Poll for or against USA airing Westminster

[Lizmo]

Actually, there is an exception for livestock working dogs in nearly all of the proposed spay/neuter legislation I've seen, and I know of none that have passed without it (except possibly in big cities). California's AB1634 started out without one, but was amended to add one during the long run-up to its ultimate defeat. PETA simply cannot gain enough support to achieve its aims unless it can convince people that its aims are good and important. It's a lot easier to convince people that breeding dogs whose skulls are too small for their brains is a bad thing than that dogs who help farmers and ranchers produce the meat they like to eat is a bad thing.

 

I didn't know this. Thanks for the information.

[beachdogz]

People stop showing under judges who hand out ribbons to defective dogs, and make an effort to enter under judges who put up correct dogs.

 

hmmm...I thought judges put up HANDLERS, not dogs. The problem with akc judges goes much deeper than knowing a good dog. oops. my cynicism is showing.

[Flamincomet]

The following quotes are from Eileen Stein.

"I would like to know where you are getting this. Can you cite any evidence?"

 

Straight from several UK breeders themselves.

I do think it's funny though, that of course I'm the one asked to cite "evidence" for something you don't/can't agree with, but when someone uses an obviously made-up statistic, as long as it's in accordance with your point of view, it is not called into question and they are not required to "cite evidence."

 

"Usually you argue that the kennel club is powerless and it's the breeders and breed clubs that set the standards and ruin dogs. Now you seem to be arguing that it's the breeders and breed clubs who are "clamoring" to change but the kennel club won't let them."

 

For one, the comments you are referring to were made quite a while ago. For two, the comments were made about a completely different kennel club. You seem to think that people can't have changes in opinions or thoughts, just because I said something long past does not mean that I still think the same. And to bring something from the past like that up in order to destabilize my current argument, IMO, just shows a weak argument on your side.

 

"PETA is the organization people love to hate but it's just not that powerful. It has not managed to outlaw fur, even though fur has been a top priority of theirs for a long time, and the general public is much less devoted to fur than they are to their dogs."

 

But they've had a major hand in outlawing pit bulls and pit bull type breeds. Do you think the owners of those breeds are any less devoted to them than we are to our border collies? Just citing one example where they have failed is not enough, there have been countless things they have succeeded in, and to overlook that is dangerous.

 

"And herding livestock is obviously not "considered too dangerous for humans," so I think that quote is not particularly applicable to our working dogs."

 

Perhaps to you it is not, but I'm sure many PETA followers will disagree. They already do not like sheep being harvested for wool and meat, just add to that a few videos of a BC getting kicked in the head by cattle or rammed by a sheep, and viola, herding livestock is considered "dangerous." Just because you do not consider it dangerous does not mean that others will agree.

 

"Actually, there is an exception for livestock working dogs in nearly all of the proposed spay/neuter legislation I've seen, and I know of none that have passed without it (except possibly in big cities)."

 

That is besides the point, as the licenses and fees make it so hard to gain an exemption anyways. It's not as simple as, "they are exempt." Of course that is what they would like you to think.

 

Quoted from painted_ponies

"Breeders, handlers, and owners can and have changed things in their breeds for the better. And they can win doing it. You know how? People stop showing under judges who hand out ribbons to defective dogs, and make an effort to enter under judges who put up correct dogs. Dog show promoters and sponsors absolutely notice when this happens, and before long the breed is judged differently and then of course bred with different goals in mind."

 

YES, this is exactly right, and there ARE people doing it, unfortunately I'm not sure if there are enough people doing it. I have a list of judges I've shown under that I like, and that I definitely will not be showing under again, based on what I've seen them put up, or not put up. I know the majority of you are completely anti-conformation, but there are those of us that are trying to do it right (everything is relative ), just because you notice the ones that are so obviously doing it wrong does not mean that we are all like that.

 

Quoted from beachdogz

"hmmm...I thought judges put up HANDLERS, not dogs."

 

Yes, some do, they are called "face judges," and we are making a list of them too.

 

Autumn

[Katelynn & Gang]

A lot of breeders do fix problems within their own lines, you just don't notice them because, sadly, they aren't the ones winning the big shows most of the time because they don't breed for the flashy extremes that most judges like.

