Here we go AGAIN……. the animal extremist hidden agenda in full operation
According to the news, Los Angeles City council
is now calling apparently just passed a LAW that would BAN the “commercial” breeding of dogs, cats, rabbits and chickens in Los Angeles. According to the news article (Contra Costa) it would also PROHIBIT the SALE of animals “bred at high volume farms” to “local pet stores.”
According to the news article, THE STORES WOULD BE “ABLE TO OFFER ANIMALS FROM CITY SHELTERS” FOR ADOPTION –which implied that “selling” regular animals would not be allowed.
The law already PASSED BUT there is not an actual RULE that we found so far, that bans commercial kennels, but instead says —
“The new ordinance will require breeders to: Only breed dogs that are at least 12 months old , Keep puppies in their possession until they are at least 8 weeks old, Place pregnant dogs in separate living quarters at least three days before they give birth and Provide nesting boxes for mother dogs and their puppies.”
This actually is not a big deal and would not necessarily compromise a commercial breeder. So based on this info (if in fact it is correct) we are not seeing that a pet store was actually forced into adopting out shelter animals and not being able to offer any other animals.
A breeder of the Southern California Golden Retriever Association (named Ed Buck, quoted in the contra costa link above) allegedly told the city council that he supports the measure as a way to “allow responsible breeders to operate.”
Is Ed getting paid to be dumb, or is he not dumb but just elitist and clueless in Los angeles?
Now what we have here, re the “allow responsible breeders” to operate, is a complete misunderstanding of what the animal rights extremists are doing. Here we see a very common but pervasive and dangerous issue:
Issue: If animal extremists make bad or illegal laws against the display, sale, or purchasing of an animal, should we all support the illegal/bad laws, just because
we ED thinks it will “allow responsible breeders to operate?”
The very no- nonsense, unequivocal answer is this: HELL NO, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS!!! [ the actual wording used in this law does not say there cannot be sales of normal puppies in a pet store, or that all animals sold must come from shelters–but the “news” report does IMPLY that…]
We are always mindful that animal rights zealots have a habit of standing and protesting outside pet stores until the store either caves in, moves, or gives up when they lose all their business due to protesters.
http://www.thedogplace.org/RIGHTS/Animal-Rights-Abuse_CardozoEsq-09092.asp [explains how “abuse” laws can be implemented where animal breeders will end up harming their own rights by buying into AR strategy]
IF the law had actually been changed where instead of selling puppies, ALL store owners were forced into ONLY selling shelter animals, that would be completely ludicrous and seriously lacking.
Currently SB917 (formerly California AB1122 2010) states that if anyone [meaning ONE person] was not in compliance with every local, state and federal rule at any dog, cat or bird show, then it negates the exemption at the dog/cat/bird show— so if the exemption for the showing owners did not apply, then everyone would be guilty of animal abuse for displaying their animals— and that’s the way THEY (HSUS cronie ARs)——drafted the law.
If one reads the language of the legislation, it does state that the pet shows’ exemption is a qualified exemption; it is conditional upon having every single person being in compliance with every single local, state and federal rule.
If this condition was not met, it would appear that all would then be guilty of animal ABUSE simply because one was not exempted. BUT 501(c)(3)s and shelters are exempted. Thus, for example, at the Pet-a-Palooza animal show/exhibit (Sacramento, Las Vegas, etc) — every single group listed for their events are supposed to be ALL non profit 501(c)(3) type groups…… This would mean that none of the 501(C)(3) groups would be subject to the SB917 law (if it was in effect) — BUT if a dog show with 2,000 dogs was there instead, at the State Fair Grounds, on cement, in a building, THAT show and its exhibitors would NOT be exempted from the same law UNLESS every single participant was in compliance with every single local, state, and Federal law applicable to animals, and possibly more. We do not find a legitimate state interest in this purposeful delineation, nor a rational basis for it.
MISUNDERSTANDING the law as written and especially as applied, means that people believe the law works in a completely different way than it would actually work. Animal rights has gotten as far as it has by slowly and incrementally creating laws that chip away at pet owners’ rights… fining, seizing and finding “abuse” when it doesn’t exist, and using probable cause and misrepresentation to conduct illegal raids/seizure.
Recall the difficulty encountered in Louisville, where HSUS came in and redesigned the entire animal code, got the locals to start seizing puppies by using the news ads, then the lawsuit took several years– and a due process violation was proven. Many thousands of $$ had to be spent. HSUS MADE the laws. Certainly does NOT mean the laws were good.
Another example is the continued, ongoing effort by HSUS in regard to changing regs for commercial kennels (“PUPS”)
http://www.cfainc.org/client/exhibitorsalert.aspx [explained by cat fanciers site]
The “Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act” (PUPS) [Senate Bill S 707 / House Bill HR 835] is a proposed amendment to the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The AWA currently regulates large-scale commercial breeders who sell animals at wholesale or for research. Hobby breeders selling directly to the public at retail are exempt from federal regulation. Since consumers have access to the breeders in direct sales, small retail breeders are currently regulated by local government.
PUPS would expand federal jurisdiction into pets and require federal licensing and inspection of home hobby dog breeders who own one intact female and who place as few as 50 puppies per year. Contrary to the claims of PUPS supporters it is NOT limited to Internet sales. It would apply to a breeder who places pets “via any means of conveyance.” The USDA is currently under fire for lax enforcement of existing law. In FY 2008 the USDA had 99 inspectors who conducted 15,722 inspections or re-inspections on facilities including 4,604 licensed breeders and 1,116 licensed brokers.
The numbers of facilities/homes that would be added by PUPS would be in the thousands, meaning fewer inspections of the large, commercial breeders the AWA was intended to regulate. The USDA’s current animal care regulations cover breeders who sell at wholesale, who breed commercially in large quantities, and are ill-suited to home-based hobby breeders.
Compromising the regulations in order to accommodate the newly added home breeders may lessen the enforcement of the AWA standards of care for the commercial operations it was intended to regulate. [ HSUS lost the fight to bring hobby breeders under the federal law years ago.. the lawsuit was brought forward under the Doris Day Animal League, which HSUS owns] see the Appellate verdict http://www.animallaw.info/cases/causfd315f3d297.htm
The display for sale animal abuse law [SB917, Calif] clearly will make prima facie abusers out of dog show people, and that’s how it was written—on purpose. The bottom line is that HSUS could not snare hobby breeders into the AWA in the Doris Day case, so they approach the issue by trying to stop sales of commercial kennel animals, try to stop online selling, try to limit the numbers of animals brought to market, limit or eradicate larger wholesalers.
In addition, HSUS also attempts to stop hobby breeders by making regulations in the states, which make it more expensive, more difficult, and essentially employs AR strategy to pit those smaller breeders against the larger breeders (home v commercial) so that they can create dissention in the group. When this is done, they take away a united front of breeders, regardless of size. Breeders should not be polarized, as this destroys the very thing that allows such sales to exist, which is commerce and commerce among the states.
Hey ED– we thought you showed or sold dogs???