Oppose "puppymills", do ya?
First of all, if by "puppymills" you mean "abusive, unlawful dog breeding facilities that violate generally accepted animal husbandry practices" . . .well, all I can say is: whoop de doo.
How do you feel about global deforestation, kiddie porn, and adult illiteracy? Support, or oppose?
Any motherhood statements you need to get off your chest on, maybe, the torture of detainees in Guantanamo?
Puppymillers like you and me
On the other hand, if by "puppymiller" you mean what the Humane Society of the United States means, better think again. Because HSUS and its extremist supporters are coming after anyone that breeds dogs.
HSUS doesn't care how well loved the dogs are, or how treasured the pups. Wayne Pacelle, HSUS' President and CEO, has been endlessly quoted as longing for a future without pets.
"If I had my personal view, perhaps a [dog-less, cat-less future] might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born."
How sweet.
HSUS's latest crop of anti-puppymill proposalshave nothing to do with cruelty to animals. Instead, these proposals outlaw ownership or mere temporary custody of intact dogs (and cats)-- animals that retain the reproductive systems they were born with. Custody of the happiest, healthiest most well-cared for dogs (and/or cats) in the world would be a criminal act under these proposals, if you happen to have "too many."
Groomers, trainers, boarding kennel operators and doggie daycare facilities, huntsmen/women and mushers, vets. . .all potential "puppymillers" in the eyes of the Humane Society of the United States. "Too many" intact dogs in their custody could lead to criminal charges.
Not because the animals were mistreated in any way. Oh, no. Under these proposals, charges may be brought and animals may be seized simply because of the number of animals present. Allegedly.
HSUS's numbers game: who wins, who loses?
Pet-Agegot it wrong. Dogs are born intact, and some people choose to keep them that way, whether they intend to breed them or not. Its called personal preference, and its not criminal. Yet.
HSUS's proposals to criminalize the ownership of intact dogs and cats aren't about protecting pets from "puppymillers." While disguised by anti-puppymill rhetoric, these are limit laws designed to shut down breeders and confiscate their animals. Period.
True agenda: seizure and destruction of animals
Under HSUS's New York proposalalleged custody of the wrong number of cats and dogs may lead to seizure and forfeiture of the animals.
Amazingly, in New York forfeited animals may be killed or sold off by the non-governmental agency that seized them BEFORE the owner gets his day in court. So, HSUS and its acolytes could accuse someone of owning "too many" intact dogs and/or cats, seize them, kill them. . .and THEN the defendant can tell it to the judge.
Due process is not a consideration
Some shit, huh? Its called "guilty until proven innocent."
In New York, there is no compensation for animals wrongfully destroyed or disposed of during such proceedings.
Since when does almost any other group of defendants have more due process rights than dog breeders do?
Pencil in a number. Any number.
A certain number of dog breeders consider themselves "safe" because they don't have 50 (or 40 or 75) intact dogs and/or cats.
But then again, they're idiots.
The ASPCAis already signalling that twenty dogs could identify a breeder as a "puppymiller."
There won't be any way to stuff that genie back in the bottle, folks. Numbers were made to be changed.
Once criminal animal cruelty can be charged based only on alleged numbers of animals present--and not the quality of care they are provided--home and hobby breeding of dogs and cats will come to a screeching halt.
Ditto sports and hunting kennels, or any other place where intact dogs tend to congregate.
Shoulder to shoulder with HSUS's Jennifer Fearing
Anyone else going to an anti "puppymill" demonstration featuring Jennifer Fearing? Before you pack your lunch and your poster, here's a trivia question to consider. Especially for California pit bull owners:
Question: Ingrid Newkirk, Bob Barker and Jennifer Fearing-- what document unites them all?
Answer: All three signed a letter urging legislators to support SB 861, California's pit bull extermination law that continues to kill innocent dogs for the crime of being caught by authorities with their gonads intact. SB 861 laid the groundwork for the global forced sterilization proposals rocking California today, four years later.
You can read the dim-witted letter Fearing signed, which claims that breed specific mandatory sterilization would benefit and even protect "pit bulls," here.
We're all puppymillers
Or dogfighters. Or backyard breeders, or hoarders, or "irresponsible owners."
Or blood-crazed, rifle-toting Bambi-killers.
There's an accusation out there waiting for each of us. In the end, no combination of health certificates and show titles, no forlorn adherence to the mandates of a national breed club, no number of pups produced small enough to protect a targeted dog breeder from extremist allegations which will destroy their lives.
HSUS contributes less that 4 cents of every dollar raised to sheltering pet animals. HSUS is not interested in "saving" dogs and they aren't interested in placing good dogs in loving homes.
On the contrary. The goal here, clearly, is to halt the breeding of dogs. By anyone.
HSUS' dupes and apologists
I've got a huge problem when "responsible" and "ethical" dog breeders --not to mention bloggers and freaking journalists -- fall for HSUS jive and completely, utterly, fail to see who they're climbing into bed with. The Humane Society of the United States employs the best public relations advisors money can buy. Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO, will position himself and HSUS any way necessary to achieve his goals.
Watch what HSUS does. Not what HSUS says its doing.
Don't be a chump.