 

And you are one to talk, considering the breeder you hand picked to get a conformation prospect from? I hope your choice of good breeders has also changed as much as you opinion on "its the breeders" which clearly did a 360 turn.

 

I would like to know where you are getting this 95% statistic.

 

Why don't you take a look at DNA test results and OFA or CERF for AKC dogs and the numbers. Then look at what the AKC spits out every year and compare how many of their breeders are responsible enough to have puppies/dogs done compared to the numbers that are not responsible enough to have it done. Have a field day.

 

And when you wake I truly hope you will still find your dogs beside you, and you haven't lost them after PETA finishes with the AKC and continues on to working breeders who have dogs who are "forced to do jobs that are considered too dangerous for humans and that are, therefore, obviously too dangerous for a dog, too." - Quoted from the Vice President of PETA.

 

Haha. I do not think I could be anymore awake. I think its you that needs the waking up.

 

If someone from PETA wants to come tell one of my dogs that they are being "forced" to work sheep, I'll let them walk out on a field with my oldest bitch who can barely control herself insight of livestock and see if they can hold her back from doing what she was breed to do and sooooo clearly LOVES to do. None of my dogs need any forcing to herd, its their calling, its their blood, its their soul mate if it can be called that. If they need any forcing at any time, usually its dragging them off the field to stop working.

 

You really think PETA is just going to stop when you want them to? If you put off fighting them now, it will be too late when you truly want to fight them. If PETA (Or any animal rights extremist group for that matter) can convince the public that breeding for conformation dogs is bad, what's to stop them from convincing the public that breeding for working dogs is bad? Common sense? We all know the public has none of that.

 

No but I also believe they will have no such luck in trying to get working dogs on livestock outlawed.

[beachdogz]

Quoted from beachdogz

"hmmm...I thought judges put up HANDLERS, not dogs."

 

Yes, some do, they are called "face judges," and we are making a list of them too.

 

Autumn

 

I'd give you my list, but it's so old some of them are probably dead by now. Well, I'd better leave it at that.

[Eileen Stein]

The following quotes are from Eileen Stein.

"I would like to know where you are getting this. Can you cite any evidence?"

 

Straight from several UK breeders themselves.

I do think it's funny though, that of course I'm the one asked to cite "evidence" for something you don't/can't agree with, but when someone uses an obviously made-up statistic, as long as it's in accordance with your point of view, it is not called into question and they are not required to "cite evidence."

 

I was quoting you, in your earlier post to Katelynn (hence the wink). You asked her where she was getting what she wrote; I asked you where you were getting what you wrote. I really didn't need to ask--I was pretty sure it was hearsay from people trying to shift the blame somewhere else.

 

You seem to think that people can't have changes in opinions or thoughts, just because I said something long past does not mean that I still think the same. And to bring something from the past like that up in order to destabilize my current argument, IMO, just shows a weak argument on your side.

 

It wasn't that long ago, was it? You're certainly entitled to change your opinion, but when you defend something using two mutually inconsistent arguments, stating both with the same degree of certainty, it maybe doesn't inspire confidence.

 

But they've had a major hand in outlawing pit bulls and pit bull type breeds. Do you think the owners of those breeds are any less devoted to them than we are to our border collies? Just citing one example where they have failed is not enough, there have been countless things they have succeeded in, and to overlook that is dangerous.

 

I don't think they have. PETA supports banning the breeding of pit bulls, just as it supports banning the breeding of all dogs. It doesn't support seizing or euthanizing people's pit bulls unless they're used for fighting or being abused. But then, PETA is "credited" for a lot of animal legislation that they actually had no part in. I have just read through the entire list of "Victories" on their website for 2007 and 2008, and they do not claim credit for any breed specific legislation.

 

If you have more detailed information that they've "had a major hand in outlawing pit bulls and pit bull type breeds," please post it. I think most such laws arise from (1) news stories of a pit bull attack, followed by (2) politicians wanting to be seen as riding to the rescue.

 

Perhaps to you it is not, but I'm sure many PETA followers will disagree. They already do not like sheep being harvested for wool and meat, just add to that a few videos of a BC getting kicked in the head by cattle or rammed by a sheep, and viola, herding livestock is considered "dangerous." Just because you do not consider it dangerous does not mean that others will agree.

