Obama's Dog
 

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...0,288756.story


By Judith Lewis
March 15, 2009
In the first two months of his administration, President Obama signed an economic stimulus package into law, lifted restrictions on foreign family-planning clinics and drew up a plan for pulling troops out of Iraq.

But he has left one early promise unfulfilled: He has not yet acquired a family dog.
Late last month, the Obamas seemed closer to their goal when Michelle Obama told People magazine that, after studying which breeds were least likely to trigger daughter Malia's allergies, the family had settled on a Portuguese water dog. But the statement was almost immediately modified: The first lady had spoken too soon. The quest for a White House canine continues.

So what's the problem? Why has a task as simple as getting a dog eluded the Obamas for so long? Perhaps the answer can be divined in Michelle Obama's interview: She said she wanted not just any Portuguese water dog but a rescued one. An adult with a good temperament. Perhaps even house-trained.

Certainly that should satisfy the activists agitating for the Obamas to adopt a stray. The rescue-only crowd insists that every dog purchased from a breeder is a death sentence for a stray. They make no distinction between responsible breeders who nurture sound-tempered dogs and puppy-mill operators who crowd breeding bitches so tightly into cages that they chew off each other's legs.

Rescuing a dog is indeed a noble gesture, even if there will never be enough humans to save every abandoned dog. But for the health of their daughter, the Obamas want a purebred dog. And last time I checked, Portuguese water dogs weren't turning up at the pound with any regularity.

Most of the purebred dogs that end up in shelters come by way of reckless backyard breeders or puppy mills, where dogs are routinely inbred, bred so narrowly for looks that they can't breathe properly, or bred with no thought for their health at all. Responsible breeders track their puppies assiduously and take them back if they don't work out. They don't put their dogs up for rescue, they "re-home" them.

If the Obamas find a Portuguese water dog in need of re-homing, good for them -- no doubt it will be theirs for the asking. But that dog won't qualify as a rescue. And it shouldn't have to.

For the record, I rescue dogs. I rescue, in fact, the kinds of dogs that end up in shelters in droves: Yippie, wild-eyed terriers and the much-maligned American Staffordshire (pit) bull terriers. I take them in, train them and keep them with me for longer than a decade; I work through their tendencies to bolt or their fears of men in baseball caps until they accept the compromises of life with humans. I am well set up for the task: My tolerant, dog-loving husband and I have no children; I love dogs that would drive sane women mad; and I have the tenacity to work with them.

But I also love purebred dogs and the whole notion that we humans have bred dogs for certain tasks. I love Newfoundlands that save drowning children, border collies that live to herd, brave terriers driven to hunt rats. And I despair that we may be heading into a world in which breeding dogs to do what dogs do -- work with, and beside, and indeed even for, human beings -- is considered, by some crooked measure, cruelty to animals.

There is something far worse than a family acquiring a dog from a conscientious breeder, and that's a family rescuing a dog that turns out to be fundamentally unstable or just plain unsuited to life with a family.

Childhood dogs shape attitudes toward animals for life; they can make kids lifelong advocates for animal welfare or create in them an ineluctable fear. A family that adopts a dog that incorrigibly nips children's hands, eats expensive furniture or lunges at other animals might at best end up investing in an expensive trainer. At worst, the dog ends up back in the shelter or on the street, leaving a family forever wary of canines.

In January, one month after the death of a beloved pit bull I rescued from the pound 13 years ago, I took in a 5-month old American Staffordshire named Tabitha. She is, from what we can tell, sane and hearty, a natural retriever, psychologically stable enough that neither ear-pulling nor toe-fondling nor the taunts of her Cairn terrier housemate, Thomas, faze her.

But Tabitha is still a puppy, and having lived with dogs -- seven in total -- nearly all my life, I know that puppies harbor secrets in their DNA. What we know about Tabitha is all good, but we could scribble it on a sheet of notebook paper. What we don't know could fill volumes.

We don't, for instance, know what her parents were like. We don't know if she harbors the gene for a debilitating neurological condition called ataxia that is common in her breed. Will she continue to put up with our ambushing cats? With the squeals of our friends' children? We think so, and we will work with her no matter what. If we had children to worry about, however, it might be different.

