Arizona – aside from the rambling writings of Ingrid Newkirk (who is a nutjob) and her ilk (who are not the ones driving this type of legislation I believe) where does it actually say that?
[QUOTE=Sonesta;5867429]
For DOG’s sake, Bluey, why do you insist that a law aimed at protecting dogs from horrid puppy mill conditions is an Animal Rights FREAKs’ law? Do you not see that is simply hysteria? And ridiculous?
Were the laws initiated many years ago requiring that dogs get rabies shots ALSO an incidious PETA plan? Or was it simply a law that helped protect dogs from a terrible disease?
Please. Show me the hidden motivation of the PETA fools in having these laws in place? And tell me how the good such laws will do are outweighed by the BAD they will do?[/QUOTE]
You do know that PETA’s motivation for getting these laws passed is to make it harder for anyone to breed and own animals? You do know that PETA has absolutely no interest in animal welfare and it’s stated goal is the end of domesticated animals?
You do know that there are already kennel licensing laws and humane laws on the books that, if enforced, would address all the issues these anti-breeding laws purport to address?
I did not completely read the Texas law that I believe was ultimately defeated but I have many doggy friends in Texas, small responsible breeders, who did read it and fought long and hard against it. These are long time dog people, small, occasional breeders and who actively participate in rescue. They are people that I know to be honest, have integrity, are knowledgeable and care about animals. So I have to believe, the Texas law, as written, was seriously flawed and would have harmed the small responsible breeder more than it would the puppy mills.
[QUOTE=libgrrl;5868462]
Arizona – aside from the rambling writings of Ingrid Newkirk (who is a nutjob) and her ilk (who are not the ones driving this type of legislation I believe) where does it actually say that?[/QUOTE]
It does not say that anywhere, it is just the next step in the AR effort to stop all breeding. Laws are easy to change once they are passed. In my town alone, my KC agreed (wrongly) to support a local law banning dogs from the city park for ONE yearly function, now they are banned from ALL functions…the law was on the books, and a “small” change has now cut into the very rights of our dog owners.
Arizona, I think you meant once on the books, laws are very HARD to change. Hence why dogs are still banned from the city park for all functions.
Once hysteria sets in, there is just no room for rational thought any more.
With the line of “logic” you guys are using, you could claim that ANY LAW on ANY SUBJECT is just the first step and will lead to complete disaster with regard to whatever is the subject matter.
I seem to recall many years ago when laws regarding testing vehicles for emmissions (in order to get an inspection sticker) was heralded as the end of the world for owning automobiles. The first step in banning the driving of gasoline engines. Our cars would be taken away by the crazy environmentalists!
Well, we are still driving our cars and the air is a bit cleaner because of the emmissions control legislation.
Psssst, maybe it’s really NOT a big consipiracy…
[QUOTE=Sonesta;5868584]
Once hysteria sets in, there is just no room for rational thought any more.
With the line of “logic” you guys are using, you could claim that ANY LAW on ANY SUBJECT is just the first step and will lead to complete disaster with regard to whatever is the subject matter.
I seem to recall many years ago when laws regarding testing vehicles for emmissions (in order to get an inspection sticker) was heralded as the end of the world for owning automobiles. The first step in banning the driving of gasoline engines. Our cars would be taken away by the crazy environmentalists!
Well, we are still driving our cars and the air is a bit cleaner because of the emmissions control legislation.
Psssst, maybe it’s really NOT a big consipiracy…[/QUOTE]
I think that some may have a bit of a problem seeing the big picture for the details.
There are not out there some of the largest national non-profit groups, with millions to their disposition, that makes it their task in life to eliminate all car driving.
There are some, with budgets the envy of sovereign nations, that don’t have anything to do with that money other than put out publicity to get more money in AND are working to eliminate all use of animals by humans and so eliminate all domestic animals.
Those are the groups behind the bills the AKC and so many other groups, that cater to our use of animals, are trying to stop.
Your example of car emissions is way off the mark there, the big picture here missing, when you concentrate only on that some, according to you, are only chicken littles yelling “the sky is falling” and don’t know how silly they sound to those like you, that don’t see that at all happening.
I think you are overlooking some very important facts in these situations.
Bluey, you must be young. I say that because when emmission control legislation was being introduced and fought against so vehemently, it was the Sierra Club that was “behind” the legislation.
You don’t get much richer than that.
[QUOTE=Sonesta;5868667]
Bluey, you must be young. I say that because when emmission control legislation was being introduced and fought against so vehemently, it was the Sierra Club that was “behind” the legislation.