 

The quote from PETA's VP said "too dangerous for humans," not just "dangerous." I take that to mean things like dogs being sent through minefields, not dogs doing things that humans also do.

 

I'm not saying that PETA does not oppose many things that enjoy widespread public support. What I'm saying is that PETA does not have the power to outlaw things that enjoy widespread public support.

 

"Actually, there is an exception for livestock working dogs in nearly all of the proposed spay/neuter legislation I've seen, and I know of none that have passed without it (except possibly in big cities)."

 

That is besides the point, as the licenses and fees make it so hard to gain an exemption anyways. It's not as simple as, "they are exempt." Of course that is what they would like you to think.

 

Yup, I'm just being taken in. Ignorant and gullible, that's me.

[painted_ponies]

hmmm...I thought judges put up HANDLERS, not dogs. The problem with akc judges goes much deeper than knowing a good dog. oops. my cynicism is showing.

 

At least back in my day - when we had to shoo those pesky dinosaurs out of the ring before we could use it - it depended on the breed. There were definitely "handlers' breeds" where you pretty much needed to be a professional handler with a lot of dogs (and hence a lot of entry fees) to do any winning. Back then, these breeds included Dobes, poodles - of any size, GSD's. Oddly, not Rottweilers. There were a teeny tiny number of Rotties being shown then. And every one of them I ever met had a lovely temperament. Shame what popularity and unscrupulous breeding did to them.

 

Anyway, there were also "owner/handler breeds" where the other end of the leash didn't matter so much. Irish Wolfhounds were one such breed - there just weren't that many breeders and exhibitors, and, like their dogs, they were a pretty laid back group. And then there were breeds like chows, where I started out - because the big pro handlers didn't like dealing with the nasty dispositions and all that coat.

[bc4pack]

Funny, in all this PETA talk no one has brought up H$U$ and their input (lobbying) across the country...

BSL, Mandatory spay/neuter, dog limits.

On the surface some of these may seem beneficial....until...

AC knocks on your door....

[Eileen Stein]

Funny, in all this PETA talk no one has brought up H$U$ and their input (lobbying) across the country...

BSL, Mandatory spay/neuter, dog limits.

 

Well, no one brought HSUS up in this thread, because this thread was about a call by PETA for the USA network not to carry the Westminster dog show. HSUS has certainly been discussed extensively in other threads.

 

On the surface some of these may seem beneficial....until...

AC knocks on your door....

 

Some of the bills they support ARE beneficial. That's what makes the issues more complex than "HSUS (or PETA) is for it so I'm against it."

[bc4pack]

Well, no one brought HSUS up in this thread, because this thread was about a call by PETA for the USA network not to carry the Westminster dog show. HSUS has certainly been discussed extensively in other threads.

 

True. PETA are extremists but HSUS is a lot more dangerous IMO. The public hears one thing yet they lobby for the exact opposite. Gotta wonder, right?

[Amelia]

Hello all,

 

I didn't participate in this poll. It reminds me of this saying; "Never argue with a crazy person, people watching won't be able to tell the difference."

 

PETAs agenda is to kill animals rather than have them live as pets. PETA fought to kill ALL of Michael Vick's pit bulls, all 52 of them, rather than rehabilitate. To date almost half have found homes. If you love animals, dispel PETAs myth. And make no mistake about it, they are coming after working dogs next. If you don't believe me, go ask the "calf tiers" who the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Associaiton used to call "calf ropers."

 

The AKC agenda is to become powerful by becoming rich on registration fees to fulfill a delusional need for prestige. Their arbitrary breed standards are based on whimsy and have created a myriad of genetic defects that brings wretched suffering to countless numbers of dogs. Their policy of dog registration has abetted puppy mills, they do this knowingly out of greed, and has brought about dog overpopulation that predisposes approximately 2 million dogs being killed in shelters every year in our country.