Symbolically, it would be nice if the Obamas could rescue a dog. But to insist that the only good dog is a rescued dog is to relegate our future with the canine species to random relationships in which humans are forced to settle for whatever renegade breeders produce and fail to care for.

And let it be said that the reason there exists such a thing as a Portuguese water dog at all, or any dog with a hypoallergenic coat and a game temperament, is not a happy accident but a triumph of the selective breeding humans have been practicing with canines for millenniums -- the very practice so many people who claim to care about dogs would prefer to see turned into a crime.

Judith Lewis is an environmental journalist and contributing editor to High Country News.

Right on.

Oh, crap! IMPEACH NOW!

Another Portuguese water dog, taking a job from an American water dog.

This "issue" is a joke, right? Right?

like I could give 1/2 a shit about him having a dog. I do think it would be nice if he rescued one instead of getting one from a breeder though. Its a great lesson as a parent and a great stance as a leader. Aside from that ... non-issue along the lines of anything that Paris Hilton, Britney or Lindsey is doing.

Yeah, can we get a breakdown on all the dogs owned by every president and compare the breeds, prices, familiarity, compatibility with humans...or can we just say "who the fuck gives a shit?"

I need numbers.

omg...

The last I heard, the dog had been selected from a breeder in Berks County who was instructed to train the dog and the Secret Service would be back for it in six months (This was from someone who claims to know the breeder).

Was that someone you met through work? :tinfoil:
Mind you if the Secret Service "train" the dog, do you think that would include bomb detection and taking a bullet for the big guy?

It was someone with keys.

Although I have every expectation that for security purposes dogs will be ordered and paid for from multiple breeders around the country.

If I were an editorial cartoonist, the logical cartoon would be "Obama's Dog Owes Back Taxes."

:lol2:

I found that really interesting. I do think attitudes towards pedigree dogs have got a little imbalanced in recent years. That said there is a definate problem with some breed 'standards'. We really shouldn't be breeding dogs who are so specialised in nature that they can no longer breed or give birth without assistance, nor indeed should we be specialising to the point of severe genetic defects; but that's a relatively small part of the pedigree world.

I have always had pedigree dogs. We've taken in the odd rescue mutt too, but they've been accidental admissions to the family, rather than planned. We've been stung by a large puppy seller, a kennel of which we have since become suspicious and I personally am convinced buys from puppy farmers. The dog we got from them was a lovely little thing. But he was beset with health problems from the start. What we thought was a cute fat little belly was actually a distended swollen belly. We could practically have set up a bed in the vets for his first eighteen months.

These days I know what I am looking for and I know how to source a good breeder. I took a long train journey to get to Pilau's breeder. I met his parents (his dad looked exactly like Pil grew to look, and was nicknamed Dud the Stud) and his litter mates. I saw the pictures of his grandsire and granddam on the walls along with their ribbons and prizes. I spent time with the dogs, unhurried and saw where they slept.

It pisses me off when the animal rights peeps characterise our relationship with dogs as an equivalent to our relationship with any other domestic creature. It's different with dogs. It just is. They are intertwined through our lives and histories, our homes and memories, like no other creature. We've moulded them and been moulded by them.

ha ha ha @ s123

:lol2:

True, it is an arcane subject, but not entirely uninteresting. *Glinda whips out her favorite reference book "Facts About the Presidents"*

For example, did you know that:

:)

Did you read the article CM? A rescue is a bad idea for a family pet. Usually rescue dogs have problems that go beyond an amateur's knowledge of care. A good breeder is always the best place to get a family pet. Knowing the difference between a good breeder and a back yard pet miller is what makes the difference. Anyone can call themselves a breeder but it takes more than putting a canine penis with another canine vagina.

Yes I read the article. I have bought dogs from breeders and bred dogs as well. FWIW, Field trial champions, both beagles and retrievers. I believe that in most cases a rescued dog is fine. Nowadays that may be different. Its been a few years (coughdecadecough) since I've been involved. Aside from some very specific cases, I see no need to breed more animals that we already have too many of.
This includes cats :eek: (ducks and runs)

I am not sure what you mean.Too many purebred dogs? Too many back yard bred dogs? Too many mutts? If there are too many how can commercial pet mills operate at a profit? Supply and demand works in that industry as well. Did you know it is illegal in MO. to photograph a dog auction? The laws in that state protect that industry. They have unions.
Most of the dogs one will see in a kill or regular shelter are mutts or dogs bred by un-knowledgeable back yard breeders that failed to neuter their family pet. Its very rare that you will see any purebred registered dogs bred by professionals in any shelters.
Animal rights activists want to control every aspect of animal ownership whether you just want a family pet or you want to breed birds.
Its is now illegal in California for chickens to be kept in confinement when they lay eggs. Next they will tell livestock producers how many animals they can have, what to feed them and then charge them $100 per animal just to have them. Say hello to $100 T-bones if you like to eat meat! $40 eggs, $200 hams etc.

