Friday, May 8, 2009

I'm Not on Board with HSUS Proposed Laws and I Love Pets

In a recent post, Wayne Pacelle of HSUS states he is "astonished" that responsible breeders are not on board with the many dog breeding bills HSUS has introduced across the country recently. He says that those of us who oppose these bills are paranoid, friends of the NRA, and apparently don't care about animals. Despite Wayne's diagnosis, I'm going to cling to the hope that I don't suffer from paranoia. (Who told you that anyway?) I am not a friend of the NRA although I do support the rights of hunters to hunt responsibly. (I'm so complicated-like.) And I'm quite certain I care about animals and especially dogs.

Now Wayne must be supa-astonished.

Here's the thing: Puppy mills suck. We agree. But there are already laws on the books regarding the treatment of dogs in breeding facilities and an agency charged with enforcement - the USDA. Just because the USDA has been falling down on the job for years, failing to even inspect some of these mills regularly doesn't mean I think we need to pile more laws on the problem. The legislation HSUS proposes would, in some cases, clearly infringe on the rights of responsible breeders and subject them to warrantless home searches. Put me down for OPPOSE on that one.

Why doesn't the HSUS use its vast resources to help get the USDA the tools it needs to do its job? If they get enough inspectors out in the field and have sufficient follow through on citations, that would be a welcome change that I think many people would be happy about. And once they get a good system going, maybe laws will need tweaking here and there, I don't know. But I know I'd be a lot more open to hearing about it from a government agency like the USDA who'd been doing its job than hearing from a private fundraising group like HSUS who wants to add intrusive laws on top of the already unenforced regulations.

So Wayne, you got me wrong on this. And the admission that you are "astonished" at the opposition should show you how off base you are. We want some of the same things, I think. Is there a way to work together toward getting better care for pets? We are a no kill nation and a humane society. Join us. Otherwise, if you're just going to continue trying to force your will down our legislative throats, expect further astonishment. We're going to keep resisting these laws because we care about animals and our rights as U.S. citizens. We want our government to do its job and we want special interest group lobbyists like HSUS out of our state legislatures. That's not so surprising, is it?



I'm right behind you.

Imposing big-brotheresque house raids are not always the answer.

They do it all the time for idiots who fight dogs - but is there still a problem there? YEP.

Looks like they should be building up more trust between the government and the breeders instead of alienating them if everyone is to work together to stop the "bad eggs" out there. Just my humble thoughts.

Bulldog-Mike said...

I gotta admit I am right behind you on this one. And let me say I am pleasantly surprised to see you standing up to the "INHUMANE SOCIETY" the judge that presided over Ed Faron's case in Wilkes county, NC had it right when he called them that!

The HSUS is a cancer to pet owners nationwide... B.O.B might think house raids on "dog fighters" are a good thing.... but you need to do alittle more research into those claims. Two of the biggest "dog fighting" busts that were carried out in the country against Floyd Boureaux (La.) and Pat Patrick (Az.) all were carried out by the HSUS..... these men had their entire life's work destroyed before trial....... then no charges were filed. How is that fair?

The HSUS can come in accuse you of dog fighting.... take your dogs then kill them before you are taken to trial.... then the charges be dropped and the HSUS gets away with it... no repercussions. This is America? This is justice? This is love for animals?


Jen said...

Fantastic post! I'm with you and bitter old bitch!

It seems that if Wayne had his way, no more dogs will be bred and subsequently no more private ownership would occur.
What a scary thought for the future.

Jan said...

Pacelle is so full of doggy doodoo. He knows why people oppose him when they finally see what he wants: no dogs. Just soy and tofu.

Susan Rosenau said...

I am against any law that gives up one more right than is absolutely necessary -- and these laws are not necessary. I have read people defending them by saying, "Oh, it will never happen...they won't be enforced..." No? Think not? I'm not willing to take that bet. I'm with Shirley, before we strip the public of more rights, before we bog down the government with more bureaucracy, let's give the current enforcers the money, personnel and tools they need to enforce the laws in existence, and THEN let's see where we are. If changes are still needed, we'll have a better idea what needs to be fixed. I don't buy that these laws are just aimed to shut down puppy mills -- they are a stepping stone to ending dog breeding, and I have a big problem with that.

Jess said...

Wayne the payne is hardly astonished. This is his lame attempt to paint anyone who opposes these laws as an evil puppy miller. It also fits right in with making everyone who keeps more than a few dogs as either a crazy hoarder or an evil puppy miller. Under the Texas law, I would be a commercial breeder. I have a lot of dogs. I don't breed a lot of litters. I don't make a dime off my dogs. But I would be commercial. To me commercial implies that you derive a portion of your income from the sale of pups, but none of these laws are written that way, they all depend on numbers only.