 

Read the AKC 2008 Chairman's report if you don't believe me, and let Ron Menaker tell you himself. Here's a quote: "Management has been directed by the Board to aggressively pursue all dogs eligible for AKC registration. We intend to reach out, communicate, and educate those in the retail sector as to why an AKC puppy is the gold standard and why they should be registered with American Kennel Club."

 

The "retail sector" is the one supplied by puppy mills ladies and gentlemen. That AKC registered Golden Retreiver with hip and shoulder dysplasia in 3 out of 4 limbs bought by a friend from the most reputable and dog-show-successful breeder she could find is not the "gold standard."

 

In the comments to the LA Times article, one woman says that the purpose of the AKC is "to pursue the qualities set forth in breed standards and thereby improve dogs." How does having a muzzle 1/3 the length of the head improve the Puli breed that was improbably named champion of the "herding" group the other night. The border collie was identified by the commentator as being the premiere "herding" dog, yet was beaten in the "herding" group by a Puli, Bouvier, Rough Collie and Old English Sheepdog in that order.

 

Westminister is a travesty of excess and myopic selfishness. It is a parade of in-bred genetic freaks bred for the sole purpose of making the owners, handlers and the AKC look good.

[Bill Fosher]

Actually, Amelia, it was the HSUS that wanted to kill Vick's dogs. Credit where credit is due and all that. I am not certain that PETA took a stance on the Vick dogs in particular.

 

I'm a little different from Eileen. I won't make common cause with HSUS or PETA. As long as they are opposed to the ownership of animals (PETA) or animal agriculture (HSUS) as a fundamental tenet of their missions, I will not support anything they do. Why? Because no matter what they are doing -- even if it seems beneficial -- it is only a tactic employed to support a larger strategy of ending animal ownership. Anything I do to help them moves them closer to their goals, even if I think that what they are doing might help some animals in the short run.

[Eileen Stein]

I'm a little different from Eileen. I won't make common cause with HSUS or PETA. As long as they are opposed to the ownership of animals (PETA) or animal agriculture (HSUS) as a fundamental tenet of their missions, I will not support anything they do. Why? Because no matter what they are doing -- even if it seems beneficial -- it is only a tactic employed to support a larger strategy of ending animal ownership. Anything I do to help them moves them closer to their goals, even if I think that what they are doing might help some animals in the short run.

 

I think I've asked you before to refer me to any statements showing HSUS's opposition to animal agriculture itself. On their website, they say, "The HSUS pursues the reduction of animal suffering in the raising, housing, care, transportation, and slaughter of animals raised or caught for food. Furthermore, we seek to ensure that animal production systems are humane, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive. The HSUS supports those farmers and ranchers who give proper care to their animals, act in accordance with the basic ethic of compassion to sentient creatures under their control, and practice and promote humane and environmentally sustainable agriculture." I think it's a misrepresentation of their position to say they're opposed to animal agriculture.

 

More important, I think there's a difference between "making common cause with" or "supporting" an organization, and taking the same position on a piece of legislation or some other initiative that they do. If PETA doesn't like dog fighting and I don't like dog fighting, do I have to refrain from supporting measures aimed at stamping out dog fighting because PETA supports them? Same with other forms of animal cruelty, same with puppy mills, same with AKC? Nope, I'm not willing to let someone else--especially someone I don't like--determine what actions I'll take and what positions I'll support. The situation is not that PETA opposes dog fighting and I'm helping them in their efforts to stamp it out; the situation is that *I* oppose dogfighting and I'm doing what I can to stamp it out, without regard for PETA.

 

Also, I disagree that the amelioration of cruelty to animals helps PETA or moves them closer to their goal of eliminating animal ownership. I think that the continued existence of demonstrable mistreatment of animals is what moves them closer to their goal, because it enables them to say, "Animal ownership inevitably leads to cruelty -- here's the pictures to prove it. And the people who own animals don't give a damn about cruelty -- they never support any effort to limit it."

[Bill Fosher]

I think I've asked you before to refer me to any statements showing HSUS's opposition to animal agriculture itself.

