West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(45 posts)

Why Is Seattle Not On The List?

Started 4 months ago by funkietoo
Latest reply from singularname

funkietoo
Member Profile

For the past few years, a ban on pet store sales of dogs and cats has been gaining support in cities across the country. Here are just some of the cities that have banned such sales:
Albuquerque (since 2006)
Irvine (2011)
South Lake Tahoe
Austin (2010)
El Paso
Glendale (2011)
Lake Worth (2011)
Fort Worth, FL
West Hollywood
Toronto, Canada
Richmond, Canada

But wait…where is Seattle on the list? We are ‘known’ for being an animal loving, animal friendly city! When are we going to add Seattle, Bellevue, Burien, et al, to the list of cities that ban retail sales of cats and dogs, (plus rabbits and ferrets)? Most pet store dogs and cats come from puppy and kitten mills. And you don’t have to leave Washington State to find these inhumane businesses. Remember the puppy mills in Skagit and Snohomish a few years back?

Proponents of the retail sale of cats and dogs state that consumers should get to decide where they want to get the pet from. However, unwittingly, consumers are often purchasing a 'mill' dog, cat, rabbit or ferret. Proponents also say it will hurt pet stores' sales.

There is a wealth of evidence which supports the position that live pet sales in stores are not critical to the well-being of the industry. Rescue groups, shelters, adoption agencies and licensed breeders have proven they can fill the needs of pet loving households in areas where restrictions have been implemented. (see http://smileydog.com/2011/11/29/should-retail-sales-of-cats-and-dogs-be-restricted/ for backup data).

Banning such sales of cats and dogs, and hopefully rabbits and ferrets, we will:
•Increase the number of animals adopted from shelters and rescue groups.
•Reduce the killing of adoptable animals. In Washington State alone, we kill 60,000 plus healthy cats and dogs in our shelters/rescue groups every year. This does not include the number of cats that are abandoned to survive on their own (and breed generations of ferals); or pets that are killed by their owners (yes, it is legal in many parts of Washington)
•Reduce the amount of money that is spent on rescuing and sheltering animals. Millions are spent every year in King County alone. That is tax money and donation money that could be used elsewhere if we just step up to the plate.
•Shut down at least some puppy and kitten mills. It is simple supply and demand economics.

What can you do to help?
--Write to, or call your City Council members; County Council Members; State Legislators.
--Send letters to Pet Stores that sell cats, dogs, rabbits and ferrets, asking them to provide space for rescue groups’ and municipalities’ adoptable pets instead of selling pets.
--Until every adoptable animal has a home please
don't shop! Always adopt. And encourage others to do the same.

Article about Albuquerque and the ban movement.
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar11/110301k.asp

Posted 4 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Seattle should be on that list.

Posted 4 months ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

Not that I disagree with the idea, but why would this shut down puppy/kitten mills? It seems to me the reverse would happen.

Posted 4 months ago #
westcoastdeb
Member Profile

I agree, retail sales of dogs/cats/ferrets/bunnies/things with feelings sucks. Would this bill, though, just move the breeders to CL and the like?

Posted 4 months ago #
funkietoo
Member Profile

Hi Maple Syrup.

If pet stores that currently sell dogs, cats, rabbits and ferrets could no longer do so, then the demand for puppy/kitten mill pets would be reduced. When demand goes down, so does supply, resulting in less births, which = less money for the mills. Just think of the financial impact to puppy/kitten mills' bottom line if Washington State cities banned retail sale of these animals.

We need a multi-prong approach in order to eliminate these inhumane businesses. Banning the sale of the aforementioned pets is just one strategy in shutting down puppy/kitten mills.

Posted 4 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Do you stay up nights making lists of things to have the government ban? Nothing wrong with a well regulated breeding industry. Come to think of it... never have been without a dog or two in my life...and never bought one from a pet store. Besides what would all the do gooders do to validate their lives without the excess pets? Stop thinking for those "unwitting" people who you think don't have a brain to think with.

Posted 4 months ago #
funkietoo
Member Profile

Westcoastdeb,

Craigslist, the Internet, etc., are all places that puppy/kitten mill animals are sold. This is why we need a multi-prong approach. Banning retail sales, consumer education, a humanely regulated breeding industry, etc., are also part of the solution.

