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.comThey 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.