 

There's always Wayne Pacelle's famous quotation, "One generation and out." He disputes what that means and claims it was taken out of context, but I think it's pretty clear what he thinks: that in his version of the perfect world, humans should care for the generation of domesticated animals currently on the ground, and after that there should be no more domesticated animals. And, while it's perhaps not part of HSUS's official mission statement, it does explain the agenda of the people running the organization. Moreover, HSUS promotes a vegan diet as the "best way to end animal abuse." Here's a quote from the HSUS web site: "Vegetarian eating is an effective and positive way to help farm animals. Indeed, any reduction in the amount of animal products we consume makes a difference for animals. Praise yourself for every step you take toward adjusting your food choices and know that with every vegetarian meal you enjoy, you are helping to prevent animal abuse. Thank you for your compassion."

 

While it doesn't overtly state that the goal is to end animal agriculture, I think we can safely read between the lines. Especially since I don't find anything on the website about how every meal that you eat with humanely raised and slaughtered beef, lamb, pork, or poultry accomplishes the same end.

 

I oppose dog fighting, but I won't contribute to efforts by the HSUS to end it. I'll find other ways. And in the meantime, I'll point out that money that HSUS collects in the name of ending dog fighting goes not only to that effort, but to promote its entire agenda. To anyone who will listen, and many who won't. HSUS is a dishonest organization that in the days immediately following the publicity storm surrounding the raid on Vick's kennels put up a website with a link to click on "to help us care for the Vick dogs" when if fact it had no intention of caring for them, no means of caring for them if wanted to, and no way to earmark the money that came in from that link. When in fact, it advocated that all the dogs taken from Vick's kennels be killed. That's one way to end dog fighting, I suppose. Dead dogs don't fight.

[Eileen Stein]

There's always Wayne Pacelle's famous quotation, "One generation and out." He disputes what that means and claims it was taken out of context, but I think it's pretty clear what he thinks: that in his version of the perfect world, humans should care for the generation of domesticated animals currently on the ground, and after that there should be no more domesticated animals. And, while it's perhaps not part of HSUS's official mission statement, it does explain the agenda of the people running the organization.

 

That was a statement he made at a time when he had no connection to HSUS, and yes, he would dispute your interpretation. He says your interpretation is not what he thinks. You say you know what he REALLY thinks. Okay, no point in pursuing that. But how you can turn that into the position of the HSUS, is not a logical process. Here is the official HSUS statement of policy regarding animal agriculture.

 

Moreover, HSUS promotes a vegan diet as the "best way to end animal abuse." Here's a quote from the HSUS web site: "Vegetarian eating is an effective and positive way to help farm animals. Indeed, any reduction in the amount of animal products we consume makes a difference for animals. Praise yourself for every step you take toward adjusting your food choices and know that with every vegetarian meal you enjoy, you are helping to prevent animal abuse. Thank you for your compassion.

 

While it doesn't overtly state that the goal is to end animal agriculture, I think we can safely read between the lines.

 

The HSUS website goes on to say: "If you do continue to eat animal products, know that not all animal products are equal when it comes to animal welfare. Each industry has its own abusive practices, and some are much more cruel than others. For example, the chicken, egg, turkey, and pork industries tend to be far more abusive to animals than the beef industry. And a growing number of producers are raising animals without intensive confinement. Refining your diet by choosing cage-free animal products, instead of the conventional factory farm products that fill most supermarket shelves, will help to reduce animal suffering."

 

Reading between the lines of the two statements, taken together, I come to a different conclusion than yours (although I do wish they had acknowledged that sheep production tends to be the best of all), especially in view of the frequent praise and commendation that HSUS gives to animal producers and users who adopt more humane production methods and standards.

 

Bill, I have a pretty low opinion of HSUS, just as I suspect (I could be wrong) that you have a pretty low opinion of many intensive factory farming practices. I don't think we disagree that much about this. It just bothers me when people don't "give the devil his due" by stating his position accurately.

 

I oppose dog fighting, but I won't contribute to efforts by the HSUS to end it. I'll find other ways.

 

What ways might those be? You'll be limiting yourself a hell of a lot if you won't support anything HSUS supports, since they are all over this issue.

 

And in the meantime, I'll point out that money that HSUS collects in the name of ending dog fighting goes not only to that effort, but to promote its entire agenda.

 

I certainly never suggested contributing money to HSUS!

