We make mention of this law several times, Anyone involved in the business of breeding animals should make a copy of this law and make sure you are familiar with it's provisions. We will do a brief review:
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) --S .3880 -- S .3880 One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and six An Act To provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act'. SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF ECONOMIC DAMAGE TO ANIMAL ENTERPRISES AND THREATS OF DEATH AND SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO ASSOCIATED PERSONS. (a) In General- Section 43 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: `Sec. 43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises `(a) Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce-- `(1) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and `(2) in connection with such purpose-- `(A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise; `(B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or `(C) conspires or attempts to do so; shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b).
This means anyone who comes to your property with intent to harm or disrupt an animal breeding enterprise is guilty of violating the act.
`(b) Penalties- The punishment for a violation of section (a) or an attempt or conspiracy to violate subsection (a) shall be-- `(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment not more than 1 year, or both, if the offense does not instill in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death and--
This means if someone say the Director of the HSUS sends a team of people to trespass and ultimately harass breeders he is guilty of conspiracy
`(A) the offense results in no economic damage or bodily injury; or `(B) the offense results in economic damage that does not exceed $10,000; `(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, if no bodily injury occurs and--
This means if anyone comes to your property and interferes with your breeding program and uses things like false reports to other officials and the findings are none they are guilty of a violation of the law and face a fine of $10,000.00 and five years in prison.
`(A) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $10,000 but not exceeding $100,000; or `(B) the offense instills in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death; `(3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if-- `(A) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $100,000; or `(B) the offense results in substantial bodily injury to another individual; `(4) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if-- `(A) the offense results in serious bodily injury to another individual; or `(B) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $1,000,000; and `(5) imprisonment for life or for any terms of years, a fine under this title, or both, if the offense results in death of another individual.
In this section let's say you are injured protecting your property or if in the act of defending your property anyone is injured or killed as a result of the intruders action they will go to prison for twenty (20) years to life. You have the right to protect your property and yourself.
`(c) Restitution- An order of restitution under section 3663 or 3663A of this title with respect to a violation of this section may also include restitution-- `(1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated as a result of the offense; `(2) for the loss of food production or farm income reasonably attributable to the offense; and `(3) for any other economic damage, including any losses or costs caused by economic disruption, resulting from the offense. `(d) Definitions- As used in this section-- `(1) the term `animal enterprise' means-- `(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing; >>>>`(B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal event; or `(C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences; `(2) the term `course of conduct' means a pattern of conduct composed of 2 or more acts, evidencing a continuity of purpose; `(3) the term `economic damage'-- `(A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; but `(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise; `(4) the term `serious bodily injury' means-- `(A) injury posing a substantial risk of death; `(B) extreme physical pain; `(C) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or `(D) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and `(5) the term `substantial bodily injury' means-- `(A) deep cuts and serious burns or abrasions; `(B) short-term or nonobvious disfigurement; `(C) fractured or dislocated bones, or torn members of the body; `(D) significant physical pain; `(E) illness; `(F) short-term loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or `(G) any other significant injury to the body. `
This states that if your business has been damaged in any way loss of sales, records, animals etc. the Violators of the law are accountable for payment of all damages. This provides a broad opening for huge civil lawsuits against anyone who may conspire, act an or disrupt any breeding enterprise.
(e) Rules of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed-- `(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution; `(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; or `(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies.'. (b) Clerical Amendment- The item relating to section 43 in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: `43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises.'. Speaker of the House of Representatives. Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
HSUS "The Real Truth"
www.activistcash.com/?oid=136
The above link will take you to one of the best descriptions and analysis of the HSUS you will ever find. We have always suspected, these guys were simply trashing various animal groups, Farmers, Dairy, Cattlemen, Breeders...for self enrichment and here are the facts, I know most of us do not have the time to delve into the layers of this organization and to ferret out the each rotten stink... I don't think anyone actually has the stomach to do that, anyway and they are counting on it.
What we see is maze of organizations with a vast scope for so called interests and many of them are familiar household names that without a doubt we all have chipped in a few dollars to help form time to time... but guess what the money rolls up to
the HSUS.
In the financials, you will see the HSUS take from charity was over 14 million and they spent less than 130,000 for the benefit of any animal!
My.. My.. My.. what a shameful deceitful organization.. Taking lunch money from children and putting it in their pockets.
While claiming to raise money to benefit the animals.. Shameful... These guys are doing the work of the devil himself.
Yeah! I am proud of these bums sending information to our schools and mis representing what they actually do.. It's no wonder we have problems with business ethics and lack of moral in America.. These guys are teaching our children first hand it's ok to lie and deceive through hidden agenda.
Hey Boy's the Truth Works Just fine.. "Why don't you try it out sometimes?
Call your school board and insist they do not allow any HSUS material distributed to your children. We can stop that dead in the water.. Pick up the phone and call. Do it!
The above link will take you to one of the best descriptions and analysis of the HSUS you will ever find. We have always suspected, these guys were simply trashing various animal groups, Farmers, Dairy, Cattlemen, Breeders...for self enrichment and here are the facts, I know most of us do not have the time to delve into the layers of this organization and to ferret out the each rotten stink... I don't think anyone actually has the stomach to do that, anyway and they are counting on it.
What we see is maze of organizations with a vast scope for so called interests and many of them are familiar household names that without a doubt we all have chipped in a few dollars to help form time to time... but guess what the money rolls up to
the HSUS.
In the financials, you will see the HSUS take from charity was over 14 million and they spent less than 130,000 for the benefit of any animal!
My.. My.. My.. what a shameful deceitful organization.. Taking lunch money from children and putting it in their pockets.
While claiming to raise money to benefit the animals.. Shameful... These guys are doing the work of the devil himself.
Yeah! I am proud of these bums sending information to our schools and mis representing what they actually do.. It's no wonder we have problems with business ethics and lack of moral in America.. These guys are teaching our children first hand it's ok to lie and deceive through hidden agenda.
Hey Boy's the Truth Works Just fine.. "Why don't you try it out sometimes?
Call your school board and insist they do not allow any HSUS material distributed to your children. We can stop that dead in the water.. Pick up the phone and call. Do it!