Who said there are too many ducks? :lol:

As far as chickens, I think we should tie them up by their wings and just let the eggs drop out of them! :eyebrow:

I believe I said "Aside from some very specific cases, I see no need to breed more animals that we already have too many of."

There are too many human keeping too many domesticated pets of all sorts of varieties. Many of the mutts that you speak of are potentially from careless owners who had to have a "status-filled" purebred animal. These are the owners who quite often improperly care for their pets and let them get out and breed. This is NO REFLECTION on the many breeders and others who care excellently for their pets and need purebreds to show or in trials. I know many of them and they are awesome people and pet owners.

I could list many examples of both, but will not bore the readers here who could care less.

As far as the commercial mills you mention, perhaps they wouldn't do so well if the demand for hose pets was decreased by people rescuing dogs instead. Many many dogs at shelters are from loving families who can no longer afford them and elderly who pass away.

There are some great dogs at shelters, and some of those puppy mills where people breed purebreds are atrocious. I agree classic, there really are too many domesticated animals out there. So many are put to sleep every year, and some of those animals would make perfectly good family pets. I think a lot of it depends on the breed. Too many people see a movie or something with a dog they think is cute, so they buy one without doing any research if that breed is a good match for them. Then they end up in a shelter.

Nirvana, I'm curious, do you think the food industry should not be regulated? I for one am really glad to see more regulation happening, not only for health reasons, but for humane reasons as well. But on the health issue, apparently the cattle industry would kill cows that were so weak and sick they couldn't even stand, and put them out into the food supply. :greenface Obama has signed a law now to stop that. ugh. I certainly wouldn't want to eat any of that meat. It's one reason why I never eat read meat anymore, and eat very little meat period. It's sickening what goes on in some of those places.

There are some great dogs at shelters but lets not blame dog breeders for the dogs that are thrown away by others whether on purpose or thru a bad turn in life.

The food industry is heavily regulated, but having a tax on an animal because it farts is ridiculous. Saying Chickens cannot lay eggs unless you let them wander a pasture while doing it is ridiculous. Obama had nothing to do with the law that was passed in 2003 to stop the use of down cows in any human food product. The reason you saw that on TV after that year was because of a bad PROCESSOR not because of a bad livestock producer. Cows become down for many reasons one of the most common is that an older cow is trampled in the truck on the way to the packer. Most older dairy cows that can no longer produce milk are sold to McDonalds. Cows that cannot stand should not be in the food supply.

This is not well known information but all of it is true.


http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downl...hings_HSUS.pdf



http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downl...hings_PETA.pdf

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downl...hings_PCRM.pdf

Don't give away your rights to own animals or eat what you want because you believe the propaganda spread by these organizations. You don't know what you've got til its gone!

People that pay for the specific animal that they want for a pet rarely discard them. Breeders are not the problem, irresponsible people who don't spay/neuter their pets and don't value their pets (free things have little value to anyone) are the problem.

Not to defend, PETA, but in fact, very little on these Center for Consumer Freedom "fact sheets" are documented.

The CCF originally was funded by Phillip Morris to refute the scientific findings re: the harmful effects of smoking and the criticism of tobacco advertising.

Later, they expanded their funding sources to include the meat packing industry, alcohol trade organizations (to fight Mothers Against Drunk Driving), restaurants (to refute obesity studies related to fast food restaurants), and numerous right wing organizations.

My advice...dont believe everything you read by PETA OR about PETA and always consider the source.

The CCF, despite its name, is in many respects, an industry(ies) front group and hardly an unbiased source working solely in the consumers' best interest.

