Ah, the famous Sarah from HSUS joins in the discussion with her well-known talking points and an ad hominem attack.
This post is in response to the comment left by Sarah after my freedom of speech was attacked on Wednesday
It’s “cowardly” to make such an attack against me when I’ve obviously discussed the issues in a logical fashion throughout this process. And pretending that you and your ilk aren’t liberal and this is bipartisan is simply ignoring reality. You and I both know that this is a liberal cause, and a liberal attacked my freedom of speech. I was simply venting after having been attacked.
So, Sarah would you really like to have a discussion w/o such attacks, name-calling, and non-sequiturs?
Let’s go down your list of talking-points:
“Prop B only covers dogs bred to produce puppies sold commercially as pets—no other species of animal—and includes a specific exemption for hunting dogs.”
It also includes specific exemptions for HSUS and all your friends. That, interestingly, is not listed in your radio advertising. I know… …time constraints. Why are HSUS, veterinarians, pet stores, animal shelters, rescues and hunting dogs exempt? Don’t they deserve the same treatment under those conditions? Your goal, I can see, is to stop the breeding, but you don’t do anything if the hunting dogs are living in squalor? That doesn’t make any sense.
“It could not be more clear that this measure has no impact on sportsmen or agriculture.”
The reasons that people are concerned are:
- Your involvement in Pig farming in Florida, Arizona, Oregon
- Your involvement in the destruction of the Egg industry in California
- The fact that, in Prop B, “Pet” is defined as any domesticated animal and does not exclude agricultural animals
People understand the slippery slope and are wary of animal rights organizations such as yours that do not provide maximum funds for animal care but do massive expenditures on lobbying, fund-raising, legislative activism, salaries, benefits, and pensions.
“Fifteen states recently passed strong laws cracking down on abusive puppy mills, including major agricultural states”
That’s great! Missouri has 28 pages of regulations based on Missouri Law that govern and regulate any breeder with three or more intact females (in contrast to Prop B 10 females).
“…giving dogs basic humane standards of care such as food, water, veterinary care, exercise and shelter.”
As I read Prop B, I wonder if your organization ever looked at Missouri’s 28 pages of regulations. I highlight the fact that Prop B requires only one feeding per day and Missouri regulations already require two feedings. It seems that a boilerplate law is being applied to Missouri without regard for existing law.
Missouri has requirements for the breeder (again of 3 or more intact females / not 10) to file and follow plans for feeding, watering, veterinary care, exercise and shelter. Annual inspections are required.
Your ads and literature continue to infer the fallacy that Missouri doesn’t have laws and regulations covering all these items when the laws and regulations are clearly stated.
“Missouri is the largest puppy mill state, but is lagging behind on dog protection—that’s why Prop B is needed.”
Number one. What is the legal definition of puppy mill?
Number two. Prop B will do absolutely nothing about Puppy Mills (unlicensed / bad breeders).
Only ENFORCEMENT of laws will have an effect on such breeders. There is no enforcement or funding language in Prop B, so you might as well pass a law that says we all get $1,000,000 every time a dog farts. Again, Prop B will do nothing to stop bad breeders without funding and enforcement.
What Prop B will do is cause law-abiding breeders to go out of business because they are suddenly deemed criminals under the new draconian space requirements in this law or because they cannot afford to upsize their kennels to match the space requirements.
To me, this space requirement is the truly nefarious portion of Prop B.
- No effect on bad breeders
- Good law-abiding breeders go out of business
- Missouri still a puppy mill state
- Pets are unaffordable
Missouri law already has detailed space requirements based on USDA guidelines and regulations.
“It’s absurd to think that these new policies have any effect on policies related to livestock. In fact, our opponents made the same arguments in 1998 during the debate over the ballot initiative to ban cockfighting in Missouri, and 12 years later, there has been no attempt to impact livestock agriculture or sport hunting in the state through the Legislature or through the initiative process.”
I point the reader back to the links on sow-crating and egg-production.
“I would encourage you and others to read the full language of the bill, you can do that and also get answers to common questions asked at http://www.yesonpropb.com”
I would encourage you (and everyone else) to read the full language of the Missouri Department of Agriculture regulations. Missouri law is already, in many ways, more restrictive than Proposition B. However, it doesn’t put an arbitrary 50-dog limit on law-abiding breeders. That, interestingly, is not listed in your radio advertising. I know… …time constraints.
Please explain why 51 dogs are a HSUS puppy mill and 50 dogs are not!
And, I haven’t even got into this!
Again, I urge Missourians to vote “NO” on Prop B.
The Rockin' Conservative! 