Now This Is A Puppy Mill
I-Team: Wisconsin Puppy Mill, by John Mercure
Link for the story http://www.todaystmj4.com/features/iteam/11638646.html
We are interested in the facts not slander and above all we are "Pro-Good Breeder"
In review of this report any discussions with others who know about this facility, we are appalled to think this lady has been allowed to remain in business;
Being familair with raising and caring for dog populations. We know there are times when a health issue may surface in the kennel that is a tough one to combat. And we also know there are days that things just don't go right, happens even in the best kennel or business.
These kinds of things are what we call "work" in progress, But in this case the dogs were in filth and they were injuried and they were housed in her home and above all she was selling "Babies" mind you four weeks of age "out the door" (breeders term for on site sales)
She had no diease control policy, visitors should have been "booted up" (All visitors to a professional breeding facilioty are required to "Boot Up", wear protective clothing so as not to track parvo and other dieases onto the property) to protect the new borns and the general population from infectious diease that could be tracked on the property.
Although she tried to offer meds to the owner for the puppy to complete the schedule for possible healing it was a sorry example of any kind of breeder.
1. The breeder should not have sold a four week old baby.
2. No sales should be taking place when thee is a contageious diease present on the property.
3. The place looked trashy and un kept
4. No diease control protection in place, I think I would want to make sure that I didn't get something there for my own animals sake.
But here's the story which seem to go unreported often in these kinds of stories. Does this lady have a USDA license? and if so where are the Feds?
All I can say about this one is "Damn it Lady People like you are the problem!"
Although not perfect in the total story, John did do a good job.
Link for the story http://www.todaystmj4.com/features/iteam/11638646.html
We are interested in the facts not slander and above all we are "Pro-Good Breeder"
In review of this report any discussions with others who know about this facility, we are appalled to think this lady has been allowed to remain in business;
Being familair with raising and caring for dog populations. We know there are times when a health issue may surface in the kennel that is a tough one to combat. And we also know there are days that things just don't go right, happens even in the best kennel or business.
These kinds of things are what we call "work" in progress, But in this case the dogs were in filth and they were injuried and they were housed in her home and above all she was selling "Babies" mind you four weeks of age "out the door" (breeders term for on site sales)
She had no diease control policy, visitors should have been "booted up" (All visitors to a professional breeding facilioty are required to "Boot Up", wear protective clothing so as not to track parvo and other dieases onto the property) to protect the new borns and the general population from infectious diease that could be tracked on the property.
Although she tried to offer meds to the owner for the puppy to complete the schedule for possible healing it was a sorry example of any kind of breeder.
1. The breeder should not have sold a four week old baby.
2. No sales should be taking place when thee is a contageious diease present on the property.
3. The place looked trashy and un kept
4. No diease control protection in place, I think I would want to make sure that I didn't get something there for my own animals sake.
But here's the story which seem to go unreported often in these kinds of stories. Does this lady have a USDA license? and if so where are the Feds?
All I can say about this one is "Damn it Lady People like you are the problem!"
Although not perfect in the total story, John did do a good job.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Puppy Promises
Puppy promises Roanoke Time Monday November 19, 2007
As people line up to take in dogs rescued from a Hillsville puppy mill, experts warn potential owners to make sure they can keep their new pets.
By Annie Johnson
To read the story yourself: http://www.roanoke.com:80/news/roanoke/wb/140317
This is a report about how prospective owners should prepare themselves for adoption of a Shelter Animal. Annie does a pretty good job of using actual fact and information until... She just could not stand the temptation to report a few sensational non related comments.
She brings up the HSUS robbery of Junior Horton's Puppies If you will recall Junior had about a 1000 dogs removed from his property, although there were no charges and the investigation was not conducted by the USDA and the lack of any charges seems to be strange to us, Heck he still has over two hundred dogs, but the innuendo still remains there must be something wrong. Annie Shame on you!
Annie goes off on a one line statement in Bland County a fire killed nearly 200 dogs.. Old News and it has nothing to do with the fact people need to prepare themselves for making a long term commitment when buying a puppy.
Now in the next paragraph she drags up the name "Puppy Mill", the temptation to call names was just overwhelming. The way she described the term, it seems that anyone who holds a USDA license is a "Puppy Mill".
A more accurate description, should be "Puppy Mills" are breeding operations who operate without a State or Federal USDA License and kennels who fail to meet the standards as specified by the Animal Welfare Act.
Just because a business is a breeding operation of any size does it not automatically make it a "Puppy Mill" as she so inferred.
Annie makes an attempt to make the shelter people who "Kill" the dogs and cats daily as their job, in deplorable conditions, to be somehow more wholesome by saying they object to the conditions in which the animals are bred and cared for. Now if she were to report the animals that live in a facility that is illegal un licenced by either the State of Federal Government, she may have an accurate point to make. A legal facility in compliance, provides better Veterinary care for their animals than most individual owners, they live in facilities that are cleaner than most peoples homes and receive the best care possible which includes exercise areas and human contact as well.
Annie quoted Stephanie Shain of the HSUS, She said "you are more than likely to get a dog that has problems, health, social skills etc." Now she fails to mention the dogs that are going to have these problems are the ones you more than likely will get at a shelter or rescue. and she fails to mention that less than 20.0% of the entire shelter population are purebred dogs. The reader is getting sucked into the slander of these people, and fails to realize Breeders do not raise mutts. But it is a good smear attempt of Annie to trash all breeders.
Annie again now quotes this Finkler fellow.. Saying the dogs have intestinal Parasites from Puppy Mills. Now that maybe true and it may be a broad generalization, Finkler knows the public is not well schooled in animal health and stress related issues with dogs.
I think I will take a couple of lines to educate the public about this issue. First all "animals of the ground" in nature ingest parasite spores, and so do we as humans, these parasite spores are everywhere in nature and for an animal who eats his food from the ground or licks and tastes everything he comes in contact with is going to ingest these spores. Mother Nature protects the animals from having what is called "out breaks" from these parasites by providing them with an immune system that will defeat the spores and allow them to pass through the intestine.
In the lifetime of any dog it is almost a 100.0% likelihood of a parasite health issue. This is normally noted by the owner when his sees the dog is having a bout with loose stools.