Since when are livestock and animal breeders right wing organizations?
PETA is your enemy don't say you were not warned. ;)
HSUS is already in your own state's legislature. Ask anyone in Los Angeles where they have mandatory spay and neuter. WhoTH is the government to tell someone when to neuter a pet? I thought that was a veterinarian's job...:rolleyes: Who do you think ends up funding the policing of that program?That is just the beginning of unnecessary expensive legislation supported by the HSUS...

I said CCF's other funding sources were right wing organizations (like the Scaife Foundation)

Their primary funding sources are:

Tyson Food
Perdue Farms
Wendy's
Applebee's
Outback Steak House
Standard Meats
Armour-Swith Meats
National Restaurant Association
Distilled Spirits Council

Which of these have the "consumer" interest, rather than industry interests, at heart?

This is a link to pending legislation in the state of Maine where if you have 1 [ yes 1] intact female adult dog you are considered a breeding kennel. Of course they make exclusions for show kennels, hunting dogs etc except that any extra offspring cannot be sold so that would make someone worse than a pet miller they would be collectors because to breed you would have to keep everything you produce.:rolleyes:

2. License fees. The fee for a breeding kennel license is calculated by multiplying the number of adult female dogs and cats at the breeding kennel capable of breeding by $500.

I have a two lb Chihuahua technically under this law I would have to pay $150 for her because technically she is capable of producing offspring and because having one breedable female I am considered a kennel so I would then have to pay $500 but no one in their right mind would breed a 2 lb dog and most veterinarians would not perform surgery on a dog that small when it is not an emergency. These are crazy laws and the HSUS is rushing these things to every state in the union that will listen to their lobbyists.

This is the goal of PETA and the HSUS that no one can breed or own an animal and that the government will take away your rights to have pets of any kind..

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMa...=1&SessionID=8

Laws won't stop with pet animals
A flood of animal-rights legislation throughout the United States is being
rammed in front of state and federal legislators, driven by organizations such
as the Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals.
Legislation in Illinois such as Senate Bill 139 bans tail-docking and
ear-cropping, and House Bill 198 is a heavy-handed dog breeder regulation bill.
Both are to be heard in committee this week in Springfield.
American Kennel Club legislative advisers say HB198 won't move but be put
forward as SB53 to be the vehicle for regulation of dog breeding.
If those bills pass, they will create requirements and regulations that
aren't based on proven animal husbandry practices, nor will they improve the
health and welfare of dogs in Illinois. They will impose breeding permits,
breeding bans and mandatory spaying or neutering of purebred dogs.
Numerical limits don't address the underlying issues of responsible
ownership and proper dog care, according to the AKC and advocates for laws that
protect the welfare of purebred dogs and don't restrict the rights of breeders and
owners who take their responsibilities seriously.
When legislators discuss laws against pet animals, they risk setting a
precedent that could eventually lead to removing farm animals, which would
threaten food-animal production.
Responsible people take animal husbandry seriously. Whether the animals are
pets, food animals, zoo animals, sporting animals or wildlife, the owners,
farmers, medical researchers, wildlife biologists and veterinarians are
interested in the best care for them.
A dairy farmer might not think the proposed draconian laws around dogs will
affect them, but it is the beginning of additional legislation already in
queue that's supported by the animal-rights activists.
A recent American Farm Bureau editorial by Chris Chinn described how newly
proposed legislation in Illinois would "ban egg-laying hen cages, sow stalls
and veal stalls."
Without much imagination, we can see the next step will be imposing more
oppressive laws until even pork producers quit because they can't fulfill the
requirements for care.
We all feel the fatigue of the legislative battles, but that too is a
strategy employed by animal rights and vegan activists, and it is an old reliable
one. Think of deer flies in summer. Deer flies are swinging hatchets aimed at
anyone with animals. Some farmers quit farming because they can't bear the
harassment and accusations.
We also need to draw the big picture for legislators so they understand the
precedent they're considering. Those proposed dog laws threaten the future of
pets (a primary goal of HSUS/PETA - change the culture so animals are not in
our lives in any way - "One generation and out," said Pacelle) but are also
doorways to removing animals used for food production in Illinois and Iowa.
With fewer than 2 million farmers in the country, under the best
circumstances you couldn't recruit new farmers fast enough to replace the loss and meet
the need. Consider the dramatic decline in the number of veterinarians. Read
the General Accounting Office report on the veterinarian shortage and the
risk it poses to public health at www.gao.gov/new.items/d09178.pdf.
Regarding economic interests, what is the tax base in Illinois, Indiana and
Ohio? Who is the constituency? What will be the new economic model in five
years anywhere in the United States?
Laws require enforcement. Enforcement requires resources on streets and in
courtrooms. That suggests the need for more animal rights law attorneys
cultivated by HSUS/PETA and rushing to build their law and political careers
exploiting animals.
People who typically aren't actively involved with animals also need to
understand how their tax money is used for this legislative activity. People such
as social workers and health care providers need to see where their
resources are being squandered by HSUS/PETA as they attempt to further destabilize
the economy at a cost to all of us.
Just this week I worked on grants to fund mental health services and support
for farmers, to support alcohol and drug abuse prevention, to help parents
learn to support good bone growth in their children, and to fund therapeutic
community programs to support veterans returning from war. That's from small
pots of money communities will use to take care of people - many without
access to affordable health care. Communities are writing grants to help support
law enforcement and trying to intervene to keep people out of overcrowded
prisons.
Meanwhile, legislators are spending my tax money to conjure laws that will
rip my dogs out of my arms to kill them. Oh, baby; it isn't gonna happen. This
is an outrage and people need to let their legislators know this isn't
acceptable.
If those laws go into place, the cost will be enormous to enforce.
Who will feed the world, especially in places where the climate is changing
in ways that make it more difficult to grow food already? I doubt we'll see a
big rush for urban residents to move back to farms even to grow spinach or
peanuts. And it isn't likely to happen within 10 years.
There needs to be a big push back. A shake-up once in a while can be
healthy, but this is mass destruction that is far beyond management of breeding
dogs, and it was never about animal welfare. It's about power and control, and in
this equation the real animal welfare advocates - us - have less and less of
either.
We are the genuine advocates for our animals' welfare, as Chinn wrote. This
is a fight for our civil rights, our property rights and our economic
stability. This story must be framed so our legislators see the precipice they hover
over.
Bobbie Kolehouse is a rural community health consultant who raises, shows
and trains her Cocker Spaniels for the field as a hobby in rural Wisconsin
Rapids.