 

To anyone who will listen, and many who won't. HSUS is a dishonest organization that in the days immediately following the publicity storm surrounding the raid on Vick's kennels put up a website with a link to click on "to help us care for the Vick dogs" when if fact it had no intention of caring for them, no means of caring for them if wanted to, and no way to earmark the money that came in from that link. When in fact, it advocated that all the dogs taken from Vick's kennels be killed.

 

You are substantially correct about this. I have posted the same thing in the past. This is a good example of dishonesty on their part. There are others I could cite. But IMO that doesn't justify misstating their policy positions, nor does it mean that one should refrain from supporting something good merely because they also support it, or from opposing something bad merely because they too oppose it.

[Ooky]

Bill, in so far as I understand your operation, I really admire your approach to farming/raising meat for commercial production. That's why I have a hard time understanding why you would lump in some of the practices the mission statement for HSUS is talking about being against with your own production ethics and take that further to claim they, as an organization, want someone like you out of business. The feedlots and meat production plants of CO are horrible, horrifying places for both the animals brought there and the people working in them. You can smell the lots in Greely for at least a 100 mile radius, and can even tell the weather by it - if you live south of the feedlots and you can smell them 50 miles away, you know north wind and cold weather is coming. And if you live north of them, vice versa for warm weather. Can you imagine the amount of animal waste just sitting there to cause such a stink?

 

I guess I have a hard time vilifying HSUS's specifically stated position on ag because it IS true that the more people who eat vegan and vegetarian the better it is for animals, small farmers, and sustainable agriculture in general. If less meat is produced, more of it can be produced in an ethical, stable, sustainable way AND the meat that people do buy should be of higher quality. The way I see it, let as many people become vegans and veggies as possible - not only is there more for me, an inveterate carnivore, but with less demand there is less of a need for all of the truly disturbing factory animal husbandry operations out there run by faceless corporations. In fact,it seems everything in Eileen's HSUS quote specifically promotes as being what they would like to see from food production sounds like what you already do.

 

I like small farmers and ranchers. I like to see them stay in business. I prefer to pay higher meat prices for less but better quality, locally raised and prepared meat, where more of the overhead has gone into animal care and supporting a family operation rather than gasoline to ship the meat from the originating farm to the massive corporate feedlot to the packaging plant to the distribution house then back out across the country to my meat section. It seems to me legislating controls into all of these things would help producers like you (by narrowing the price gap) while also reducing animal cruelty, and improving sustainability. I'm not saying I think you should support the HSUS, I just have a hard time understanding why you see their position on this issue as being so contrary to your aims - when to me it seems the big-corp factory operations are a worse threat, BOTH in terms of taking away your slice of the pie in eaking out a living off the land AND in their heinous methods getting animal rights nuts all wound up. People SHOULD be wound up about large-scale, ADM-style, factory meat and crop production, but that is JMO.

 

Oh, and just because someone says, one generation and then out, well, you know and I know that a solid proportion of people will never stop eating meat. Veg-heads are no real threat to us, I swear. Even if in some dire future I'm only able to afford meat twice a week, I'm still eating it that much and so would most people I know. Anyone who really believes getting everyone to stop eating meat is in any way an achievable objective is a pie-in-the-sky fool and in my mind no real threat (because they obviously don't understand human nature OR how the world works!)

[Bill Fosher]

Well, Ooky, I don't want to get too far into slicing and dicing this, but _less_ meat consumption doesn't necessarily lead to better farming. In fact, you could argue the case pretty convincingly that if we ate less meat, there'd be even more pressure to lower the cost of production per unit since most farmers don't have the means to increase the price received per unit. Nothing produces cheaper meat than a factory farm or a feedlot.

 

You're right Eileen, that I oppose many of the the practices that the HSUS opposes, but that's beside the point. I don't support the whole enchilada that I am certain is there. You can reach no other conclusion if you follow their positions through to their logical conclusions.

 

I do give HSUS its due. It is largely because of the efforts of HSUS that the atrocities at Westland/Hallmark packing came to light, leading to the largest recall of food in the history of the world. But when people like Pacelle say things like "one generation and out," then try to parse it to mean something other than what it says, and then are appointed to leadership positions with the HSUS, and when they lie about their intentions in other places, it is an organization without credibility in my book. And I do think that the end of animal agriculture is at the core of its mission, but that they realize that such a mission statement would interfere with fundraising, so they bide their time, choosing to work like the cat that ate the grindstone: one tiny little bite at a time.