The obvious question is, if they have them (Parasites) in the intestines already and there is no way to avoid them, what causes the problem. Stress in an animal is the root cause for a parasite outbreak. Stress can or may cause the dogs immune system to be compromised and once the system has weakened it no longer has the ability to protect the animal from the parasite making a home in the intestine and began to grow in the host animal. Now, in most cases the animal recovers on his own and eventually defeats the population growth, but in puppies and old dogs they often need a little help with a treatment of a product called "Albon" or "Flagil"
depending on the type of parasite causing the problem.
Now back to the statement from Mr Finkler, of course we expect to see outbreaks with these animals who are unfortunate enough to end up in a shelter, They are afraid and are thrust into an environment where the smell of dead and or dying dogs are present, the facilities are normally filthy and the dogs are being handled by people who may be afraid of them, Dogs can sense fear in people, they also can sense the fear of the other dogs in the shelter as well. This is an extremely stressful experience and the dogs will demonstrate signs of stress through parasite outbreaks.
So his statement while true, "they do in fact" see a lot of parasite issues with kennel dogs, to imply the cause is from being a kennel dog is unfounded. More than likely the cause for the outbreaks is from the experience itself and not from where they came.
Finkler also offers an endorsement of the AKC, which is totally wrong when it comes to identifying a good breeder. First the AKC will not allow a breeder who holds a USDA license to list their puppies on their website, So you end up with un licensed kennels or backyard breeder in many cases. Not good..
Finkler also makes a statement based on nothing more than an attempt to discredit the good names of breeders in other states.
He points our that Missouri and Kentucky are bad places. I will be honest with you I don't know about the state laws in Kentucky concerning kennels, however the Federal Animal Welfare Act does apply in all states, if there are commercial kennels they are required to be licensed and inspected to insure they meet the standards for breeding operations. If they are not licensed then you "may" in fact have a puppy mill.
Missouri on the other hand is the most regulated and inspected state in the country, Mr Finkler, is demonstrating his ignorance by trying to infer Missouri is a problem.
The real story here is Missouri went through a time where the breeders in Missouri who do a good job themselves, demanded a State inspection and License program, to clean up the conditions that were observed in a few poorly operated facilities.
Representative of the industry worked hard and long to make sure the laws were written well and meaningful for the protection of animals, and the Missouri standards exceed the federal guidelines. As a result, Missouri went through a very difficult time where one by one the bad people had been exposed and being an open society the news media had a field day in reporting, and justly so. These people moved to other states, some went to jail and most importantly the bad facilities have been closed.
Missouri has on-going educational programs for breeders and the focus is on moving the performance ever upwards through education and regulation. Supported by a strong enforcement arm and inspection process.
So if you are going to buy a puppy and want to make sure you are dealing with a licensed and inspected facility, You probably should buy it from a Missouri Kennel.
We do agree with the point made that if you find a facility that is operating without a license you should report it. However you do not have the right to trespass on someones property. You should also keep in mind that if you file a report and the report is proven false you can be sued by the Kennel owner as well as face criminal charges for falsifying a report and lying to a federal officer.
A point that I feel compelled to make here is that any facility who houses animals is subject to the "Animal Welfare Act" both state and federal. If you visit a shelter and find the conditions to be deplorable, you should report them as well. Killing a dog because it is inconvenient to house and care for is after all against the law.
All in all, Annie you slipped up here and failed to respect the trust the public requires and expects from our media. You started off well intended but fell into the trap of trying to sensationalize your story. Shame on you and your Editor
As people line up to take in dogs rescued from a Hillsville puppy mill, experts warn potential owners to make sure they can keep their new pets.
By Annie Johnson
To read the story yourself: http://www.roanoke.com:80/news/roanoke/wb/140317
This is a report about how prospective owners should prepare themselves for adoption of a Shelter Animal. Annie does a pretty good job of using actual fact and information until... She just could not stand the temptation to report a few sensational non related comments.
She brings up the HSUS robbery of Junior Horton's Puppies If you will recall Junior had about a 1000 dogs removed from his property, although there were no charges and the investigation was not conducted by the USDA and the lack of any charges seems to be strange to us, Heck he still has over two hundred dogs, but the innuendo still remains there must be something wrong. Annie Shame on you!
Annie goes off on a one line statement in Bland County a fire killed nearly 200 dogs.. Old News and it has nothing to do with the fact people need to prepare themselves for making a long term commitment when buying a puppy.
Now in the next paragraph she drags up the name "Puppy Mill", the temptation to call names was just overwhelming. The way she described the term, it seems that anyone who holds a USDA license is a "Puppy Mill".
A more accurate description, should be "Puppy Mills" are breeding operations who operate without a State or Federal USDA License and kennels who fail to meet the standards as specified by the Animal Welfare Act.
Just because a business is a breeding operation of any size does it not automatically make it a "Puppy Mill" as she so inferred.
Annie makes an attempt to make the shelter people who "Kill" the dogs and cats daily as their job, in deplorable conditions, to be somehow more wholesome by saying they object to the conditions in which the animals are bred and cared for. Now if she were to report the animals that live in a facility that is illegal un licenced by either the State of Federal Government, she may have an accurate point to make. A legal facility in compliance, provides better Veterinary care for their animals than most individual owners, they live in facilities that are cleaner than most peoples homes and receive the best care possible which includes exercise areas and human contact as well.
Annie quoted Stephanie Shain of the HSUS, She said "you are more than likely to get a dog that has problems, health, social skills etc." Now she fails to mention the dogs that are going to have these problems are the ones you more than likely will get at a shelter or rescue. and she fails to mention that less than 20.0% of the entire shelter population are purebred dogs. The reader is getting sucked into the slander of these people, and fails to realize Breeders do not raise mutts. But it is a good smear attempt of Annie to trash all breeders.
Annie again now quotes this Finkler fellow.. Saying the dogs have intestinal Parasites from Puppy Mills. Now that maybe true and it may be a broad generalization, Finkler knows the public is not well schooled in animal health and stress related issues with dogs.