You don’t get much richer than that.[/QUOTE]
Well, maybe so, but it is a long ways to who the Sierra Club was them to who the AR groups are today in what their money can buy, in todays world, information being what it is, miles apart.
I will still say, you seem to be fixated on one bill in TX, the AKC is fighting several AR pushed bills in several states.
They know what they are doing and why.
I don’t think you know, are just guessing.
Why not ask them directly, not keep insisting here they are evil, just because you read those bills and didn’t see why they don’t like them?
Bluey, I want you to read this very carefully.
I do not hate the AKC. I am a member in good standing with them. In fact, I am an AKC breeder of merit.
I do not think AKC is evil and I am not “fixated” on the Texas bill.
I DO KNOW the AKC’s stand on the bills and why they don’t like them. And I have actually read these bills - and not just the one in Texas (unlike you and most others who just blindly accept what AKC says about them. Love your comment “They know what they are doing and why.” As if we should all just trust them on this.).
After much research and evaluation, I have come to the conclusion that the AKC’s is against the bills SOLELY because they will negatively affect their income. And in order to get people fired up to oppose the bills, they have begun a very effective propaganda campaign playing on the fears of the average dog owner and breeder.
I completely understand why they have chosen to do this. If my company was facing such incredible threat to its income, I’d likely do the same, but that doesn’t make their propaganda the TRUTH!
Got that? Okay.
Now, go actually do your own research and make your own decision. Do not listen to AKC - or me! - on the issue. Read the bills, research the condition of puppy mills in this country (yes, there is federal legislation that is supposed to control them, but you will find it is sadly ineffective and lacks funding for enforcement and the state bills will give the states the right to enforce standards), read the puppy mill magazines filled with full page ads by the AKC, look at all the facts from every side…and make up your own mind.
If you come to a conclusion different from mine, so be it. We can agree to disagree, but do NOT give in to mass hysteria and buy into propaganda (and if you are as young as you seem, go do some research on what propaganda is and how it affects people).
[QUOTE=Sonesta;5868722]
Bluey, I want you to read this very carefully.
I do not hate the AKC. I am a member in good standing with them. In fact, I am an AKC breeder of merit.
I do not think AKC is evil and I am not “fixated” on the Texas bill.
I DO KNOW the AKC’s stand on the bills and why they don’t like them. And I have actually read these bills - and not just the one in Texas (unlike you and most others who just blindly accept what AKC says about them. Love your comment “They know what they are doing and why.” As if we should all just trust them on this.).
After much research and evaluation, I have come to the conclusion that the AKC’s is against the bills SOLELY because they will negatively affect their income. And in order to get people fired up to oppose the bills, they have begun a very effective propaganda campaign playing on the fears of the average dog owner and breeder.
I completely understand why they have chosen to do this. If my company was facing such incredible threat to its income, I’d likely do the same, but that doesn’t make their propaganda the TRUTH!
Got that? Okay.
Now, go actually do your own research and make your own decision. Do not listen to AKC - or me! - on the issue. Read the bills, research the condition of puppy mills in this country (yes, there is federal legislation that is supposed to control them, but you will find it is sadly ineffective and lacks funding for enforcement and the state bills will give the states the right to enforce standards), read the puppy mill magazines filled with full page ads by the AKC, look at all the facts from every side…and make up your own mind.
If you come to a conclusion different from mine, so be it. We can agree to disagree, but do NOT give in to mass hysteria and buy into propaganda (and if you are as young as you seem, go do some research on what propaganda is and how it affects people).[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, I disagree that those that are against the AR pushed bills, including the AKC, don’t know what they are doing or are only after the money they may lose.
There is way more involved, if you want to see this or not.
Mass hysteria?
How about considering that those that are calling being against the AR groups and their activities may be blind to what is happening with the AR groups and their push with laws to make owning and using our animals impossible?
I still say that, as you started posting, it was obvious you didn’t know what this was all about and now you say you know, you know why the AKC is against those bills, etc.
Ok, anyone can change their story as they learn more.
I still say that maybe you know now, but that was not obvious when we started this thread, thus my previous words encouraging you to learn more before condemning the AKC offhand.
The sad part of this is that if you are right, no harm done trying to keep AR groups from advancing their push to eliminate animal use, if indeed they don’t get it done.
On the other hand, we will be very sad if in the end we have to say, “we told you so”, when it is so clear we are losing to ARs, to even those that say now “those are innocuous bills that won’t hurt anyone”.
