Log in

No account? Create an account

White Star Line


Previous Entry Share Next Entry

S 1139

The "Humane Society" is trying to End the breeding of DOMESTIC dogs & cats

HSUS President Pacelle's opposition to cloning of pets comes in fact from his organization's anti-animal views. He stated it most clearly in 1993: "One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals."

Did someone open the ninth gate to Hell? Where are these people coming from?

  • 1
dustmeat November 13th, 2005
It's pretty safe to say that they will never achieve that dream

vulpesrex November 13th, 2005
While I don't agree with the sentiments expressed by the HSUS president, I read the version of the prospective bill posted at your link, and the changes to the current statute do not seem particularly bad. Could you perhaps point out what I seem to be missing?

I DO note that it seems to be aimed more at the rattier types of breeders, like "Puppy Mills", who work at creating pets in the same way that chicken farms raise stock for chicken meat, and exploit every trendy pet fad as it comes down the line, flooding the country with shar-peis, bichon-frieses, dalmatians, most in poor health and genetically weak. Many of the facilities-related provisions look like what I would find at a better pet-boarding facility. The provisions such as contracted veterinary services, food-preparation, and documented animal tracking are pretty much used by the more respectable breeding kennels in the country already, but such places command very high prices for their animals, at low margin. But then, such establishments are not just about The Bottom Line, like the puppy mills or the "pin money" breeders.

As to it being a federal matter, I _think_ this is because of the nature of such business, being interstate commerce, a category of business often regulated by the feds. You buy a sick puppy, either as the owner or the retailer, and you have little recourse under state law against the breeder in Arkansas or Alabama or Oklahoma. But then again, the original motivation may have been to pre-empt 50 different battles in 50 different statehouses, and the Interstate Commerce aspect is just a convenient opening. Who knows?

I ALSO note that, in defining and enumerating the various types of businesses and intended end-users of dogs, which would be exempted from such expensive and inconvenient provisions of compliance, that the statute seems to leave a conspicuous hole around DOG RACING. This is an industry which produces - and consumes - large quantities of dogs...

...And the fellow who posted the letter, alerting us to the dangers of this bill, is in the business of raising whippets. I rather suspect that many of his animals don't make it to a family home.

You are right, Pacelle's statement is outrageous, and chilling - but I don't see the connection, or the danger in this particular bill. If I have somehow overlooked it, then please, point out what I seem to be missing?

  • 1