Pet legislation issues

[runamuk]

anyone who owns pets and wants to continue to do so in this country. I belong to a law group that tracks legislation that affects all pet owners, breeders etc. This is a must read if you want to help stop bad law after bad law from being passed.

Many of these will be familiar to most of us, but seeing the whole

list together may be of interest.

If there's anything I've missed, please tell me!

Forward as you like.

Walt Hutchens

Timbreblue Whippets

===============================================================

AR TACTICS

Most of us are used to disagreements but we simply assume that those

who disagree with mostly play fair, most of the time. That's not the

way things are in the animal rights wars and it's important to be

ready for the following tactics.

DIVIDE AND CONQUER -- If a campaign fails, it will be replayed with

changes so that some of the former targets aren't affected or might

even favor the idea. For example licensing for all pet sellers might

be reduced to licensing of just breeders -- an idea that would often

be supported by animal rescuers. Should licensing for breeders fail

they may try just licensing for those who don't show or register dogs

with a few 'good' organizations like the AKC. That might be supported

by both show breeders and rescuers. If even that should fail, they

might try again with number limits that exclude all but the largest

volume breeders, for example only those breeders selling over six

litters or 25 animals per year, claiming the need to control 'puppy

mills.'

If a law is passed, then in two or three years they come back for the

next stage. If show breeders were exempted the first time, they're

probably the target this time. Of course, the breeders who are already

licensed won't oppose extending the law to others, in fact they may

even support it as 'leveling the playing field.'

LYING -- Let's face it, what the AR movement really wants -- to hurt

humans as much as possible through our animals -- could never be sold.

In fact you couldn't even give it away. So they lie about it. "We're

helping animals." "Animals need protection." "To keep animals from

having to be killed we have to end 'overpopulation.'"

Sometimes they lie by the use of incomplete facts that seem to support

their conclusion: "Our state killed 150,000 animals last year. We need

to control breeding of dogs and cats." They don't tell you that 2/3 of

the animals euthanized were cats with a high percentage of those being

feral and nearly all of the rest free-roaming 'outside' cats, that

intentionally bred dogs are uncommon in shelters, or that probably

half or more of the dogs that are euthanized are either unfit to be

pets (sick, injured, or unsuitable temperament) or were turned in by

owners specifically for euthanasia. And they certainly don't tell you

that the number of pets euthanized is dropping all across the country

year by year, not because of laws but because more people are

voluntarily either confining or sterilizing pets when they have no

plan to breed.

Another common form of AR lie is use of information showing a problem

that was fixed years ago. One famous example is a video of a trainer

beating an elephant, used to attack Ringling Brothers circuses. First,

the video shows something that happened at another (non-Ringling)

circus, and second, the trainer was fired immediately after the video

was taken. But they don't tell you that.

There's an equally famous picture of barrels of dead puppies used to

promote breeder licensing and mandatory spay/neuter. What they don't

tell you is that the picture was taken twenty years ago.

Sometimes they lie by means of staged or timed events. A bill

introduced in the 2007 session of the Virginia General Assembly would

have greatly increased and broadened penalties for animal fighting.

Perhaps it was just a coincidence that within days of the filing of

the bill there was a major raid on a cock fight in southern Virginia

but the raid was the result of months of investigation in which animal

rights groups played a role and the news accounts contained statements

from AR leaders that such events were more common now in Virginia

because nearby states had made their laws more stringent.

And sometimes they just plain lie: A friend testified at a legislative

committee hearing that purebred cats are almost never found in animal

shelters. A shelter director in the audience leapt to his feet:

"That's not true -- we have two, right now." Right after the meeting,

my friend called his shelter. "Why no, we don't have any purebred cats

now -- we almost never see one." Photos and videos frequently are

staged, doctored, or selected to support their viewpoint.

"IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US YOU ARE EVIL" -- If you object to a

no-tethering law, you'll be told "with ideas like yours you probably

keep your dogs on heavy chains in your backyard." Object to a felony

penalty for a vaguely defined kind of harm to animals and you will get

"Breeders like you don't care about animal cruelty."