Hey...I agree about the extremist position of PETA.....but I suspect PETA has less influence in state legislatures than industry lobbyists.

Has any state come anywhere close to taking away individual breeding rights or the right to own a pet....rather than addressing issues related to "puppy mills"?

In any case, my point was more to the credibility of the CCF as a "consumer" advocate. It is not.....it is an industry front group.

Whether they are an advocate or not is a moot point when they are telling you the truth.

Los Angeles already has taken away your right to choose your own health care for your own dog. The link I posted for Maine is about to go before the legislature there if it passes that will effectively end dog /pet ownership in that state.

Telling the truth? Because they provided UNSOURCED allegations? Not one statement on those CCF "fact sheets" is footnoted with a source to document its accuracy.

And simply because a bill may be introduced is in no way indicative of likelihood of consideration by the legislature or even less indicative of likelihood of passage. Hell, just about any group can usually find one sympathetic legislator to introduce a bill on almost anything.

It has already passed in Los Angeles, some of these animal bills were introduced in various states within a 3 week time frame.

http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/

Read their propaganda for yourself.

I'm all for "puppy mill" legislation or legislation banning "downed" animals in the food supply.

HSUS Bludgeons Heartland Dog Owners

Legislation Up For Vote Now In Indiana & Oklahoma, Hearing In Illinois


by JOHN YATES

American Sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

asda@conline.net


This article is archived at: http://eaglerock814.proboards107.com...eral&thread=25


The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has launched a 34-state offensive against people who raise dogs, and the heat has been turned up to high in Indiana, Illinois and Oklahoma. In all three states, actions are scheduled for this week that may have a profound impact on everyone who loves purebred dogs


It is imperative for dog owners in all three states to take a stand now and play an active role in working to defeat this legislation.


HSUS claims the legislation is meant to regulate “puppy mills,” which is the derogatory term used by animal rights groups to describe commercial kennels.


In fact, however, all of this legislation actually is aimed at high quality avocational breeders of purebred dogs who are not involved in any way with the wholesale pet trade. The targeted breeders are the people who work the hardest and care the most about improving their chosen breed of dogs.