Did you not understand what another poster stated, that we already have good animal welfare laws, that those bills don’t add to those, just make owning animals harder?
I don’t think it is us who are warning of those AR group bills who “are listening to mass hysteria”, but those with their head still in the sand about that scary situation of more and more limits on our rights to have and care for our animals, that are not wanting to see behind the words in those bills.:no:
I don’t like the AR nuts any more than you do, but not every piece of legislation involving animals is some sinister plot.
I give up. Time will tell.
[QUOTE=Pcostx;5865307]
Actually yes, the AKC did many, many moons ago, state that the well being of dogs was part of their culture.[/QUOTE]
Which leaves us with the question - are they delusional or lying?
[QUOTE=vacation1;5869539]
Which leaves us with the question - are they delusional or lying?[/QUOTE]
If you listen to AR propaganda, AKC and anyone working thru them or other dog registries or clubs are proponents of abusing dogs.
ARs have been known to open dog crates at dog shows to “free” the dogs.
That they were free to get lost and killed was ok with them, better than being enslaved by humans and put in “jails”.
If you want to have the rights to own and do things with your animals, then you think the AR people are misguided, don’t understand the symbiotic relationship humans have with our domestic animals, that most of us try to do right by them, that abuses will happen, but doesn’t mean anyone is accepting them.
Everyone that has animals abhors abuse, there are already many laws to determine what is abuse and how to treat any abusing animals.
What we don’t want, if we want to keep our rights to have animals, is for those laws to be driven and manipulated by AR groups and their influence, that we know are not for the welfare of animals only if at all, but to eventually terminate our use of animals.
I would think that should make sense to anyone that is not an AR follower.
Well I for one have appreciated the links posted. And I do take Sonesta’s comments very seriously as a breeder of merit. I am very disappointed after reading all the information on the Hunte Corporation posted on their own website. I never realized we had the ‘feedlot’ mentality in puppies. Stupid me. Everyone pooh-poohs’ the old days of backyard breeders, yet, the AKC allows that company to link to their websites. I am struggling mightily with anything I used to believe about the AKC. I truly used to think they had the right motives. Now, I am very skeptical. I had heard how they approached all the national clubs and wanted to push that breeders should do all the individual registrations to ensure the individiual puppies were registered (not just litters). I thought at the time that that was pretty pushy. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the ad in Kennel Spotlight. Do you think I am going to look at every thing from AKC about state legislation and fighting laws to be in their own personal interests from now on? Yes I am. I don’t know if I will consider to show in AKC venues. Still debating my conscience on that one.
[QUOTE=Hannahsmom;5870299]
Well I for one have appreciated the links posted. And I do take Sonesta’s comments very seriously as a breeder of merit. I am very disappointed after reading all the information on the Hunte Corporation posted on their own website. I never realized we had the ‘feedlot’ mentality in puppies. Stupid me. Everyone pooh-poohs’ the old days of backyard breeders, yet, the AKC allows that company to link to their websites. I am struggling mightily with anything I used to believe about the AKC. I truly used to think they had the right motives. Now, I am very skeptical. I had heard how they approached all the national clubs and wanted to push that breeders should do all the individual registrations to ensure the individiual puppies were registered (not just litters). I thought at the time that that was pretty pushy. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the ad in Kennel Spotlight. Do you think I am going to look at every thing from AKC about state legislation and fighting laws to be in their own personal interests from now on? Yes I am. I don’t know if I will consider to show in AKC venues. Still debating my conscience on that one.[/QUOTE]
A previous poster indicated she was contacting the AKC to ask what their connection with Hunt is, why they are supporting a clear puppy miller, if they are.
I too will be curious to hear what the answer is.
As already stated, if someone breeds two duly registered parents and is following all the rules, DNA testing etc., the registry can’t legally now say we won’t register the offspring because of how you conduct business.
Not in dogs or horses or any other, already explained why.
Now, if the AKC is supporting puppy miller’s dog auctions and all that, then they are going to have to change in a hurry, that would sure keep many from doing business with them.
Then, some other that is brought up here, like why fighting AR pushed bills in all those states that is happening, there I know someone better do that, no question about it, if we don’t want to be eventually banned from even owning animals.
We have been fighting those groups here about dog ownership limits, dog specific laws, spaying and neutering wholesale, etc. and most of us don’t even breed.
Doesn’t make sense that anyone calling themselves good dog breeders would not understand how those AR bills are cutting into what they can do as breeders, eventually making breeding dogs practically impossible.
