Sunday, July 19, 2009

Puppymillers R Us

HSUS plays "responsible breeders" for fools

Get 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.


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.