Kootchie: First, thank you for adopting and not shopping! As a 35+ year veteran of animal rescue, I look forward to the day that my services are no longer needed. [ I don't stay up at night]... I think of things during the day that I can post in order to tickle your novel writing aspirations . ;0)

Posted 4 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

My brother lives a wee bit outside of Albequerque.... it's the hot spot for baiting dogs of every stripe. Sell by the zillions... all bred on Indian reservations. Now, what I really would like to know is if Albequerque animal control has seen a decline in cases?

Posted 4 months ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

Still don't get it, funkietoo. Demand doesn't get reduced just because you mitigate supply.

People are always going to want pets. If you give people fewer options to get them, it only strengthens the business of the remaining suppliers. That's why I would actually expect an increase in mill activity and higher profits for the operators.

It's like drugs. Making drugs illegal hasn't reduced the demand, it's driven up the incentive and profits for those willing to engage in illegal activities.

Just how I see it...

Posted 4 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

funkie: Good karma to you. Is there anything — anything easy, that is — we can do to help?

***************************************************************************************

maple and others ask a good question, namely: Would this law, by itself, solve the problem of unethical breeders?

—My answer is: Prolly not. But then, maybe we shouldn't be looking to the law as a complete solution to this problem.

The law shouldn't be seen as a way to rid the world of unethical behavior. Rather, it should be seen as a way of establishing what we, as a society, define as ethical and unethical behavior. What funkie's proposed law would be saying is: Hey everyone! Puppy mills are unethical, and we will shut them down where we find them.

(Still with me on this?)

Of course the law can't catch every last puppy mill operator, but that's where "moral suasion" comes in. Moral suasion means urging your friends and neighbors not to buy dogs from pet stores, CL, etc. because those are connected to puppy mills. Moral suasion means individuals telling unethical breeders: No, you can't do this. It's wrong.

Moral suasion means folks like funkie, hammerhead, furryfaces, anonyme and others bravely coming on here and forcing us all to consider the issue of animal cruelty.

Moral suasion works. But it works best when it also has the force of law behind it. Consider: How much easier will it be to get unethical puppy breeders off of CL when there is a potential penalty involved, both for CL and the breeders?

*************************************************************************************

Have I bored the peewadden out of yOu?
Well, there's law no against that, is there?

Yet.

—David Preston

Posted 4 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

shutting down the market for puppy mill puppies in pet stores is a good start..
better regulation with stiffer penalties for unlicensed breeders would be better..
educating the public as to why a well bred pedigreed pup is a better deal for them than a craiglist sure i have papers cheap deal would be even better
actual enforceable penalties for those who abuse their pets would be even better than that...

those of us who have adopted the cast off "pedigreed" pets from unethical breeders know just how much that "cheap" pedigree can cost over a lifetime.

we have to start someplace..

Posted 4 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Let's start with education and the power of a moral argument? As I see it, animal care has gotten so much better over the years, and not one damn law stopped a abuser yet. Most people define right and wrong by the community standards they observe and hear about... then there are those that don't...and do ya think they care what the law says or does? Good place to start is at home, doing what you think is morally correct. We have breeder laws in WA state SB 5651... did it solve anything? set a good example kiddies....that's what builds community standards.

Posted 4 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

Personally I don't care about puppy mills. I don't care if stores sell them either. Making them illegal in Seattle won't accomplish anything just like the bag ban. Instead the government should be enforcing the laws already on the books.

Posted 4 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

and not one damn law stopped a abuser yet

??

That statement is easily debunked, kootch.

Ever talk with anyone at Animal Control about all the people they ticket and animals they impound on cruelty charges? Animal abuse laws do stop abuse. They also prevent future abuse.

Personally I don't care about puppy mills. I don't care if stores sell them either.

–OK Bostonman. No one says you have to care about your fellow creatures. But you're not going to win any hearts and minds on this Blog with comments like that.

Equating animal cruelty laws with a ban on plastic bags is a stretch . . .