An actual example, one among many such: The moderator unsubscribed

this individual from an anti-AR Yahoo Group after repeated postings

contrary to the list policy. His response was:

"What's the matter ...? Can't take the heat? Unsubbed me from your

little group of inbred redneck slack jawed yokels? You're all a bunch

of losers who probably pulled the wings off flies when you were kids."

TALKING TO THEM BECOMES SUPPORT -- Let's say an AR leader in your state

asks you to have lunch to talk about a new law. At the lunch you

explain why you are strongly and completely against the change, saying

"I could never support any such law." Guess what: When you hear about

that discussion from your contacts you will learn that the AR leader

is saying "We discussed this with Tom Smith" in a way that suggests

you supported the law.

THE CHARM OFFENSIVE -- If you become any sort of leader in the anti-AR

movement they will mount a serious effort to have one or more of their

people make friends with you. "You know, we really want the same

things." The more you talk to them, the more charming they'll become

and if you aren't alert things may progress to ...

CO-OPTION -- They will try to bring you to supporting their side or at

least neutralize your opposition. Those in leadership positions need

to be constantly alert for people they depend on being co-opted. Club

leadership and legislative liaison people may be weakened and may even

become double agents.

INFILTRATION -- All larger pet-related clubs have AR members on the

board of directors, there are hard core AR AKC delegates.

In one case a local club was discussing opposition to a new anti-pet

ordinance. A board member wearing an HSUS tee shirt pointed out that

the board had several important issues to discuss and moved that the

issue be put off several months. The motion carried and the club was

neutralized for the period when opposition could have had an effect.

MONEY -- Between major organizations (HSUS, the ASPCA, and PETA) and

private supporters the AR movement spends over $200,000,000 per year

on ending our rights. On our side the number is probably not much over

$200,000 a year.

PERSISTENCE -- They never give up. An AR bill that fails this year will

be back next year or the year after. If it fails the second time it

will be back the next year. This is tiresome and annoying to lawmakers

because it quickly becomes obvious to the experienced ones that the

repeated discussions are a waste of time. Even though you do no more

than attempt to defend your rights, you may be equally blamed. You may

find critical lawmakers taking a 'pox on both your houses' view of

things and some less informed or experienced ones may even support

passage of a bill just so they won't have to look at it repeatedly.

The AR movement's persistence isn't a sign of moral weakness on our

side, it is the natural result of doing most of the real work with

paid employees while we depend on volunteers who must earn a living

before they start work to defend our rights.

STAR POWER -- Being 'for the animals' seems to be every Hollywood

publicist's dream for his top clients. Pamela Anderson, Paul

McCartney, Bob Barker, Doris Day, Alicia Silverstone, Fabio and dozens

more. Unfortunately, 'for the animals' translates to supporting

campaigns by PETA and HSUS.

HEAVY HITTERS -- Retiring game show host Bob Barker is on board for an

occasional million dollar endowment to create a new chair of animal

rights law at a respected university. Spinal surgeon and billionaire

inventor Gary Karlin Michelson is another -- he's determined to solve

the ongoing animal control problems in Los Angeles with his own money

and laws requiring mandatory spay neuter and microchipping, and then

move on to doing it for the whole state. There are many more who pony

up for an occasional large contribution to a supportive lawmaker or

provide a weekend resort for a conference at only nominal cost.

MEDIA POWER -- Dog Fancy magazine ran an article calling Albuquerque NM

one of the best places in the U.S. to live with a dog right after they

passed the very restrictive 'HEART' ordinance; when dozens of people

protested, they stonewalled. Time Magazine interviewed people with

diverse views of PAWS but wrote a puff piece for it. Most towns now

have only one newspaper; it is routine that it will promote AR

lawmaking proposals and decline to run anything to the contrary.

TARGETING THE YOUNG -- Steady efforts to introduce 'humane education'

programs into elementary schools that are no more than anti-hunting,

anti-meat, anti-animal testing, anti-fur/leather propaganda are only

the tip of the iceberg. 'PeTA kids,' is described as "an international

animal rights organization that explores animal welfare issues and

suggests practical ways young people can make a difference." The HSUS

version is 'KIND.'

ATTACKING WHERE WE'RE WEAK -- Why was an amendment to ban the use of

farrowing pens that keep sows from lying on and squashing piglets

attempted first in Florida? And second in Arizona? Because Florida had

just two pig farms and Arizona only one. Hardly anyone in either state

cared enough to dig into the issue and both amendments passed. Now

they're suing a pig farm in California and you can be sure they'll

tell the court that "This practice has already been banned as cruel in

two states." Hunters are under 7% of the population, dog breeders far

less than one percent. Both hunting and the breeding of dogs are under

constantly intensifying attack.

COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS -- What better way for government to address

an animal issue than by appointing a group to come up with a proposal

for a law? Here's a typical nine-member commission: one shelter

euthanasia worker; one licensed veterinarian; one representative from

a nonprofit animal advocacy group (read: HSUS); one member of the

public; one shelter manager; one person from the association of

counties; one from the state municipal league; one member of a rescue

organization; and one person who breeds pets.

Except for the HSUS representative, these individuals will be donating

their time; the focus will be on selecting laws to copy, rather than

on time-consuming analysis that might show that no law has worked.

Only the HSUS member will be experienced in this setting. Individual

biases will typically add up about 6:3 in favor of restrictions on

animal ownership and breeding. Such groups always end up endorsing an

animal rights-supported approach.

THE LEGAL SYSTEM ITSELF -- There are already 30-some law schools with

an endowed chair of animal law and Bob Barker is dropping another

million dollars for another such program every few months. The only

animal law textbook was written by an animal rightist. Ten years out,

many young lawyers will have been trained by these programs and a few

years after that, many judges will be graduates.

HARASSMENT -- If you want to hold a public meeting, you'd better warn

the security folks that they will be getting calls saying that your

side plans violence. Use a computer to lead the way? Better have it

well protected or you might have more trouble than most folks with

computer 'virus' attacks. And 'almost threats' by email are standard

-- "Say, John, where do you live? A few of my friends might want to

drop by."

And here is a list of the most common

Common AR Instigated Dog Legislation

Mandatory Spay/Neuter

Mandated Insurance Limit Requirements

Breeder Licensing (destroys hobby breeders who produce some of the

best and well-socialized purebreds as well as developing breeds and

working animals)

Kennel Licensing w/Privatized Inspections (good luck passing them)

Differential Licensing ($150 for an intact dog!!!!)

Potential Dangerous Dog Laws (High Risk Animal Designation)

Breed Specific Legislation/Registration

(higher licensing fees, mandatory insurance minimums, breed-banning,

mandatory muzzling, length and style of collars and leashes)

Reverse BSL (Instead of banning breeds, you ban certain groups of

people from owning breeds; you ban "breeds" of people such as felons

regardless of type of crime, elderly, people under 21, etc.)

Pet Limit Laws

Guardianship Designation

Husbandry Limiting Laws (FL tried to make it where only a vet could

worm dogs!)

Anti-Slaughter Laws

Anti-Hunting Laws

Anti-Fighting Laws (actually used to legislate hunting, coursing, by

animal on animal being considered fighting)

Mandatory Microchipping

Pet Licensing Public Data Bases (The whole world can read all about

your pets and know where you live!)

Legislating Unreasonable Medical Care Responsibility (In Alachua

County, FL, if the dog can be saved, you must save it no matter the

cost--however, does not apply to shelters!)

Mandatory Temperament Testing

Purely Positive Training Methods

[Criminalizing Training Devices (training collars) or methods that

include corrections

Containment Restrictions:

Anti-Tethering/Anti-Penning/Anti-Crating Legislation

(height and type of fences, size of property, kennels, crates)

Mandated Care Requirements

(dog must be walked 30 minutes each day and have water and food in

front of it 24/7)

Greater Police Powers and Discretion by Animal Control Agencies to

Enter Your Property and Seize without warrants

Private Citizen/Agency Seizures (Good Samaritan Pet Laws)

(allowing a private citizen or agency to remove an animal from your

property that they consider at risk)

Size Limits (Fairfield, Iowa discriminates against dogs over 100 lbs.

plus many others)

Anti-Cropping/Docking/Dewclawing Legislation (but it's o.k. to do more

invasive or major surgery like spays and neuters?!!!!)

Out-lawing "Deformed" Breeds (English Bulldogs, Basset Hounds, etc.)

Banning Exotics (wolf-hybrids, Bengal Cats, snakes)

Legislation Based on Faulty/Spurious Research Studies -- correlation

studies rather than causative (Did you know all people who drink water

die? We need to stop drinking water!) Correlation is not Causation!

Selective/Limited Use--Did you know in some Scandinavian Countries, it

is illegal to have a dog pull you that is not a northern breed?

AND THE NEWEST TWO that make it illegal for Martha Stewart to own a dog:

Limited Ownership of Dogs by Convicted Felons (Illinois doesn't want a

felon convicted of ANY type of crime to have possession of, be around,

live with an intact puppy of 3 months or older, or to ever possess a

"vicious dog" breed.

Defining dogs as Weapons and making it illegal to use a dog as a

"weapon" (so long home protection and schutzhund trials and certain

breeds of dogs traditionally used for such purposes)

 

[lilhorseladie]

As over crowded as our shelters are, I don't know how any of this would fly! Some I agree with, some I do not. But I think you could start a whole thread on each.

 

[runamuk]

As over crowded as our shelters are, I don't know how any of this would fly! Some I agree with, some I do not. But I think you could start a whole thread on each.

AHHH but there is the other little lie............the shelter stats used are going on 10 years old. Shelters do not have to report their numbers so ACTUAL numbers of animals in shelters is not known. What is known is many shelters now import dogs from outside of the US because they don't have enough dogs to fill the homes. Groups like peta have pounded into our brains that there is an overpopulation then followed with their ghastly pictures. Now HSUS is in bed with PETA so their "one generation then out" machine has alot more money pooled. If we the pet owning public don't stop this soon.....we wont be owning pets period.

 

[Warpony]

there are very few shelters that actually import, though there are some. I know first hand that our local shelter and several local rescues are full to over flowing and then some... more unwanted pets then they can foster and certainly more then they can rehome.

Which is not to say that i support animal rights groups (animal welfare, yes, but not animal rights) but the pet over population issue is real, at least where I live. I have no doubt about that because I see it with my own two eyes.

 

[lilhorseladie]

While that may be true in some places, we in Nebraska have very few animal shelters. To take an animal to a shelter or adopt, I would drive over an hour. They do not have to import, they are in fact, not taking on cats anymore because of the over crowding and over abundance of animals. I just looked there are 15 humane society shelters in the state. Nebraska is not small.

 

[Reijel's Mom]

AHHH but there is the other little lie............the shelter stats used are going on 10 years old. Shelters do not have to report their numbers so ACTUAL numbers of animals in shelters is not known. What is known is many shelters now import dogs from outside of the US because they don't have enough dogs to fill the homes. Groups like peta have pounded into our brains that there is an overpopulation then followed with their ghastly pictures. Now HSUS is in bed with PETA so their "one generation then out" machine has alot more money pooled. If we the pet owning public don't stop this soon.....we wont be owning pets period.

Please, please, please take it upon yourself to visit a few shelters across the United States. None of our shelters around here import, they often have no room for the animals that are found as strays and surrendered to them. Many of these animals are healthy and in the prime of their lives.

I guess I'm one of the evil guys. I do animal rescue and I do not know that a day goes by that I don't get asked to help spread the word on another animal that needs saved, to help foster, etc. And I know where these animals come from, and they are not imported. The only time (in my area) that this was done on a widespread basis was after Hurricane Katrina. I'm from a small county in Iowa, and a volunteer with Safe Haven of Iowa County. We've been in existence for just over a year, and we've saved over 150 animals in that time period. Most of whom were strays who no one came forward to claim, almost none of whom were already spayed or neutered, all of whom, when not claimed within that one week time period, would have been euthanized before Safe Haven came into existence.

We are 100% volunteer run. We survive on donations, and let me tell you, there is precious little money in our account. We operate out of a non heated facility. Not one of us who volunteers for this organization actually wants to, meaning we wish there were no excess animals that needed our care until the right home can be found for them. There is nothing in it for us other then the satisfaction of knowing that we are helping deserving animals to find homes. It is not their fault that they do not have homes.

I have volunteered with several organizations like this over the years, and know of several more. I would be more then happy to add anyone to our e-mail list that is interested in the work that we do.

And no, we don't make this stuff up, folks.

 

[runamuk]

there are very few shelters that actually import, though there are some. I know first hand that our local shelter and several local rescues are full to over flowing and then some... more unwanted pets then they can foster and certainly more then they can rehome.

Which is not to say that i support animal rights groups (animal welfare, yes, but not animal rights) but the pet over population issue is real, at least where I live. I have no doubt about that because I see it with my own two eyes.

One of the things some are working on is trying to get shelters that are running at near empty to take dogs from the overly full areas. There are a few doing that already but the big issue is the majority of the dogs in shelters are medium to large mixed breeds and the areas that don't have problems tend to place small and toy dogs. You'd possibly be surprised at how many new "rescues" are popping up with dogs from south america, the middle east, etc........then there was the Humane Society in the northeast that actually placed a foreign import that was infected with rabies.

The big issue is many people do not realize that the breed bans, mandatory spay/neuter and other bad legislation is all being proposed and sponsored by PETA and the HSUS both multi million dollar groups with plenty of highly paid lobbyists. Both of these groups want complete eradication of pet ownership and using animals as food. This means they are working toward (and succeeding) in slowly taking away your rights to even own pets.

If you don't believe me

here is a quote from the president of the HSUS

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.â€â€” Animal People News, May 1993

No pets, No meat, No hunting...........every little law that affects "that other guy" is a step toward this goal. If you partake in any of those three things you need to get educated, before it is too late.

 

[Warpony]

The big issue is many people do not realize that the breed bans, mandatory spay/neuter and other bad legislation is all being proposed and sponsored by PETA and the HSUS both multi million dollar groups with plenty of highly paid lobbyists. Both of these groups want complete eradication of pet ownership and using animals as food. This means they are working toward (and succeeding) in slowly taking away your rights to even own pets.

Oh I know that is a fact, I've known that since the 80's... but there is a lot of misinformation getting tossed about by both sides. Like I said, I have no doubt that there are some places that import animals but that isn't the case in the majority of areas in the US (and as you said, it is the small animals the places with few adoptable animals want, which still leaves us with massive numbers of homeless medium and large dogs) and some groups are acting like it is happening all over and pet over population isn't a problem at all... and that is as big of a misconception as any of the other stuff that these groups say.

I'd like to see them start taking animals from overwhelmed shelters right here in the US instead of bring dogs in from elsewhere, though.

I don't like mandatory much of anything, I much prefer for people to be educated and chose to spay/neuter their pets because it is the right thing to do not because some governmental organization tells them to. I do agree that these laws lead to a slippery slope where they will try to take away our right to have pets at all and that worries me... but I do hate to see the very real pet over population problem downplayed to the point that people believe it ISN'T a problem.

 

[Reijel's Mom]

Quote from Runamuk "One of the things some are working on is trying to get shelters that are running at near empty to take dogs from the overly full areas."

Yes, that does happen within the US. I've personally taken part in that. So are you saying this is wrong? To take animals out of a state where they are destined to be euthanized to give them a chance in another state to be adopted?

And seriously, the majority of Americans eat meat. I don't know the stats off the top of my head on pet ownership, but the majority of people I know have a pet or 2 of some sort. Yes, I'm sure that there are people and groups out there that would like to ban meat eating and pet owning, but realistically, I don't think it's worth losing a lot of sleep over. I would venture to guess that most people who work for Humane Society's have a pet or 2 themselves that they wouldn't care to give up.

 

[tagalong]

Runamuk - I know of only one organization in our area that actually imports dogs - from Puerto Rico, as I recall... I found that annoying when so many dogs here need homes...

And a friend who works at one of the larger shelters here would laugh hysterically if you told her that numbers were down and the overpopulation was over-exaggerated. Far from it. Things do go in cycles - a trip round the major shelters on Saturday (I still look for a terrier I lost 3 years ago) showed empty runs here and there. And yet next week everyone could be bursting at the seams again. That observation only applied to the dogs - cats were here, there and everywhere.

I also see no problem with dogs coming up from say, Yakima - or over from Spokane - to be available at the King County shelters... isn't the point to try and find them a home? I agree with some of the points on that long list - and disagree with others... vehemently. As someone mentioned previously - each of them would be a interesting thread all on their own!

:

 

[runamuk]

Quote from Runamuk "One of the things some are working on is trying to get shelters that are running at near empty to take dogs from the overly full areas."

Yes, that does happen within the US. I've personally taken part in that. So are you saying this is wrong? To take animals out of a state where they are destined to be euthanized to give them a chance in another state to be adopted?

And seriously, the majority of Americans eat meat. I don't know the stats off the top of my head on pet ownership, but the majority of people I know have a pet or 2 of some sort. Yes, I'm sure that there are people and groups out there that would like to ban meat eating and pet owning, but realistically, I don't think it's worth losing a lot of sleep over. I would venture to guess that most people who work for Humane Society's have a pet or 2 themselves that they wouldn't care to give up.

I think that transferring animals from shelters within the US is a great idea. In a number of cities their shelters are now going to no kill due to decreased numbers, again this is a good trend it means spay and neuter campaigns are working, it means animal retention is improving. It means the public is being educated.

Yes the majority of americans are meat eaters But the legislation being passed isn't aimed at preventing meat consumption it is aimed at making it harder and harder to produce that meat. If it becomes too difficult and too expensive it will slowly disappear.

They are starting with pets, tighten the restrictions slowly, until it is all but impossible to breed any animals, the last ones to go will actually be the commercial breeders, and the people who allow their unaltered dogs to roam and reproduce at will.

BSL is just one step first it is pitbulls, then they add breeds when they discover that banning pitbulls doesn't stop dog bites. Almost all the people on the pet law group are small hobby breeders who show, do rescue, and want to continue to be able to do these things. It isn't just dogs there are rabbit hobbyists, cat hobbyists, birds, exotics, you name it and they are all fighting hard to stop the bad bills in every locale they can.

I have worked with shelters, I have been a foster home for private rescue, I do transport when I can, if these laws get passed I wont be able to afford the additional costs to house those additional dogs. This is one of the other big problems that the limit laws pose, it will reduce the number of foster homes.

Come join petlaw and see that animal welfare and the welfare of those who keep pets is what we are trying to protect. Animal welfare is quite different from animal rights.

 

[Reijel's Mom]

[Come join petlaw and see that animal welfare and the welfare of those who keep pets is what we are trying to protect. Animal welfare is quite different from animal rights.

Maybe I will, because I'm flabbergasted at many of the things you write (and I'm not writing this to be argumentative, I am truly flabbergasted). I always like to see something for myself so I can form a (somewhat) educated opinion.

Does petlaw or the people involved with petlaw have any ideas on how to stop the pet overpopulation problem? Or does it maintain that there is no pet overpopulation problem, because that I'm not buying, I live and breathe it, and anyone here on this forum can live and breathe it themselves if they join a local rescue group - you won't think that the pet overpopulation problem is some lie cooked up by PETA or the HSUS if you join one, I can assure you that! I WISH it were! Unplanned (as well as badly planned) litters are happening all the time around us, and so much of the time in the dog world it happens with our large mixed breeds, who can be very hard to find homes for, particularly if they are black, or have some pit in them, or whatever. Even if they are purebred - around my area, black labs are a dime a dozen, and they always have such large litters! As are beagles, they are the dime a dozen of the small dog world in my area.

If petlaw does support animal welfare then do these unwanted animals not warrant any protection?

HOW do we stop the need to euthanize huge amounts of animals without being detrimental to "good" breeders? That's an honest question, and I'd love to hear some answers on that.

 

[runamuk]

[Come join petlaw and see that animal welfare and the welfare of those who keep pets is what we are trying to protect. Animal welfare is quite different from animal rights.

Maybe I will, because I'm flabbergasted at many of the things you write (and I'm not writing this to be argumentative, I am truly flabbergasted). I always like to see something for myself so I can form a (somewhat) educated opinion.

Does petlaw or the people involved with petlaw have any ideas on how to stop the pet overpopulation problem? Or does it maintain that there is no pet overpopulation problem, because that I'm not buying, I live and breathe it, and anyone here on this forum can live and breathe it themselves if they join a local rescue group - you won't think that the pet overpopulation problem is some lie cooked up by PETA or the HSUS if you join one, I can assure you that! I WISH it were! Unplanned (as well as badly planned) litters are happening all the time around us, and so much of the time in the dog world it happens with our large mixed breeds, who can be very hard to find homes for, particularly if they are black, or have some pit in them, or whatever. Even if they are purebred - around my area, black labs are a dime a dozen, and they always have such large litters! As are beagles, they are the dime a dozen of the small dog world in my area.

If petlaw does support animal welfare then do these unwanted animals not warrant any protection?

HOW do we stop the need to euthanize huge amounts of animals without being detrimental to "good" breeders? That's an honest question, and I'd love to hear some answers on that.

I actually used to be much like you and then one day I tried to find some info, and what I stumbled onto blew my mind. I am always looking for facts/statistics data to back things up. I then stumbled onto the petlaw group through a show dog group.

As for the pet problem...the number one cause (when reported) is owner turn in, so the issue is less about population and more about retention. Most dogs in shelters were wanted at one point and then given up...so education aimed at getting people to keep their pets is in order. Please do join.....

 

[Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too]

...

As for the pet problem...the number one cause (when reported) is owner turn in, so the issue is less about population and more about retention. Most dogs in shelters were wanted at one point and then given up...so education aimed at getting people to keep their pets is in order. Please do join.....

Rori I could almost agree with that statement but I still find that it puts the cart before the horse. Yes they were wanted. Most likely as some adorable puppy pumped out by some irresponsible breeder then grew up to be less than cute, now with problems more than likely created by an uneducated owner and/or tossed aside like so much trash when it wasn't convenient to have them anymore.

Until people in general learn finallly get it that pets are not just another possession they will continue to dump them. I also beg to differ that the shelters, at least around here in King and Pierce Co's are the least bit underwhelmed with unwanteds. I know several people who work for the county animal control and they would find such a declaration pretty absurd.

If people don't start getting it together, yes they will be bringing the restrictions upon themselves and unfortunately, also to those of us who do make a commitment to properly care for the animals we have. And you know, with all the crap I see on a daily basis and the horrific results of such irresponsibility, sometimes I think that may not be such a bad thing.

 

[Warpony]

in my experience over breeding and lack of retention are little more then two sides of the same coin. Addressing either while ignoring or flat out denying the other will leave us still having thousands of animals dead every day for lack of homes. They feed off of each other. Dealing with lack of retention issues while ignoring the overpopulation issue may cut down on intentionally bred poor quality animals as breeders realize there is no money in it but that won't address the thousands of careless people whose wandering pets pop out litter after litter and putting a stop to most breeding will still leave you with people who dump a dog once it outgrows it's cute puppy stage.

I'd say education was the answer to both problems but the longer I deal with it the more I realize that people just plain don't want to be educated. They WANT to pump out litter after litter, they WANT to trade in their old dog for a new puppy, and as long as they don't have to be the one loading corpses into an incinerator at the end of the day they couldn't care less.

 

[Reijel's Mom]

I went ahead and looked at the pet-law website. Then I went ahead and looked at the HSUS website. The following is a quote from the HS website:

"For all these reasons, The Humane Society of the United States has launched the Pets for Life program. Our goal: to curtail the numbers of animals relinquished to shelters—or otherwise given up on—because of breaks in the human-animal bond. To achieve this goal, we're developing a variety of programs to empower pet caregivers to solve the problems that threaten their relationships with pets."

There was, of course, a lot more information on the HS website then this particular quote, but since the previous topics in this thread seemed to focus on the 2 evils of overbreeding and lack of owner retention, I thought it was appropriate. (And I agree with the people who thought those problems were tied in with each other - of course they are - if the only litters, or even the majority of litters, that were being born came from "good breeders" who bred carefully selected animals and worked to find these babies good and knowledgeable homes, who possibly requested that the new owners contact them if the pet did not work out in the future, and even sell a pet with a spay or nueter contract. . .well, there would not be much of a pet overpopulation problem or much of an owner retention problem, either!)

Now pray tell, how does the above quote fall into the Humane Society's plot to eventually do away with all domesticated animals?

Or might it just be that yes, maybe SOME folks from PETA and even the Humane Society think that animals are better off not to exist then to have to live the lives that we are providing them with, and might it just be that SOME folks from Pet-Law and other groups are a little concerned about any regulations happening with the animals they breed because it will indeed effect their bottom line?

 

[Nemesis]

Im sure Runamuk can tell you the facts but the HSUS does not even own or operate even ONE animal shelter and yes they are in bed with Peta. If you do a google search I am sure you can find many articles about both organizations. The HSUS is all for one generation and out if you read what Wayne Pacelle has to say.

Back yard breeders and puppy milsl account for the majority of the dogs found in shelters regardless of whether they are mixed breeds or pure bred. Responsible breeders take back their pups that cannto be kept, they put prospective owners through interviews and they stand behind their pups 24 hours a day for life. BYB and mills churn out the pups and could care less who buys them ro what happens to them after that as long as they have their money.

 

[Reijel's Mom]

Back yard breeders and puppy milsl account for the majority of the dogs found in shelters regardless of whether they are mixed breeds or pure bred. Responsible breeders take back their pups that cannto be kept, they put prospective owners through interviews and they stand behind their pups 24 hours a day for life. BYB and mills churn out the pups and could care less who buys them ro what happens to them after that as long as they have their money.

I don't doubt that this is true. So, how do we stop them?

 

[Warpony]

Im sure Runamuk can tell you the facts but the HSUS does not even own or operate even ONE animal shelter and yes they are in bed with Peta. If you do a google search I am sure you can find many articles about both organizations. The HSUS is all for one generation and out if you read what Wayne Pacelle has to say.

According to my research it seems that this is absolutely true. They disguise it by softening their stance to the general public but if you look close enough you can find out that their true motives are to end pet ownership and the use of domestic animals in any way whatsoever... It is easier to find this info about PETA, but it is true of both of them. They simply have learned over the last 20 years that it is more effective to try and make it sound like they are helping animals live better lives when in reality their idea of a better life is no life at all. There are a LOT of good people in both groups who fight for animals but the core of both organizations has the same goal, to end the "enslavement" of all animals by mankind.