 

This doesn't mean if they're for it, I'm against it, or vice versa. It just means that I will not do anything to further their actions even when I agree with them on one position or another. Every tactical gain advances their strategy. I may advocate a similar position, but there will almost certainly be differences of nuance and of substance, and at the very least I will work on a parallel track.

 

The issue for me is not whether they succeed in ending animal agriculture or not -- like you, ooky, I'm certain they will not. The question is how much of a pain in the neck they will be along the way as they try to nibble at the edges.

[bc4pack]

Part of the issue too is all the funding that HSUS gets from the average dog owning public that fund the push for the mandatory spay/neuter; dog limits, breed ban legislation, and all in favor of laws by communities/ States that encourage warrantless searches and sezures of personal property by AC ?

 

There are currently 34 states considering limits on dog ownership...thing is once it is on the books it's a lot tougher to get rid of, if not impossible. HSUS is working on lobbying in every state to push their agenda.

 

Right now Texas has a good anti-tethering law but a bill was introduced to not only ban tethering pretty much completely(owner presence) but included that any dog over 4 mos, if confined to a kennel, said kennel needs to be 150 square feet. Do the math and look at kennels that folks have.

CA has their issues with their AR-inclined lawmaker...

 

Who pushed closing equine slaughter that has led to horse rescues being overwhelmed/ horse abandonement and horse suffering by being sent to Mexico to be slaughtered... to say nothing of starving in pastures. One

'beneficial' warm and fuzzy action is leading to even more suffering.

 

What has happened to common sense that we 'need' to have more laws to restrict and control every aspect of animal ownership and responsible owners get caught up in the appalling wording of these laws.... 'It doesn't apply to me.' Well yeah, it affects all of us.

[Eileen Stein]

bc4pack, this is the second time you've said that HSUS backs BSL. Here is the HSUS's policy statement on Breed Specific Legislation. They are forthrightly against it. Of course, I suppose you could believe that this is only what they SAY, but secretly they're for it, and they're just saying the opposite to throw us off the track. I, on the other hand, am totally convinced that this is their position -- in fact, it's one of the best position statements against BSL that I have ever read. Can you offer a single example of HSUS supporting BSL anywhere? If not, are you going to go on saying they push for BSL anyway?

 

Beyond that, I really don't understand what your point is. Are you opposed to all animal welfare legislation? Are you opposed to all animal welfare legislation that HSUS supports? Are you just saying HSUS is bad? Or what?

[Eileen Stein]

Well, Ooky, I don't want to get too far into slicing and dicing this, but _less_ meat consumption doesn't necessarily lead to better farming. In fact, you could argue the case pretty convincingly that if we ate less meat, there'd be even more pressure to lower the cost of production per unit since most farmers don't have the means to increase the price received per unit. Nothing produces cheaper meat than a factory farm or a feedlot.

 

BUT, if the reason vegetarianism is being encouraged/adopted is because of abusive factory farming practices, then that message can only be counteracted and those vegetarians won back by better farming practices. In that sense, a reduction in meat consumption is likely to lead to better farming, because it shifts the competitive advantage toward better farmers in contrast to factory farmers. Also if it's true, as is generally said, that the current demand for meat cannot be satisfied without inhumane factory farming, then lessening the demand IS "helping to prevent animal abuse," whether you like it or not.

 

Beyond that, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, as usual.

[bc4pack]

How up are folks on state and local legislation being proposed and current bills ?

[Eileen Stein]

I try to keep up on the state bills. The one I'm particularly watching right now is MSN in Florida; HB451 looks substantially similar to AB1634 in CA in its early stages. So far there doesn't seem to be nearly as much of a campaign geared up to oppose it as there was for AB1634, but that may be because the FL legislature doesn't come into session until March. My state (MD) has a bill in the current session that would bar the ownership of more than 50 intact dogs, which is fine with me, but which would impose some kenneling requirements on those who own more than 10 intact dogs which I will probably weigh in against. My sense is that the prospects for passage of this bill are small.