Posted 4 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

kootchman..

if setting a good example was enough
there would be no market for puppy mill puppies in pet stores...
there would be no market for puppy mill puppies at all.

as for those breeder laws you cite...
look again if you think we are adequately funding the enforcement of inadequate laws

bostonman...

i am guessing that when you think puppy mills you think of the lady down the block who supplements her income with a litter or two a year...

not warehouses with cage after cage piled one on top of another with the waste of one dog falling on the dogs below.

We should all care about puppy mills.

that bargain puppy is no bargain by the time you finish paying the vet bills created by all of that neglect
and those genetic issues that weren't disclosed or bred out
and the training bills creating by the lack of early socialization...
and the public costs of abandoned dogs.

people who don't want to make the effort to find and pay for a well bred pedigree
would be far better off adopting a mutt from their local pound
or a neutered pure bred pedigreed pup from a reputable rescue organization.

Posted 4 months ago #
funkietoo
Member Profile

Well stated DBP and JoB.

Kootchie: 'Let's start with education and the power of a moral argument.' We started with this years ago and it continues because it has been very effective. Annually, we used to kill 18 - 20 million adoptable animals in our nation. Now, depending on which study one reads, we annually kill 4 - 8 million adoptable animals nationally. (a friend of mine calls it execution--which is actually more accurate IMHO). This number does not include all the free roaming cats that never end up in a shelter/rescue group, but die a horrible death or the animals that are killed by their owners.

There are many, many facets to reducing the number of adoptable animals that are killed in our shelters/rescue groups. We have made important strides and continue to do so.

maple syrup: Part of banning the retail sale of pets would be to encourage stores that use to 'sell' pets, to open their space for rescued animals to be adopted from their stores. Many small specialty pet stores have done this for years. Some of the big box ones, like Petco and PetSmart, are catching onto this idea. Hence the reduction in puppy/kitten mill pets. The more cities that ban retail sale of pets, the less demand for mill pets, which translate into less animals being born because the inhumane business owners don’t want an ‘excess supply of their product’. ‘Excess supply is expensive to a business owner.

WA state SB 5651 did not go far enough. Our Washington State Legislature was not brave enough to take actions that would make immediate, big impacts.

Posted 4 months ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

Ah, I see.

Just to play devil's advocate one last time, is there a profit in that? Or what is the motive for a PetCo to do it? Expected earnings from sales of food and whatnot?

Posted 4 months ago #
miws
Member Profile

WARNING: Disturbing image....

http://wxow.images.worldnow.com/images/15920181_BG1.jpg

Google "puppy mills", then click on "images" for photos that are even more disturbing. :-(

Mike

Posted 4 months ago #
funkietoo
Member Profile

maplesyrup: Glad I did a better job explaining. ;0)

Petco and other pet stores don't make much of a profit off the sale of live animals. They make their big profits off the products they sell for the animals. Therefore, if they provide room in their store for rescue animals to be adopted, they still sell product and are providing a humane, community service.

Posted 4 months ago #
funkietoo
Member Profile

From the ASPCA: What Is a Puppy Mill?

Puppy mills are large-scale commercial dog-breeding operations where profit is given priority over the well-being of the dogs. Unlike responsible breeders, who place the utmost importance on producing the healthiest puppies possible, puppy mill owners disregard genetic quality. This often results in generations of dogs with hereditary defects, including dental abnormalities, eye problems and limb deformities.

Legitimate breeders also put a lot of effort into giving puppies a good start in life by providing proper nutrition, veterinary attention and thorough socialization. Unfortunately, puppy mill dogs aren’t so lucky. Puppy mills usually house dogs in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, without adequate veterinary care, food, water or socialization. The dogs don’t get to experience treats, toys, exercise or basic grooming. To minimize waste cleanup, they’re often kept in cages with wire flooring that injures their paws and legs—and it’s not unusual for cages to be stacked in tall columns. Dogs used for breeding often spend their entire lives outdoors, exposed to the elements, or indoors, crammed inside filthy structures where they never get the chance to feel the sun or a gust of fresh air on their faces.

When you purchase a dog, cat, rabbit or ferret from a Pet Store or Craigslist Breeder, your money is often supporting a puppy mill.