Action is scheduled this week on:


* An Indiana bill that will make anyone who sells even one litter of puppies a year into a pet dealer. This bill was snuck through committee with no notice given to dog owners, and has gone to the full House for a vote. Many serious hobby breeders also would be classed as commercial kennels for very intense regulation and a prohibition of outdoor housing that is dangerous for hunting and working dogs. Many rescue groups also would be destroyed.



* An Illinois bill snags up everyone who owns three intact breeding females under commercial kennel rules, and sets a 20-dog maximum on the number of sexually intact dogs that can be owned or possessed. Many trainers, handlers and serious hobby breeders would be harmed needlessly. We also urge dog owners to sign our online petition to stop this bill (see below).



* And an Oklahoma bill passed through committee by an 11-2 vote and is headed toward the full House for a vote. This legislation targets anyone who sells, offers to sell, gives away or adopts out 25 or more dogs or puppies a year, by subjecting them to truly totalitarian enforcement measures. Some rescue programs would be destroyed.



Each of these states will be profiled separately below.


The American Sporting Dog Alliance recently released reports that have covered HSUS initiatives this year in Maine, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Florida, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Illinois, Texas, Minnesota, California, Montana, Virginia, Colorado and Oregon. Updates and new reports will be released this week about legislation in California, Montana, Nebraska, Tennessee, Florida, Washington and Texas. HSUS-sanctioned legislation is expected soon in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico and Wisconsin.



HSUS is an extremist animal rights group with the long-range goal of eliminating all animal ownership in America. It recognizes the political impossibility of doing this immediately, and thus has adopted an incremental strategy of tightening the noose. Its strategy also is to develop and exploit sensational emotional issues, such as “puppy mills,” and then to extend the definition and impact far beyond the stated goals. HSUS, which has annual revenues in excess of $150 million and dozens of employees and professional lobbyists in many states, is the political arm for the animal rights movement. It does not operate a single animal shelter anywhere, despite its name.


HSUS has vowed to strike dog owners in 34 states early in 2009. Organizations that defend the rights of dog owners are, quite frankly, being overwhelmed by this concerted attack. HSUS learned a lesson last year, when dog owners were able to defeat them in almost every fight, because they were spread out over many months and allowed us to focus our limited resources. This year’s HSUS strategy is to attack everywhere at once, and use its army of highly paid employees and lobbyists to push through legislation quickly. It has the money, personnel and organization to wage this blitz attack, but dog owners simply lack the resources to effectively combat it. We have been placed totally on the defensive.


Thus, we are urging dog owners to get off of the sidelines and take a very active role. We also are urging you to support at least one organization that advocates for dog ownership rights with both donations and a sincere commitment of your time and talents.


We also urge dog owners to form alliances of mutual support with farm organizations, sportsmen’s groups, firearms rights advocates, landowners groups, and people who defend property rights. These diverse organizations fully understand the ramifications of the animal rights movement on American traditions and life.


Please follow this link to see detailed reports about the legislation in Indiana, Illinois and Oklahoma, and also to find information you will need to take constructive action and sign our online petition: http://eaglerock814.proboards107.com...eral&thread=25 .


Visit us on the Web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org, or contact us at asda@conline.net .


PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS

My last point on this.

You complain about "propaganda" on one side and accept it as "factual" on the other side ("a 34-state offensive against people who raise dogs" or your "right to own a pet may be threatened" just might be a bit of an overstatement and mischaracterization.)

How about holding both sides more accountable for accurately describing their advocacy efforts?

People parrot what they hear the most , you are a perfect example you are against puppy mills, what is a puppy mill to you? Someone who sells 5, 10, 25 puppies a year? Is one intact female dog a kennel?
These are stupid laws that will be enacted if all anyone does is say they are against things that are not really described properly in the proposed legislation. This is an attack on your basic right to own property and like it or not pets are your property they are not human beings.

I support the humane treatment for all dogs,[animals] education, voluntary spay/neuter for non-breeding animals, genetic research, and ethical breeding practices, including health screenings, which mean longer, happier, healthier lives for dogs.
I oppose the most radical portions of the agendas of groups such as HSUS and PETA. These agendas are not intended solely to promote the welfare of dogs, but seek to bestow on them rights, in some cases equivalent to those of human beings. They want to ban breeding of all domesticated animals, including purebred dogs.