I think I will take a couple of lines to educate the public about this issue. First all "animals of the ground" in nature ingest parasite spores, and so do we as humans, these parasite spores are everywhere in nature and for an animal who eats his food from the ground or licks and tastes everything he comes in contact with is going to ingest these spores. Mother Nature protects the animals from having what is called "out breaks" from these parasites by providing them with an immune system that will defeat the spores and allow them to pass through the intestine.
In the lifetime of any dog it is almost a 100.0% likelihood of a parasite health issue. This is normally noted by the owner when his sees the dog is having a bout with loose stools.
The obvious question is, if they have them (Parasites) in the intestines already and there is no way to avoid them, what causes the problem. Stress in an animal is the root cause for a parasite outbreak. Stress can or may cause the dogs immune system to be compromised and once the system has weakened it no longer has the ability to protect the animal from the parasite making a home in the intestine and began to grow in the host animal. Now, in most cases the animal recovers on his own and eventually defeats the population growth, but in puppies and old dogs they often need a little help with a treatment of a product called "Albon" or "Flagil"
depending on the type of parasite causing the problem.
Now back to the statement from Mr Finkler, of course we expect to see outbreaks with these animals who are unfortunate enough to end up in a shelter, They are afraid and are thrust into an environment where the smell of dead and or dying dogs are present, the facilities are normally filthy and the dogs are being handled by people who may be afraid of them, Dogs can sense fear in people, they also can sense the fear of the other dogs in the shelter as well. This is an extremely stressful experience and the dogs will demonstrate signs of stress through parasite outbreaks.
So his statement while true, "they do in fact" see a lot of parasite issues with kennel dogs, to imply the cause is from being a kennel dog is unfounded. More than likely the cause for the outbreaks is from the experience itself and not from where they came.
Finkler also offers an endorsement of the AKC, which is totally wrong when it comes to identifying a good breeder. First the AKC will not allow a breeder who holds a USDA license to list their puppies on their website, So you end up with un licensed kennels or backyard breeder in many cases. Not good..
Finkler also makes a statement based on nothing more than an attempt to discredit the good names of breeders in other states.
He points our that Missouri and Kentucky are bad places. I will be honest with you I don't know about the state laws in Kentucky concerning kennels, however the Federal Animal Welfare Act does apply in all states, if there are commercial kennels they are required to be licensed and inspected to insure they meet the standards for breeding operations. If they are not licensed then you "may" in fact have a puppy mill.
Missouri on the other hand is the most regulated and inspected state in the country, Mr Finkler, is demonstrating his ignorance by trying to infer Missouri is a problem.
The real story here is Missouri went through a time where the breeders in Missouri who do a good job themselves, demanded a State inspection and License program, to clean up the conditions that were observed in a few poorly operated facilities.
Representative of the industry worked hard and long to make sure the laws were written well and meaningful for the protection of animals, and the Missouri standards exceed the federal guidelines. As a result, Missouri went through a very difficult time where one by one the bad people had been exposed and being an open society the news media had a field day in reporting, and justly so. These people moved to other states, some went to jail and most importantly the bad facilities have been closed.
Missouri has on-going educational programs for breeders and the focus is on moving the performance ever upwards through education and regulation. Supported by a strong enforcement arm and inspection process.
So if you are going to buy a puppy and want to make sure you are dealing with a licensed and inspected facility, You probably should buy it from a Missouri Kennel.
We do agree with the point made that if you find a facility that is operating without a license you should report it. However you do not have the right to trespass on someones property. You should also keep in mind that if you file a report and the report is proven false you can be sued by the Kennel owner as well as face criminal charges for falsifying a report and lying to a federal officer.
A point that I feel compelled to make here is that any facility who houses animals is subject to the "Animal Welfare Act" both state and federal. If you visit a shelter and find the conditions to be deplorable, you should report them as well. Killing a dog because it is inconvenient to house and care for is after all against the law.
All in all, Annie you slipped up here and failed to respect the trust the public requires and expects from our media. You started off well intended but fell into the trap of trying to sensationalize your story. Shame on you and your Editor
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Dog Auctions?
We have a lot of stories from the Newspapers and there are several opinions posted on Animal Rights Advocates websites. We will be covering the news stories as they appear and if given enough time we will try to review some of the AR websites to discuss their opinions.
In our initial research we have determined the "Dog Auctions" are heavily regulated by the USDA and according to their records they maintain a presence throughout the process to makes sure the Federal Animal Welfare laws are followed. I have also noted the USDA does a poor job in supervision in most states due to inadequate manpower staffing for the number of Kennels and Auction companies across the United States.
The purpose of the Auctions vary from sale to sale:
In speaking with the owner of one of the largest Auction Companies we learned the following.
1. A many of the sales come from breeders who have failed in business. There is not a resource available for someone who has lets say 60 dogs, to place them quickly with owners who have the financial ability to attend to their needs. Dogs coming from failed enterprises may very well have poor weights and many may be old dogs who simply need a home.
2. The State and Federal courts use the auctions for dispersal in cases where the dogs have been ordered to be sold for taxes, estate sales, bankruptcy, animal abuse violations, etc. The auctions provide an opportunity for the courts to recover some money for the government or creditors.
3. Some Breeders will tender dogs for the auctions to reduce the number of dogs they have.
4. From time to time there will be a liquidation sale for kennels who are closing due to sickness in the home or death. A lot of small kennels are owned by retired people who sometimes become ill and die with no one to care for the animals.
Customers of the Auctions are varied some are individuals looking to adopt a dog of a specific breed, others are Animal Rights Groups/Rescues who use the auctions to buy dogs cheaply for inventory for adoptions to fund their organization. Some breeders will attend the auctions looking for specific breed addition for their operations.
All in all the buyers make a strange lot of bedfellows, the Auction did make an interesting point, no matter where the buyers come from everyone at the auction wants only the very best for the animals. Auctions have been a way of life in Agriculture for as long as there has been a need to disperse animals. Some people are not comfortable with the process, but there is no other way to affectingly place surplus animals in new environments.
I asked about the process used to check a persons ID etc., I have read on some sites they do this to prevent people from participating. Federal Law mandates the buyers be properly identified and records are maintained and provide to the USDA with each sale. Buyers must have good funds to participate and positive ID is required to make sure the auction does not fall victim to fraud. Some people who have records for animal abuse have tried to buy dogs at the auctions, but once they have been identified are denied access.
In our initial research we have determined the "Dog Auctions" are heavily regulated by the USDA and according to their records they maintain a presence throughout the process to makes sure the Federal Animal Welfare laws are followed. I have also noted the USDA does a poor job in supervision in most states due to inadequate manpower staffing for the number of Kennels and Auction companies across the United States.
The purpose of the Auctions vary from sale to sale:
In speaking with the owner of one of the largest Auction Companies we learned the following.
1. A many of the sales come from breeders who have failed in business. There is not a resource available for someone who has lets say 60 dogs, to place them quickly with owners who have the financial ability to attend to their needs. Dogs coming from failed enterprises may very well have poor weights and many may be old dogs who simply need a home.
2. The State and Federal courts use the auctions for dispersal in cases where the dogs have been ordered to be sold for taxes, estate sales, bankruptcy, animal abuse violations, etc. The auctions provide an opportunity for the courts to recover some money for the government or creditors.
3. Some Breeders will tender dogs for the auctions to reduce the number of dogs they have.
4. From time to time there will be a liquidation sale for kennels who are closing due to sickness in the home or death. A lot of small kennels are owned by retired people who sometimes become ill and die with no one to care for the animals.
Customers of the Auctions are varied some are individuals looking to adopt a dog of a specific breed, others are Animal Rights Groups/Rescues who use the auctions to buy dogs cheaply for inventory for adoptions to fund their organization. Some breeders will attend the auctions looking for specific breed addition for their operations.
All in all the buyers make a strange lot of bedfellows, the Auction did make an interesting point, no matter where the buyers come from everyone at the auction wants only the very best for the animals. Auctions have been a way of life in Agriculture for as long as there has been a need to disperse animals. Some people are not comfortable with the process, but there is no other way to affectingly place surplus animals in new environments.
I asked about the process used to check a persons ID etc., I have read on some sites they do this to prevent people from participating. Federal Law mandates the buyers be properly identified and records are maintained and provide to the USDA with each sale. Buyers must have good funds to participate and positive ID is required to make sure the auction does not fall victim to fraud. Some people who have records for animal abuse have tried to buy dogs at the auctions, but once they have been identified are denied access.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
States cracking down on puppy mills
This article was published by the AP on June 7 of this year
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19016050/
Since the AP has copyright on any type of reproduction of their material we will provide you with the link and our commentary:
The story is about the various states that are considering new Animal Welfare Laws, in addition to the Federal Animal Welfare Act, The report starts off with a quote from this fellow "Baker" who claims to have seen and reported some of the worst animal abuse cases in Missouri and in other states. Now I am sure Mr Baker, thinks he is doing good by making these sickening sensational reports, and any sane person would be sickened at the thought of such activities as he has claimed to have reported.
Remember our focus is not to hide facts not twist the documentation but to simply expose the "Truth in reporting". So we conducted our own investigation of Mr. Baker and his claims, According to the Department of Agriculture in the State of Missouri who has maintained accurate and complete records of all animal welfare violations and has prosecuted the same for many many years, it was disclosed that the report Mr. Baker claims to have made concerning feeding dead dogs to the other dogs in the kennel for feed is absent from any State or Federal animal abuse reports. A private source within the Dept of Agriculture whose identity will remain anonymous stated; "This Guy is a real whack Job, He will do anything and say anything to grab a headline for the sake of getting someone to make a donation to him! We have been dealing with his outlandish conduct for many years, we wish someone would find this guy out."
Baker, states as if it is "wrong" "most licensed breeders maintain their operating standards just above the minimum requirements to stay out of trouble. Just what exactly are you trying to say here Mr Baker, that if if you exceed your job performance requirements by let's say by 10.0% (110.0%) You are only doing it to stay out of trouble with the boss? Ask any Management consulting firm and they will tell you any company that has a work force that exceeds job performance standards anywhere in the world would be considered being the "Very Best"... But Mr Baker suggests these people "Breeders" are lacking.
The rest of the article seems to be well written, not running off into horror and innuendo as in the opening statements. Remember, there are always ways to improve and people who love the animals will do there best to do just that. It is not necessary to embellish the facts. The Truth works just fine.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19016050/
Since the AP has copyright on any type of reproduction of their material we will provide you with the link and our commentary:
The story is about the various states that are considering new Animal Welfare Laws, in addition to the Federal Animal Welfare Act, The report starts off with a quote from this fellow "Baker" who claims to have seen and reported some of the worst animal abuse cases in Missouri and in other states. Now I am sure Mr Baker, thinks he is doing good by making these sickening sensational reports, and any sane person would be sickened at the thought of such activities as he has claimed to have reported.
Remember our focus is not to hide facts not twist the documentation but to simply expose the "Truth in reporting". So we conducted our own investigation of Mr. Baker and his claims, According to the Department of Agriculture in the State of Missouri who has maintained accurate and complete records of all animal welfare violations and has prosecuted the same for many many years, it was disclosed that the report Mr. Baker claims to have made concerning feeding dead dogs to the other dogs in the kennel for feed is absent from any State or Federal animal abuse reports. A private source within the Dept of Agriculture whose identity will remain anonymous stated; "This Guy is a real whack Job, He will do anything and say anything to grab a headline for the sake of getting someone to make a donation to him! We have been dealing with his outlandish conduct for many years, we wish someone would find this guy out."
Baker, states as if it is "wrong" "most licensed breeders maintain their operating standards just above the minimum requirements to stay out of trouble. Just what exactly are you trying to say here Mr Baker, that if if you exceed your job performance requirements by let's say by 10.0% (110.0%) You are only doing it to stay out of trouble with the boss? Ask any Management consulting firm and they will tell you any company that has a work force that exceeds job performance standards anywhere in the world would be considered being the "Very Best"... But Mr Baker suggests these people "Breeders" are lacking.
The rest of the article seems to be well written, not running off into horror and innuendo as in the opening statements. Remember, there are always ways to improve and people who love the animals will do there best to do just that. It is not necessary to embellish the facts. The Truth works just fine.
Virginia Breeders Under Siege
There have been so many stories on this HSUS report we are a little overwhelmed to try to evaluate each one as the story has taken on several twists and turns and as with the original carefully crafted report offered by the HSUS, exposes several issues that are in fact truthful but also leads us to ask questions about the validity of the undercover investigation.
A little ground work needs to be established for the reader first.
Fact:
1. There are all types of kennels in the United States some good some not so good and some terrible.
2. Virginia does not have a State kennel license program, there are some counties with kennel zoning laws.
3. People who raise dogs for resale into the commercial stream, IE: Pet Stores or to Brokers fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA APHIS division who are empowered by Congress to force compliance.
4. The USDA has very few if any inspectors in Virginia.
5. The HSUS is not a legal entity, and has no authority of any kind in any legal jurisdiction in the United States. Although their people carry badges, they have no legal bearing.
6. The Patriot Act protects breeders of any animals from harassment or interference under "Homeland Domestic Terror".
7. First and foremost the HSUS has no legal authority to conduct any undercover investigation of anyone anywhere, Any such conduct by any US citizen can be construed as trespassing, stalking, harassment, homeland terror and or assault in various jurisdictions nationwide.
8. The provisions of the United State Animal Welfare Act provides a reporting system for those to use and report violations that are suspected. The United States Congress Mandates a follow-up investigation of each report filed. In other words you have the right to report any suspected violations, however because the law exists you do not have the right to trespass and or interfere with anyone. Within the same law there are provisions for the protection of breeders against those who would file false un founded claims.
In review of the initial report, it simply states the USDA has failed in its mission statement to enforce the law in the state of Virginia. Unless I mis read the report they make no mention of filing the complaints with the USDA.
The story goes on until we arrive at Junior Horton and his surrender of about 1000 dogs to the HSUS. But they do not tell us why he gave them the dogs. Makes a person wonder why someone would willingly give anyone over $500,000.00 in property.
Even if he were to be charged with operating without a license it would normally be a fine of much less than half a million dollars.
The report on Horten's said the puppies or dogs were maintained in long rows of pens, well I suspect so that many dogs would require a long row, but it is not against the law, the report failed to mention if the facilities were undersized or failed to meet federal standards. In review of some video if the video was in fact from Horton's, it appears there may be some violations in the selection of the material, being not painted and sealed wood surfaces, but nothing beyond that was noted.
The dogs that were so called "Rescued" were snapped up and sold as fast as they arrived at shelters all across the east coast. If the dogs were in dire straits they would not have been sound or healthy enough to place with adoptions. So it appears the HSUS took his healthy well cared for dogs and sold them at great financial gain.
We contacted several of the destination shelters and without exception were told the dogs were in fine condition with the exception of needing better social skills with people. We should point out no federal laws have been violated by the Horton's if this is in fact the truth as reported by the shelters.
Read the articles and judge for yourself.
A little ground work needs to be established for the reader first.
Fact:
1. There are all types of kennels in the United States some good some not so good and some terrible.
2. Virginia does not have a State kennel license program, there are some counties with kennel zoning laws.
3. People who raise dogs for resale into the commercial stream, IE: Pet Stores or to Brokers fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA APHIS division who are empowered by Congress to force compliance.
4. The USDA has very few if any inspectors in Virginia.
5. The HSUS is not a legal entity, and has no authority of any kind in any legal jurisdiction in the United States. Although their people carry badges, they have no legal bearing.
6. The Patriot Act protects breeders of any animals from harassment or interference under "Homeland Domestic Terror".
7. First and foremost the HSUS has no legal authority to conduct any undercover investigation of anyone anywhere, Any such conduct by any US citizen can be construed as trespassing, stalking, harassment, homeland terror and or assault in various jurisdictions nationwide.
8. The provisions of the United State Animal Welfare Act provides a reporting system for those to use and report violations that are suspected. The United States Congress Mandates a follow-up investigation of each report filed. In other words you have the right to report any suspected violations, however because the law exists you do not have the right to trespass and or interfere with anyone. Within the same law there are provisions for the protection of breeders against those who would file false un founded claims.
In review of the initial report, it simply states the USDA has failed in its mission statement to enforce the law in the state of Virginia. Unless I mis read the report they make no mention of filing the complaints with the USDA.
The story goes on until we arrive at Junior Horton and his surrender of about 1000 dogs to the HSUS. But they do not tell us why he gave them the dogs. Makes a person wonder why someone would willingly give anyone over $500,000.00 in property.
Even if he were to be charged with operating without a license it would normally be a fine of much less than half a million dollars.
The report on Horten's said the puppies or dogs were maintained in long rows of pens, well I suspect so that many dogs would require a long row, but it is not against the law, the report failed to mention if the facilities were undersized or failed to meet federal standards. In review of some video if the video was in fact from Horton's, it appears there may be some violations in the selection of the material, being not painted and sealed wood surfaces, but nothing beyond that was noted.
The dogs that were so called "Rescued" were snapped up and sold as fast as they arrived at shelters all across the east coast. If the dogs were in dire straits they would not have been sound or healthy enough to place with adoptions. So it appears the HSUS took his healthy well cared for dogs and sold them at great financial gain.
We contacted several of the destination shelters and without exception were told the dogs were in fine condition with the exception of needing better social skills with people. We should point out no federal laws have been violated by the Horton's if this is in fact the truth as reported by the shelters.
Read the articles and judge for yourself.
Pet's poor health led to heartache
Pets Poor Health Leads to Heartache By Sharon L. Peters, Special for USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-31-puppy-mills-side_N.htm
This is story about a woman who bought a dog from a "Pet Store", The puppy was a small puppy and she bought the dog after she argued about the price. She took the dog home and enjoyed a flawless relationship with him for the next two months.
Unexpectedly the dog became ill and following a short period where the vets loaded her up with an enormous bill for treatment, the dog was put to sleep. She the owner is sad and the vets said there was nothing they could do. (But not until after they emptied her bank account) "This is where the story should go... but this is where it took the unsuspecting reader.
The bereaved woman returned to the pet store, note there is no mention of a health guarantee or if there were what time frames would be a reasonable time to detect any health abnormality. (Industry Standards range from 48 hours to 72 hours for the new owner to have the new dog inspected by a qualified vet to identify any health issues that may be present. This lady failed to mention if she had or had not had the dog inspected for fitness.
The owner demanded to have the name of the breeder and the Pet Store owner lacking in good business conduct or willingness to stand behind their product deferred the hapless owner to the breeder, where as she descended upon the property and basing her opinion on her emotions she made critical comments about the breeders property.
Remember the owner is a unhappy customer of the "Pet Store" and she for some reason thinks she has the right to intrude on this persons property and blame all of her problems on the breeder.
But because we feel sorry for the lady and of course the puppy it is easy for us to load up our anger and pity against the breeder, The Pet Store owner lacking in any character whatsoever threw her supplier to the wolves, and claimed to has terminated the relationship! For what reason?
Here's the Truth in this story..
1. The lady bought a dog .. and for some reason she felt there was something wrong with the puppy and argued over the price. The Pet store sold her the dog at a deep discount. "No Mentions of any Health Guarantee" After two months the dog became ill... well beyond any normal health guarantee if provided. Later it was determined the dog had to destroyed due to kidney failure, but no reason was documented as to what caused the failure.
Kidney failure in dogs can be brought on by several things, as noted after the fact by the Pet Store, Poi sen, Anti Freeze and in today's dog food climate even the dog food we buy at the store can be tainted. Just today we received notice the dog toothpaste can cause kidney failure if it came from China.
And the story continues:
She wrote to local and federal authorities. Those who responded said that because the breeder isn't licensed, they have no authority over her.
This is not true, the USDA APHIS division has jurisdiction over all breeders who sell puppies into the commercial stream. The USDA does have control over both the breeder licensed or not as well as the Pet Store. If the owner had in fact spoke to the USDA they would have taken a report and have conducted an investigation as mandated by Congress.
Says Johnson: "I'm not finished with this yet."
While we all agree the story is indeed a sad one we must all understand just as with our own lives there are no guarantees. We as Americans have become spoiled and have un realistic expectations as to how things can and do happen in the world. Lady this is life, you may have been heart broken by the loss of the puppy but you may have been the cause of its demise yourself. You may have gone to an inexperienced vet who was not interested in anything other than cleaning out your pocketbook. But you have failed to document any finding of fact, other than you have lost your puppy and have a broken heart.
The Reporter has done the public a great dis-service in reporting a story while heartfelt it was not based on fact and good journalism practice, The reporter failed to identify what the real issue was and missed several opportunities to expose, poor business practices and corruption , at least in two levels of this transaction.
The breeder is so far removed from this, he or she could not possibly have any responsibility in as far as this transaction is concerned. The reporter choose to slander the breeder by innuendo and all breeders have suffered as a result.
Sad Story but Really Bad Reporting
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-31-puppy-mills-side_N.htm
This is story about a woman who bought a dog from a "Pet Store", The puppy was a small puppy and she bought the dog after she argued about the price. She took the dog home and enjoyed a flawless relationship with him for the next two months.
Unexpectedly the dog became ill and following a short period where the vets loaded her up with an enormous bill for treatment, the dog was put to sleep. She the owner is sad and the vets said there was nothing they could do. (But not until after they emptied her bank account) "This is where the story should go... but this is where it took the unsuspecting reader.
The bereaved woman returned to the pet store, note there is no mention of a health guarantee or if there were what time frames would be a reasonable time to detect any health abnormality. (Industry Standards range from 48 hours to 72 hours for the new owner to have the new dog inspected by a qualified vet to identify any health issues that may be present. This lady failed to mention if she had or had not had the dog inspected for fitness.
The owner demanded to have the name of the breeder and the Pet Store owner lacking in good business conduct or willingness to stand behind their product deferred the hapless owner to the breeder, where as she descended upon the property and basing her opinion on her emotions she made critical comments about the breeders property.
Remember the owner is a unhappy customer of the "Pet Store" and she for some reason thinks she has the right to intrude on this persons property and blame all of her problems on the breeder.
But because we feel sorry for the lady and of course the puppy it is easy for us to load up our anger and pity against the breeder, The Pet Store owner lacking in any character whatsoever threw her supplier to the wolves, and claimed to has terminated the relationship! For what reason?
Here's the Truth in this story..
1. The lady bought a dog .. and for some reason she felt there was something wrong with the puppy and argued over the price. The Pet store sold her the dog at a deep discount. "No Mentions of any Health Guarantee" After two months the dog became ill... well beyond any normal health guarantee if provided. Later it was determined the dog had to destroyed due to kidney failure, but no reason was documented as to what caused the failure.
Kidney failure in dogs can be brought on by several things, as noted after the fact by the Pet Store, Poi sen, Anti Freeze and in today's dog food climate even the dog food we buy at the store can be tainted. Just today we received notice the dog toothpaste can cause kidney failure if it came from China.
And the story continues:
She wrote to local and federal authorities. Those who responded said that because the breeder isn't licensed, they have no authority over her.
This is not true, the USDA APHIS division has jurisdiction over all breeders who sell puppies into the commercial stream. The USDA does have control over both the breeder licensed or not as well as the Pet Store. If the owner had in fact spoke to the USDA they would have taken a report and have conducted an investigation as mandated by Congress.
Says Johnson: "I'm not finished with this yet."
While we all agree the story is indeed a sad one we must all understand just as with our own lives there are no guarantees. We as Americans have become spoiled and have un realistic expectations as to how things can and do happen in the world. Lady this is life, you may have been heart broken by the loss of the puppy but you may have been the cause of its demise yourself. You may have gone to an inexperienced vet who was not interested in anything other than cleaning out your pocketbook. But you have failed to document any finding of fact, other than you have lost your puppy and have a broken heart.
The Reporter has done the public a great dis-service in reporting a story while heartfelt it was not based on fact and good journalism practice, The reporter failed to identify what the real issue was and missed several opportunities to expose, poor business practices and corruption , at least in two levels of this transaction.
The breeder is so far removed from this, he or she could not possibly have any responsibility in as far as this transaction is concerned. The reporter choose to slander the breeder by innuendo and all breeders have suffered as a result.