Pit Bull Lover said...

I bet all of you condemning these bills to restrict breeding are also the first ones to throw stones at shelters that euthanize animals they can't find homes for. Can't you see the hypocricy in mass producing puppies and kitties, then blaming shelters for euthanasia?

Pai said...

Nobody here supports 'mass producing' puppies and kittens.

Draconian laws that punish/restrict people who do NOT breed that way as if they were the same as a puppy mill are wrong, period. Laws that violate other people's constitutional rights (like giving AC the right to warrantless searches) are even more wrong. It's as simple as that.

I think you need to actually read some of the legislation you're assuming is all positive and good before defending it. Most have very large loopholes and do nothing to actually help improve the lives of animals.

Jess said...

Pit Bull Lover-if shelters were killing litter after litter of purposely bred pups you would have a leg to stand on. But they aren't, even in the south where there are large numbers of pups in shelters. Oops pups. Accidental litters. Litters from people who cannot afford to spay neuter or allow their dogs to run loose. The vast majority of dogs in shelters are adolescent mixed breeds, not pups, and not purposely bred pups.

I have a very specific breeding program going on for my dogs. Laws limiting the number of intact animals I can keep would cause me to either stop entirely or have to step up my production, breeding bitches younger, breeding more litters per year instead of staggering them, because I would have to keep my number of intact down to the limit. No more waiting until a bitch is older than two to breed. No more keeping two or more pups back from a litter for evaluation as they grow. And most especially, no more taking back dogs I've bred that need to be rehomed, for whatever reason. These laws have nothing to do with dogs and their care, and everything to do with making it so difficult to breed legally that people quit doing it. These laws will be devastating to all breeds, reducing the gene pool drastically. They are not about dogs at all, they are about a faction that believes breeding is morally wrong and wants to end it. Period.

Bulldog-Mike said...

Actually pitbull lover....

I am for more shelters killing MORE dogs. I don't believe in no kill shelters. What kind of life is that to live cooped up in a kennel all day?

While I do support people responsibly breeding dogs, I believe the dogs they can not sell or rehome or keep they themselves should humanely put those dogs down.

I've had an accidental litter before... an electric wire i had on a pen, where I was keeping a bitch in heat, shorted out and she went over the fence and one of my male dogs got her pregnant... Now mind you these are both well bred, papered American Pit Bull Terriers..not a single pup ended up in a shelter.

I love my dogs... i generally am an animal lover... but I believe in putting down the ones that are not wanted.

YesBiscuit! said...

Bulldog-Mike said...
I am for more shelters killing MORE dogs.


You are SO on the wrong blog girlfriend.


Bulldog Mike: I never said raids on dog fighters was a great thing, I just pointed out that it wasn't a solution and hasn't ended dogfighting rings at all. Kind of how I feel raiding everyone's houses won't stop puppy milling.

But as mentioned by so many, euthanasia is not the key to unwanted dogs. Prevention of unwanted litters IS. It isn't impossible. I live in a country without unwanted dogs. No strays, no unwanted litters...if it can be done here it can be done anywhere. With the right amount of education, and making resources more accessible it can be done!

Bulldog-Mike said...


First off I checked this morning and I am a guy....

Second... So you basically are just wanting a bunch of people with your point of view on your blog? Is that it? Do you not like a different opinion, or are you of the mindset that the only opinion worth having is yours?

If you don't care to have a differing voice on your blog say the word and I'll leave you to it....... girlfriend.

YesBiscuit! said...

Mike, The only comments I have ever deleted off this blog are spam comments. So the idea that I only want comments echoing my own opinion are off base.

My point is that this blog covers a variety of animal related issues but one of the most dominant (if not THE most) themes is no kill. I appreciate there are pet owners out there who support no kill and others who question it and still others who believe it's impossible to achieve and are against it. But you fall on the extreme edge because you are actually FOR killing MORE dogs in shelters. This is so counter to everything I believe in and much of which I write about on this blog. To be honest, the only blog I can think of which you might find common ground on that issue is PETA. They are FOR killing MORE dogs, just as you are, they believe that killing is a kindness like you do, and they work toward that effort by killing roughly 95% of the homeless pets they take in each year. I completely denounce these beliefs and practices. To me, they are based on lies and represent evil incarnate.

Whether you choose to continue visiting here is up to you. I won't be deleting your comments. But this blog will never be reflective of your attitude and beliefs and it will always be reflective of mine. As such, you may find yourself consistently at odds with the posts and any ensuing discussions.