In the future maybe no one will be allowed to own pets?

I too oppose the most radical portions of PETA's agenda.

But without some government regulation, how do you guarantee humane treatment for all dogs (animals) or ethical breeding practices or not having down animals in the food supply or other abuses that have been widely documented?

Leave it to voluntary industry self-regulation? W/o some level of government oversight, when has industry acted in the best public interest and not their own self-interest?

Sounds like your "parroting" propaganda.

There is nothing wrong with government oversight, my concern is the wording of most of this legislation and the underhanded way it is being bulldozed thru some state legislatures. In Indiana this supposed animal cruelty bill was sandwiched in with stiffer penalties for rapists and convicted felons. WTF!!
Part of it was written if you had 5 dogs that would make you a kennel even if you never bred any of the dogs. No more pets, this is the eventual plan of animal rights activists and if you are not aware then your rights are being taken away and apathy reigns.

I think you are "parroting" again.

Where is the evidence of the "underhanded way" these bills are being "bulldozed through state legislatures"....or the IN bill was "sandwiched in with stiffer penalties for rapists and convicted felons"?

Show me legislative reports, not propaganda from the breeding industry.

Are you with the HSUS?

Nope...and I'm not with ACORN either (for classic and merc).

I just dont like bullshit from either side of an issue.

If you can document the "underhanded way" these bills are being "bulldozed through state legislatures"....or the IN bill was "sandwiched in with stiffer penalties for rapists and convicted felons"...then I might have a different response.

I can only find the amendments to this bill now not the bill in its original form.

The IN bill makes a distinction between "pet dealers" (sells or offers for sale more than five dogs in one year) and "commercial dog breeder" (a person who maintains adult female dogs that produce ten or more litters in one twelve month period).....and regulates them differently.

So its false and misleading to suggest that a person selling five dogs a year will be treated the same as a kennel or commercial breeder. Thats the kind of propaganda I'm talking about.

This is the bill in its amended form scroll down to see what else is involved in this bill. It is sandwiched in with sex offenders and parolee violators and all kinds of legislation. I don't write propaganda nor do I promote it. I do know what is happening in my state and a few others.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/.../HB1468.1.html

It looks to me that the bill (the bold type) only refers to the animal provisions...and is incorporated into existing state code (not bold) that has other references.

SO its false to suggest the bill was "sandwiched in" with sex offenders and parolee violators, other than being in the same section of state code. Thats hardly the same as suggesting the bill was considered as part of some "underhanded" plan to have it considered with bills on sex offenders.

HOUSE BILL No. 1468


A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.

I am not sure you can read at this point Redux but anyone can go to that link and see the bill. I don't see my statement as false.

Read the preface please:

Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in this style type.
Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution.

The section on sex offenders or parolees was existing provisions of the code.

The actual bill (or amendment to the state code) was those sections in bold type.

Only one sentence of the bill refers to "parolees may be prohibited from owning or training pets..." and included in that section of the code.

The rest of the bill is in an entirely different section of the state code.

You see how easy it is to make it propaganda and falsely suggest that the bill was somehow "sandwiched in" with a bill on sex offenders or parolees when that was not the case?

That statement is just as false and misleading as the statement suggesting that pet dealers would be regulated as kennels or commercial breeders.

Ah so that was my mistake. Here let me amend it; they included this bill sandwiched in the existing state code that refers to parolees and sex offenders. BTW have the last word I am sure you want it....;)

Look at the code sections.

The bulk of the bill (with the exception of one sentence) is in an entirely different section and chapter of the state code (IC 15-21) from the parolees/sex offenders (IC 11-13)

There is no sandwich here :)

http://openlibrary.org/b/OL1753176M/...umane-movement
:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...erest_Alliance

:)

Propaganda to the left of us....propaganda to the right of us. :eek:

Thats all I'm suggesting.

Is it propaganda when Oprah adopts rescue dogs and they are disease ridden? Rescue does not = the best place to get a dog. [Point of thread]

http://www.peoplepets.com/news/pets-...tens-another/1

On this, we agree!

lol.

The problem is not how many cats and dogs are euthanized, the problem is we don't eat them.

You can't fool us. You are Bill Clinton aren't you.

Nirvana, to all your posts in this thread:

:thumb: