The Lunendogs Blog
An Update to “Vote No on Mo Prop B”
I posted a blog entry last week which included a link to a Nathan Winograd article, examining the benefits and risks presented by this very controversial “bill”. I stated that I agreed with Nathan on many of the issues he discussed, but that we parted ways on the final “vote” decision, as Nathan reservedly supported a “yes” vote. After a few days of consideration, he posted another blog entry and I’d like to share that with you. It stands on it’s own. Again, I invite you to read it…and to decide for yourself whether this bill actually protects the animals it “claims” to serve.
Vote “No”…Mo Prop B
I just ran across this link on my facebook page, and wanted to share it. http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=4418
I read a lot of Winograd, and will probably “quote” him more often in my blogs. He and I share a few things in common…a love of animals, a commitment to No-Kill, and a tendency to be rather verbose. Today’s entry was so good that I had to provide a link. It reflects the difficulty in navigating in political climate when dealing with animal welfare issues. Today’s entry addresses the Missouri Prop B which will be on the ballot this November, and which attempts to regulate puppy mills. I don’t always agree with Nathan, and on this issue we do part ways…but the decision each of us makes is based upon the same reason…the fact that the proposed legislation is flawed. And that if passed, there are many issues and challenges that have not adequately been addressed. And as Nathan points out, many of us simply are opposed because of HSUS involvement…and in large part, that explains my reticence. BUT…Nathan’s insights, as always, are amazingly astute, easy to grasp and understand and presented with candor and and this blog entry is well worth the read.
A few other thoughts to consider…
Some opponents to Proposition B, however, do not believe “correcting basic problems” is the main goal of the proposed ballot measure. During a Polk County Farm Bureau meeting in January, Kelly Smith, director of marketing and commodities for Missouri Farm Bureau, said the proposition (which was, at the time, still an initiative petition) was the work of animal activist groups to subtly and slowly integrate the abolition of animal agriculture.” (HSUS inferred)
The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, an opponent to Proposition B, released a list of discussion points, saying, “The ballot being proposed for this November would completely outlaw our state’s well-run and licensed facilities that have over 50 breeding dogs. This is unfair and misguided. These are operated properly under the guidance of extensive current regulations in order to provide families with pets to love and cherish. Cases of neglect and bad conditions have come mainly from unlicensed breeders who are not overseen by state inspection.
“Passing blanket initiatives without careful consideration of the facts and ignoring existing law is not in the best interest of the dogs we are trying to protect.” (MVMA)
Opponents of Proposition B include the Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, and the Alliance for Truth. http://www.thealliancefortruth.com They argue that the new regulations do not target the real problem and would be cost prohibitive, drive most professional Missouri dog breeders out of business, cost thousands of jobs, and ultimately threaten the food supply if such regulations ever found their way into agriculture.
ALL dogs – not just those who are part of a breeding program – deserve:
- Sufficient food and clean water;
- Necessary veterinary care;
- Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;
- Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down and extend his or her limbs;
- Regular exercise; and
- Adequate rest between breeding cycles.
However, the way in which some of these terms are defined in Missouri Proposition B do absolutely nothing to improve the wellbeing of animals; instead, it would add excessive expenses to responsible breeders who strive to produce well-bred family pets.
The proposal also seeks to limit the number of dogs an individual may own. This confuses the real issue of animal welfare, which focuses on the quality of care given to animals,not the number of animals an individual owns. Responsible breeders are not defined by the number of dogs kept, or whether they make a profit in selling dogs. Rather, responsible breeders are characterized by the quality of care and conditions that they provide their dogs and the quality (including health, temperament and breed type) of the puppies they produce.
Cruelty and negligence can occur regardless of the number of dogs a person has.
Furthermore, the term “puppy mill cruelty” used in Proposition B to be offensive to responsible breeders. Local responsible breeders should be viewed as assets to their communities. These breeders make serious commitments to their animals by raising healthy, well cared-for dogs and by working to ensure that puppies are placed with responsible owners. They are in a unique position to support new pet owners and exemplify responsible animal ownership.
Make your own decision. But please make a well-informed one. There are very clear benefits and dangerous risks to either vote. Please take the time to consider not only the short-term consequences, but the long-term as well.
Adding a New Links Section
Well, I have finally finished my Great Dane National Specialty obligations. I offered to help with ad layout for the catalog, and didn’t account for HOW much interest there would be.
There’s lots going on in the legal wranglings of animal welfare these days. Mostly in terms of lots of ”innocent” people being unfairly, and possibly, intentionally… targeted. Because of the cost of financially defending yourself, MOST citizens cave in to the demands of the agency or agencies involved, meaning most surrender their animals in lieu of charges either being dropped or lessened. Even if not surrendered, the animals can be placed at the whim of a Justice of Peace at a hearing. A hearing is not a trial. A Justice of the Peace, needs no background in law. And a JP hearing does not occur in a court of “record”…meaning NO transcript or recording of the proceedings takes place. But a JP has the power in some states, (certainly here in Texas) to take your animals from you, and have a shelter or rescue place them permanently without a finding of “guilt” in a COURT OF LAW. A JP has the power to order your animals DESTROYED before you are found “guilty”. Animals are being seized and ownership legally being dissolved in venues all over our country, before a trial takes place, and before the owner is found guilty. I’m not sure what country we live in that can take something that belongs TO us without a finding of guilt. So…I’m adding a new links section which will have to do with legal cases, and most certainly their outcomes. Many of these, after resolution, are resulting in counter suits against the agencies which conducted the seizures. Also take note in these articles, that many seizures are taking place WITHOUT warrants, (yes, you read that right) are being obtained by falsifying information (yes, you read that right) and are conducted far outside the parameters of that warrant, if it does exist. A warrant SPECIFICALLY states WHAT is to be searched, and WHAT specifically is being searched for. Many citizens are asked to VACATE their property DURING the search and seizure WHICH IS ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We as citizens have rights, and they are being TRAMPLED and IGNORED completely. And for the state to be able to separate you from your pets without the burden of proving you guilty in a court of law, should frighten you deeply. How we have become a nation that protects our innocence ONLY if we have the finances to do so…is also deeply troubling. You might find this article interesting as well… http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/hsus_wildlife_policy_guilty_until_proven_innocent The fact that agencies or individuals can “prey” on those ill-equipped to financially protect themselves is a crime. That revenge or jealous attacks can be made on citizens through this process, and the citizen NOT protected by our laws, is also a crime. That misleading facts, or untrue facts, are used in reporting these cases is a crime. That the media jumps on these stories without the merest hint of fact-checking, is so lacking in responsibility as to be dangerous to the citizens they supposedly serve. So, I’m going to start adding this information to the website as well. If you have stories that are apropos…please send them to me, and if applicable…we’ll get them on the website. I’m hoping to be a bit more active on the site, now that things in my life have slowed a bit, so keep checking in for new “goodies”.