Sad Story but Really Bad Reporting
Rescuers Highlight Puppy Mill Problem
WRCB TV Channel 3 Eyewitness News Chattanooga TN Reported by, Matt Johnson
http://www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm?sid=928
This is a story about a dog that had been abused and abandonded by some owner who if found should be arrested.
It is nice to see a Vet who is caring enough about the animals to provide service for it, although who is being paid for the care is unclear.
The story quickly decends into speculation and finger pointing as to how the animal arrived in such poor condition:
-> Rescuers are almost certain Tia is one of dozens of victims of backyard breeding.
(This is a typical mis direction away from the issue at hand. This animal had been abandoned on the street and the owner is no where to be found)
"Purchasing those cheap, not registered, not high quality dogs probably put her in the position she's in," the doctor said.
(Embellishing the story with facts that are totally unfounded, lends one to be mad at a unknown "evil breeder". In addition she says the dog is a "cheap dog and un-registered and not high quality" How can she possibly know this... makes for good reading though.
"People breed pups for profit, ignoring the mother's care. "It is sad, but it's a reality and people need to know that this goes on,"
(This again if far removed from the subject "the rescued abandoned puppy)
A statement like this going unchallenged is simply wrong. (People do raise dogs and hopefully they do make enough money to cover their expenses, but to state they raise puppies and ignore the mothers care is absurd and is unfounded, remember we do not know where this dog came from, It could have been a stray living on the streets and had puppies on its own with Bud the local feral stud dog and had complications.. To start casting blame and pointing fingers at unknown people who may or may not be involved with raising dogs is totally unfounded and poor reporting.
If you have any information on Tia's owner or suspect a backyard breeding operation in your neighborhood, call animal services or police right away.
What's this about? If you suspect a backyard breeding operation call animal services or the police nonetheless?
They want you to think it is somehow against the law to allow your dog to have puppies and you should turn in your neighbors for suspected puppy birthing.
This our first story to review is a great example of how the press will lead the reader to a totally non related subject.
The subject is a story of an animal being abandoned and having a bad life and as a result of her conditions has developed several serious health issues. It speaks towards the good Vet who is trying to save the puppies life, and we should be commending her for her efforts. It also tells us about a person who provides rescue when called upon for dogs another good deed.
The story fail to identify the real problem and that is animal abandonment but it does touch on neglect, but casts the readers focus on a unknown breeder and therefore all people who breed dogs are bad. Just read the comments and you will see the reactions from the public.. "Let's go get the Breeders!"
Solution to the problem mandatory microchip in all animals to identify ownership. Have the enforcement people do their job, by prosecuting bad owners who abandon or abuse their animals.
http://www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm?sid=928
This is a story about a dog that had been abused and abandonded by some owner who if found should be arrested.
It is nice to see a Vet who is caring enough about the animals to provide service for it, although who is being paid for the care is unclear.
The story quickly decends into speculation and finger pointing as to how the animal arrived in such poor condition:
-> Rescuers are almost certain Tia is one of dozens of victims of backyard breeding.
(This is a typical mis direction away from the issue at hand. This animal had been abandoned on the street and the owner is no where to be found)
"Purchasing those cheap, not registered, not high quality dogs probably put her in the position she's in," the doctor said.
(Embellishing the story with facts that are totally unfounded, lends one to be mad at a unknown "evil breeder". In addition she says the dog is a "cheap dog and un-registered and not high quality" How can she possibly know this... makes for good reading though.
"People breed pups for profit, ignoring the mother's care. "It is sad, but it's a reality and people need to know that this goes on,"
(This again if far removed from the subject "the rescued abandoned puppy)
A statement like this going unchallenged is simply wrong. (People do raise dogs and hopefully they do make enough money to cover their expenses, but to state they raise puppies and ignore the mothers care is absurd and is unfounded, remember we do not know where this dog came from, It could have been a stray living on the streets and had puppies on its own with Bud the local feral stud dog and had complications.. To start casting blame and pointing fingers at unknown people who may or may not be involved with raising dogs is totally unfounded and poor reporting.
If you have any information on Tia's owner or suspect a backyard breeding operation in your neighborhood, call animal services or police right away.
What's this about? If you suspect a backyard breeding operation call animal services or the police nonetheless?
They want you to think it is somehow against the law to allow your dog to have puppies and you should turn in your neighbors for suspected puppy birthing.
This our first story to review is a great example of how the press will lead the reader to a totally non related subject.
The subject is a story of an animal being abandoned and having a bad life and as a result of her conditions has developed several serious health issues. It speaks towards the good Vet who is trying to save the puppies life, and we should be commending her for her efforts. It also tells us about a person who provides rescue when called upon for dogs another good deed.
The story fail to identify the real problem and that is animal abandonment but it does touch on neglect, but casts the readers focus on a unknown breeder and therefore all people who breed dogs are bad. Just read the comments and you will see the reactions from the public.. "Let's go get the Breeders!"
Solution to the problem mandatory microchip in all animals to identify ownership. Have the enforcement people do their job, by prosecuting bad owners who abandon or abuse their animals.
Puppy Mills Truths and Myths
Introduction:
The purpose of this blog is to provide a fair and unbiased understanding of the Animal Rights Movement and of all venues of the Pet industry.
We will collect stories as they are published in print and broadcast on TV, we will review the reporting for fact or fiction. In addition we will discuss the activities of these interests and with a fair critical review discuss the Agenda and the intent of the many venues as they are related to the Pet Industry.
Without it being said thus far, we should point out people who are involved with animals often are very passionate about their beliefs and their understandings of various issues. We have also discovered the truth is often embellished or lost all together and mis direction is used to sway public opinion. Please keep this in mind.
The purpose of this blog is to provide a fair and unbiased understanding of the Animal Rights Movement and of all venues of the Pet industry.
We will collect stories as they are published in print and broadcast on TV, we will review the reporting for fact or fiction. In addition we will discuss the activities of these interests and with a fair critical review discuss the Agenda and the intent of the many venues as they are related to the Pet Industry.
Without it being said thus far, we should point out people who are involved with animals often are very passionate about their beliefs and their understandings of various issues. We have also discovered the truth is often embellished or lost all together and mis direction is used to sway public opinion. Please keep this in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)