 

I do not keep up nearly as well on local bills nationwide, sorry to say.

[bc4pack]

You might want to take a look at the propsed Ill Dog Liscencing Breeder Act, strongly lobbied for by HSUS.

The proposed wording doesn't bode well for small,hobby responsible breeders. That is contrary to the'public position' of HSUS.

 

There's also a bill in OK involving limits on numbers of dogs that can be sold,traded or given away in a year (yep could affect rescue)

 

HSUS is designating "Lobby Days" in every State...and members are actively involved in all the proposed legislations nationwide. Thing is, in the name of doing away with 'puppy mills' a LOT of good,responsible,hobby breeders are taking a hit. The regulations for kennels requirements or 'no more than 3 sexually intact dogs'...

Little by little...

 

How about the States where dogs can be seized without warrants and owners have no legal recourse? Oh, they could sue but their dogs may have already been PTS.

 

Of course there are horrible situations out there...but too many of the decent and caring folks are getting caught in the crosshairs.... and JQPublic is clueless about how these changes will affect them too... <sigh>

[Eileen Stein]

You might want to take a look at the propsed Ill Dog Liscencing Breeder Act, strongly lobbied for by HSUS.

The proposed wording doesn't bode well for small,hobby responsible breeders. That is contrary to the'public position' of HSUS.

 

There's also a bill in OK involving limits on numbers of dogs that can be sold,traded or given away in a year (yep could affect rescue)

 

I'm aware of both bills, and have in fact slogged through both of them. IMO, neither bill has much chance of passage without very substantial changes. There are some good things in both, and some ridiculous things in both. The OK bill, BTW, does not limit the number of dogs that can be sold, traded or given away in a year, but would require those who sell, trade or give away more than 25 in a year to be licensed.

 

HSUS is designating "Lobby Days" in every State...and members are actively involved in all the proposed legislations nationwide. Thing is, in the name of doing away with 'puppy mills' a LOT of good,responsible,hobby breeders are taking a hit. The regulations for kennels requirements or 'no more than 3 sexually intact dogs'...

Little by little...

 

How about the States where dogs can be seized without warrants and owners have no legal recourse? Oh, they could sue but their dogs may have already been PTS.

 

Of course there are horrible situations out there...but too many of the decent and caring folks are getting caught in the crosshairs.... and JQPublic is clueless about how these changes will affect them too...

 

Again, I'm not sure what your point is. The HSUS, like the AKC, the NRA, the ACLU, the Catholic Church, or any other individual or organization, is entitled to propose bills and encourage people to support those bills in the legislature. If they are good bills, it makes sense IMO to support them. If they are bad bills, it makes sense IMO to oppose them. If they are mixed, it may make sense to propose amendments. Personally, I don't think it makes sense to let your position on a bill be governed by who supports it. In my own case it would be impossible to use that standard, because the HSUS and the AKC are usually on opposite sides of any dog bill, and I have little use for either organization.

 

If you have no first-hand experience with puppy mills, you may think laws aimed at them are not worth passing if they might inconvenience hobby breeders. If you do have first-hand experience with puppy mills, you may feel it's worth inconveniencing hobby breeders to get rid of puppy mills. My own feeling is that the only way you can have a constructive impact on legislation is by getting involved enough to actually read the bill (the actual wording of the bill is what matters, not what some organization says it says or whether some organization says it's good or bad) and bring whatever influence you have to bear to try to get it right, or get it rejected if you can't get it right..

[Amelia]

Bill Fosher said:

"Actually, Amelia, it was the HSUS that wanted to kill Vick's dogs. Credit where credit is due and all that. I am not certain that PETA took a stance on the Vick dogs in particular."

 

PETA said 8/08 in their blog, author unknown:

"This week, Vick’s dogs became the “property” of federal authorities, which means that they are no longer legally required to be held as they have since April, awaiting what is widely accepted as the only safe and humane fate for dogs bred, raised and trained to kill each other and other animals: a painless release from this world."

 

Read the whole thing here

 

PETA and HSUS were in complete agreement on this one, Bill. They wanted to kill 'em all...