogs tend to congregate.
Shoulder to shoulder with HSUS's Jennifer Fearing
Anyone else going to an anti "puppymill" demonstrations with Jennifer Fearing?
Before you pack your lunch and your poster, here's a trivia question to consider. Especially for California pit bull owners:
Question: Ingrid Newkirk, Bob Barker and Jennifer Fearing-- what document unites them all?
Answer: All three signed a letter urging legislators to support SB 861, California's pit bull extermination law that continues to kill innocent dogs for the crime of being caught intact. SB 861 laid the groundwork for the global forced sterilization proposals rocking California today, four years later. Too bad "the Fancy" didn't see the writing on the wall back in 2005, isn't it? You can read the dim-witted letter Fearing signed, which claims that breed specific mandatory sterilization would benefit and even protect "pit bulls," here.
We're all puppymillers
Or dogfighters. Or backyard breeders, or hoarders, or "irresponsible owners."
Or blood-crazed, rifle-toting Bambi-killers.There's an accusation out there waiting for each of us. In the end, no combination of OFA certified dams and performance-titled studs, no forlorn adherence to the mandates of a national breed club, no number of pups produced small enough to protect a targeted dog breeder from extremist allegations which will destroy their lives.
I've got a huge problem when "responsible" and "ethical" dog breeders --not to mention bloggers and freaking journalists -- fall for HSUS jive and completely, utterly, fail to see who they're climbing into bed with.
The Humane Society of the United States employs the best public relations advisors money can buy. Pacelle will position himself and HSUS any way necessary to achieve his goals.
Watch what HSUS does. Not what HSUS says its doing. Don't be a chump.
19 comments:
You need to adjust your hat; your tin-foil beanie is showing.
Some still think they see 'change' in HSUS and suggest that those of us already thrown to the wayside (and apparently already forgotten) may just be 'paranoid'; that our warnings are just unfounded worries.
Here's 'change' for the complicit. HSUS has millions invested and millions more to come, toward getting us all further away from reaching a Blue Dog State and a No Kill Nation.
FINALLY - someone who has it right!Thank you! AGAIN, folks, it is about animal care not animal numbers. According to Wayne, HSUS has its own "in-house law firm of 25 lawyers" to go after you and yours. Even if you take care of your animals they will get you and your dogs for any slip-up in tax reporting. Whatever method works -HSUS and their surrogates are out to get ALL people who breed.
Thanks Blue Dog State for putting the truth out!
Thank you!
I only hope that the ones that think "I'm ok (because I'm doing it my way) and you're not ok (because you're doing it your way)" crowd don't find out they were fooled only when their animals have to pay the price.
well, to be fair, Fearing was not with HSUS when she signed that letter. Supposedly she represents HSUS, not UAN when she speaks now.
You asked who connects Jennifer Fearing, Ingrid Newkirk, and Bob
Barker. One answer is Gina
Spadafori. If something has her
byline, immediately be suspicious.
She might not want to see the end of all animal ownership, but she does want the power that comes with telling everyone else how and when and where THEY can have animals.
Blue Dog State, as always, thanks
for pointing out some truths around
here.
no, Sooky: I think that's unfair to Gina.
She is apparently a personal friend of Jennifer/HSUS, but she has NOTHING good to say about Newkirk or Barker. I think she's too trusting of HSUS, and she has a tendency to describe as "hate" any questioning of that org., but she seemed pretty balanced. Mostly she's on the "right" side.
I think people would be more open to listening to you if you would just stick with the facts and present things in a less harsh manner. There is no need for name-calling ("you are an idiot"). It makes your article look unprofessional and makes me want to dislike you even though I agree with some of your positions.
I oppose puppy mills. I also oppose legislation that infringes upon my right as a responsible dog owner to keep my dog intact if I choose to do so.
There is a happy medium somewhere. We should be able to end the suffering of these poor dogs in puppy mills without completely annihilating responsible dog owners' rights.
Unfortunately, doing nothing, which is what it sounds like you suggest, isn't a good option. Thousands of unwanted dogs are being put down each year while puppy mills churn out thousands more. How is that not cruelty?
MisterPeabody, the truth has been sugar coated, pooh-poohed and generally swept under the carpet for a very long time. If that's what you want, there are plenty of places to join hands with like-minded lotus-blossom eaters and hope it will all go away. This blog isn't one of them.
As for the possibility of "doing something" about puppymills while preserving your right to own an intact dog" -- of course there is. "Puppymills" -- substandard facilities that VIOLATE EXISTING LAWS and accepted animal husbandry practices -- are by definition illegal. Criminal. Abominations.
Here's a thought: how 'bout adequate funding for trained, dispassionate enforcement of reasonable and effective laws? With enforcement personnel employed by, and accountable to, the public (and not donation-driven private corporations governed by their own private boards of directors. . .like societies for the prevention for cruelty to animals)?
Wanna "do something" about "puppymills"? Try giving your state Dept. of Ag. a ringy-dingy and see what their enforcement and training budgets are like. Find out where they get their training material.
Or you can do the sexy thing and stand out on a street corner with HSUS reps and a poster that says Google "puppymill" for more information. You just might get an award for journalistic excellence with that one.