Posted 4 months ago #
singularname
Member Profile

I don't care about "puppy mills" either. I care a great deal more about what happened to the people who run them to make them think it's okay when it reaches an abuse stage (I'm sure we'd never agree to what that line is)--imo, the people need the help first.

Reminds me of that insane thread about the litter of kittens at NV: Folks were losing their minds over the welfare of those cats, while a hundred or so people sleep in tents with no services.

Reminds me of Green Peace pleading with me to stop the eating of dogs in the Philippines, while ... apparently ... the population is either (a) starving or (b) really like dog meat.

Priorities ...

Posted 4 months ago #
hammerhead
Member Profile

singularname: that mom died while giving birth that was neglectful on the humans part. I know that several people stepped up to help the human, getting the mom fixed so the babies didn't have to be born in the first place. NOPE instead the she died, in my opinion, not only was that neglectful, they are part of the problem by not getting their cat fixed in the first place.

You are right there are people with no homes we know that. That is the governments problem as seen in other threads. What I mean by that is they can't seem to solve anything. The people who run mills are just plain horrible people, there is a difference between hoarding and just being a terrible person. I won't go into that.

We are not talking about other countries and what they eat, we are talking about the plight of animals born in horrible conditions and then sold at a pet store(s).

Petco and Petsmart are big chains but do NOT sell animals from puppy/kitten mills they work with local rescue groups and shelters. That is how they make their money, when people adopt they go buy a bunch of stuff they need for that animal, it is a win/win.

Exactly just search puppy mills and that is all that needs to be said. We can not solve the worlds problems but we do what we can with what are passion is.

Posted 4 months ago #
singularname
Member Profile

I think you have a strong argument. I respect your opinion. I simply disagree with numerous assertions made about the cause of the problems and the proposed solutions. And this greatly weakens your argument, particularly with the emotions and hyperbole that accompany it.

To speak on behalf of *this* blog about what the majority thinks is extremely presumptious. (This was the comment that actual made me involve myself in it in the first place.)

To state emphatically who "the horrible people are" is a very high pedestal to place oneself on.

I strongly disagree with the conclusions asserted about the NV person with the cat/kittens. I think that person's right to privacy was completely trampled on by people who think they know better--and actually don't.

I have no clue how "[homeless people are the government's problem]" has any basis in fact, particularly if the source for that is "these forums."

I see the topic at hand about abusive puppy mills as a fully encompassed subset of the broader topic of animal abuse. DBP's comments on "moral suasion" are what reminded me of the hypocrisies and emotionally driven logic failures I've noted among countless animal rights entities (noting I did think a lot about his comments but I'm not "there" yet).

Anyone who eats or wears cow loses any and all qualifications to be a spokesperson and/or be any kind of "authority" in the animal rescue realm, in my opinion, as regards demanding laws and making any assertions on how people treat animals.

***
My neighbor practices what I consider unethical dog breeding: Five litters in 7 years of one female. It's none of my business. Incidentally, he's a cop--would be interesting how he would prioritize yet another law he'd have to busy himself with in collaboration with the animal welfare police.

Posted 4 months ago #
hammerhead
Member Profile

As I am sure most human women who give birth it can be painful situation, and then imagine a baby being stuck, at least they have doctors there to help them through that situation.

The humans did not do that for this cat

the Seattle law says "it is unlawful for any person to fail to provide his/her animal the medical care that is necessary for its
health or to alleviate its pain; SMC 9.25.081 (H)

That is what these humans did to that cat, which is illegal and cruel.

Posted 4 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

Maybe I am just not sentimental enough. I have had a few dogs and a cat in my life. Whenever one has died I go get a new one. They are pets, just like people they get sick, just like people they pass away. Singularname is right in a lot of ways. Most people that want to complain about animal cruelty probably own all kinds of leather goods or fur or something that was used in the harming of animals.

Posted 4 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Anyone who eats or wears cow loses any and all qualifications to be a spokesperson and/or be any kind of "authority" in the animal rescue realm, in my opinion, as regards demanding laws and making any assertions on how people treat animals.

We've been over this ground before, one way or another. Last time it took the form of: "If you drive a car you have no right to criticize the oil companies for polluting" — but we could easily extend it to just about any reform issue you can think of.