They could try. Instead, what we see repeatedly is an interest in forming a profitable alliance with the filth that is the mill industry. One lost legal case involving the AQHA doesn’t mean there’s no way to ever challenge the “right” of a moral blank slate to register his or her dogs with the AKC.
And if you wish to use the “it’s the decision of the breed clubs, not the registry” argument, I agree that the registry isn’t alone in bearing responsibility for seeking profit over dogs. A lot of well-regarded breeders and individual clubs have resisted actions which would potentially reduce the marketability of their dogs, even if that would help the situation of canines overall. But since these people need the AKC, the registry has some power over them, just as they have some power over the AKC.
why is profit a dirty word?
[QUOTE=vacation1;5870732]
They could try. Instead, what we see repeatedly is an interest in forming a profitable alliance with the filth that is the mill industry. One lost legal case involving the AQHA doesn’t mean there’s no way to ever challenge the “right” of a moral blank slate to register his or her dogs with the AKC.
And if you wish to use the “it’s the decision of the breed clubs, not the registry” argument, I agree that the registry isn’t alone in bearing responsibility for seeking profit over dogs. A lot of well-regarded breeders and individual clubs have resisted actions which would potentially reduce the marketability of their dogs, even if that would help the situation of canines overall. But since these people need the AKC, the registry has some power over them, just as they have some power over the AKC.[/QUOTE]
You make a good point about the input in the AKC operations by dog clubs, but I don’t think that is the way it works.
The AKC is who directs their own operations, have rules for the clubs to follow.
The breed clubs are made of small breeders that are very fiercely protective of their breeds and generally, as with our performance club, kind of have to fight the AKC for what we see we need to do, trying to change their mind here and there.
There are processes by which each club can ask the AKC officers to change rules, but in general, it is a cooperative and at times contentious process.
I don’t think, as you say, the breed or performance clubs as ours, that are part of the AKC, have that much to say in other than about the breed or how to regulate shows.
At least that has been my experience.
Now, the delegates and the general membership does has much power in their demands as a whole, they can change how the AKC operates, to a point.
I think that if the AKC executives are truly coddling up to puppy millers, there will be some serious discussions brought up on the floor at the convention and proposals of changes to the rules to avoid that.
It is bad PR, bad business, bad all around, they will have some explaining to do, will be interesting.
And no, the AKC or any other registry can’t highhandedly decide who is a puppy mill or undesirable breeder and not register their puppies from duly registered parents, that is illegal, see the AQHA precedent setting court case “Marvin Hatley against the AQHA and the white rule”.
No, I am not an attorney, but that was a very important case legally and was thoroughly debated in the horse industry at that time.
Other registries, like the AKC, also took notice of how far they can go to limit who and how register offspring with them.
Breeders/owners of animals subject to registrations also have rights, rights that may trump the registry regulations, what a novel idea.
As any registry, the AKC can try to have rules that you have to be a member in good standing to register and rules defining what that is, like you have no conviction of harming animals, etc.
They can’t just say we won’t let you register if you breed more than two litters a year or more arbitrary rules.
A judge and jury has already said breeders also have rights, one of them is to register offspring, no matter who you are and how far any registry can go to keep a breeder from registering.
That line is right now, legally, a long way in the camp of the breeder/owner of that registrable offspring having more rights than the registry.
A fine line there for any registry of any kind to walk in today’s world.
[QUOTE=threedogpack;5870755]
why is profit a dirty word?[/QUOTE]
:lol: Did I say it was? But when organizations and people start to behave as if profit were a justification for any action, then they have a corrupted and self-destructive view of business. If your profit destroys your own market, it’s not ultimately a profit; a given generation or individual may make out like a bandit, but that’s just what they are, bandits. And that’s how the AKC appears to me sometimes, as an organization so desperate to save itself from losing money and diminishing in size that they’re willing to engage in ever more questionable behavior, risking their identity to maintain their structure.
[QUOTE=vacation1;5871162]
:lol: Did I say it was? But when organizations and people start to behave as if profit were a justification for any action, then they have a corrupted and self-destructive view of business. If your profit destroys your own market, it’s not ultimately a profit; a given generation or individual may make out like a bandit, but that’s just what they are, bandits. And that’s how the AKC appears to me sometimes, as an organization so desperate to save itself from losing money and diminishing in size that they’re willing to engage in ever more questionable behavior, risking their identity to maintain their structure.[/QUOTE]
no, you did not say it, but it came across as if you thought it.