I compleatly agree with this. I fear every day that my cats are going to be taken from me because I show and breed purebreds even tho they are loved and well taken care of and live in my home with my family. I bred my dog once and then spayed her and I have had people call me a puppy mill. It's wrong what the HSUS is doing to all pet lovers. I'm glad that they help pets in need but they think they can controle every thing when it come to owning a pet and it's wrong.
Why are you so opposed to making people aware of the conditions in puppy mills? What's wrong with telling people to "Google puppy mills?" Typically the only people opposed to raising awareness are puppy millers or pet store owners.
From what I understand, the USDA is responsible for encouraging people to "farm" puppies in the first place. It doesn't matter if they are well funded and staffed - they are advocates for farmers, not animals.
Not ALL puppy mills are illegal and unlicensed. Some (if not most) are licensed to operate and the disgusting conditions meet the current minimum standards. I agree, we need reasonable and effective laws. I just don't think the current ones fit the bill.
What' wrong with a journalist suggesting a Google search on one, single term -- an insulting term that implies cruelty and abuse and was invented and deployed by animal rights extremists -- as a reasonable way to educate the public on a complex issue ?
You're not serious, are you?
Seven out of the first 10 results on a google search go back to the Humane Society of the United States. 'Nuff said.
FWIW: I don't mind people being made aware of cruelty to animals of any sort--including "puppymilling", and I certainly don't have a problem with anyone being nailed for abuse or neglect of animals if the person is lawfully convicted.
But HSUS's proposals have nothing to do with cruelty. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Their proposals are limit laws (pretending to be cruelty laws) that will ultimately shut down any and all breeders -- good, bad and indifferent.
Including hobby breeders that think or hope they're immune.
And they'll make a mockery of the Bill of Rights as they do it.
BTW: For the record, I don't breed dogs, I don't own a pet shop. Don't even go there.
Well said. Thanks for doing what you can to expose the animal extremists for the frauds they are. Penn and Teller did an excellent piece. Language warning, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY
Right on, especially the part about all the Chamberlains out there in blog and journo-land. The ones who think they are safe will be the ones to finally sink the ship by buying into the 'us-and-them' trick - one of the oldest in the book.
Divide and conquer, baby, Wayne's got that one down pat.
Seriously, how many 'puppy mills' do these suckers think are actually out there?
Wonderful blog. And, you are SO right about HSUS. What is very unfortunate is that so many people have "bought" the HSUS propaganda and think that HSUS is helping animals. Nothing could be further from the truth. It would also help if people visited and read the links at www.exposeanimalrights.com
All of us need to spread the word so that HSUS is no longer believed to be PRO animal when they are actually ANTI animal.
Mr Peabody,
I don't believe any of us that wants the truth be known about HSUS, ASPCA, PETA and other radical animal rights organizations, also wants any real animal abuse to continue and not be punished. There are already laws in place that can be used to enforce and punish true acts of animal cruelty. There is no need for new laws only better enforcement of existing laws.
You speak of 1000's of animals being killed by animal shelters each year while puppymillers churn out 1000's more animals - that is a myth perpetuated by HSUS and its cohorts. Animal overpopulation is a myth - Please see what an educated past animal shelter director says anout pet overpopulation and how his development of the No Kill Equation is changing the results of shelters around the country that will listen and apply all the steps of this plan. You really can save 95+% of animals brought to the shelter rather than killing upwards of 80% of all animals that enter the doors by working with your community to end the killing. See more info here: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=1390
Whatever you might say about "real animal abuse not being punished", and it is true that none of us wants that, it is not worth as much loss as we have already suffered to try to find and punish animal abusers. We're going to wind up abusing animals by acts of omission such as failing to breed them.
I like your blog. This is my first time here,and I very much agree with your comments. I hope we can find away to keep these things from happening, because I for one ADORE my dogs, I LOVE my kennels, andmy dogs ARE MY FAMILY! Yes,I am a breeder; an ethical and responsible one. I am sick of being under constant scrutiny from the Dog Nazis! Responsible breeders cannot be defined by a number of dogs. I have seen kennels that own4 or 5 dogs who were housed terribly, malnurished, abused, etc....a puppy mill in my eyes...Onthe other hand I have seen very large kennels (20+) in which all of the dogs were cared for properly, given ample space, top notch veterinary care, along with all the other things that come along with responsible animal husbandry; and yet these places were viewed as puppy mills! I am so confused by how ignorant people can be sometimes. A kennel should be judged upon the condition and care of the animals period! I get the whole save the animals thing, but by cutting out the responsible breeders...who are the only ones who will be caught because we are responsible...will only lead to more backyard and basement breeding of low quality animals in the hands of the inexperienced... Prohibitions always create criminals! They do not solve problems. Kudos to your blog! I hope people wake up soon and quit falling for illogical, emotionally driven rhetoric and stand up for the rights of those who have chosen to own and operate kennels in a responsible manner. It should be our right as American Citizens to decide to choose to practice the art of dog breeding as a business.
And once HSUS/ASPCA and all the little sock-puppets have finished with the "puppymillers" they'll come for the "rescuers" first the ones that shelter/hoard more than a certain of animals...
Post a Comment