Try this one on for size: "If you voted for George W. Bush, you have no right to criticize him for approving torture."

–It's all the same argument, really. But is it a logical one? No, it's not. Because the conclusion doesn't follow from the assertions made.

Just because you receive a benefit from some product doesn't mean you lose your moral rights and responsibilities when it comes to determining how that product is made or any negative consequences it may have. Just the opposite is true, in fact. The greater the benefit you receive from something, the more you are ethically REQUIRED to care about how it's produced.

So just because I eat meat doesn't mean that I can't criticize the meat industry if it treats animals inhumanely. Yes, I am aware that animals suffer in the production of meat and dairy products. However, since humans are carnivores by nature, I accept that a certain amount of animal suffering is unavoidable if humans are to eat.

At the same time, I consider any animal suffering that is not absolutely necessary to the production of meat to be avoidable suffering. And conversely, any suffering that can be avoided should be avoided. The rest is just a matter of determining priorities: where should we putting the most effort to eliminate suffering?

Do we have our priorities straight when it comes to preventing suffering? Well that's another question, really, and one that would probably be better addressed in its own thread.

Posted 4 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Maybe I am just not sentimental enough.

Au contraire, Bostonman. You ARE a sentimental guy. You are a LIKEABLE guy. And so is singularname —except for maybe the "guy" part. (??)

But you've gotta understand that when you come on a blog that's packed with animal lovers and animal-rights advocates with something like "I don't care about puppy mills" it's just not gonna fly. You could have a heart as big as MOntana, but this kind of statement makes you look downright heartless.

And that's a shame, because all I think you're trying to say here is that some people seem to care more about animals than they do about people. And that's a valid criticism. Whether it's true or not, that is the impression animal-rights advocates sometimes give: that they care more about animals than they do about people.

But trying to counter that with "I don't care about puppy mills" just ain'ta gonna work.

Not here. Not there. Not anywhere.

Posted 4 months ago #
elikapeka
Member Profile

Bostonman and Singularname, I imagine that your pets were cared for, well fed, given appropriate veterinary care and love. Puppy mill puppies don't get that. I don't understand why anybody wouldn't care about cruelty to another living being. I'm thinking and hoping you didn't mean that as harshly as it came across.

And to say that because I eat meat I don't get to have a say in how animals are treated just doesn't make any sense to me. So because I eat vegetables I can't have an opinion about pesticide use? If I voted for Obama, I don't get to criticize anything he does? Yes, I eat meat, but over time as I've become more interested and aware of animal abuse and of the environmental damage caused by large factory operations, I now try to buy locally sourced and organic, humanely slaughtered meat. I try and avoid leather. Do I always succeed? No, sometimes I walk into a restaurant and just order a burger. But my choices are overall a little more thoughtful than they used to be.

And as far as people caring more about animals that people, yes, some do. And that's okay with me. We all (hopefully) have an interest or passion that we give to that makes the world a better place. So whether your interest is in improving things for animals, people, plants, or whatever it is, in the long run things hopefully improve all the way around.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Gandhi

Posted 4 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

It's not that we can't solve anything.. it's more to the point to say we can't solve "everything". I say animals supporters have done a great job, with great progress... but laws banning breeding? Ain't going to solve "everything". Enough of trying to legislate perfection. Gandhi was a Hindi... we are carnivores. It makes a difference in perspective.

Posted 4 months ago #
funkietoo
Member Profile

singularname: You make some valid points, especially in getting to the root cause of an issue, i.e., people eating dogs because they are starving. Not letting them eat dogs does not solve the issue of starvation.

I also agree that the person's(whose cat died) right to privacy was trampled on. There is far more information regarding this incident, however, I have committed to not sharing it publically. In a nut shell... the cat's owners were devastated and not neglectful.

I eat animal flesh maybe once a week. When I do so, animal flesh is from a farm that is certified humane and organic. The animal lead a good animal life and had a bad 5- 10 seconds when they are killed on site--not at a slaughter house.

I avoid leather and other by-products of animal killing whenever possible (since I cannot confirmt that the products came from humanely raised animals.

Posted 4 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

I cared for my pets very much. I still have pictures of me and my black labs after going bird hunting. My labs were the best bird dogs, sometimes they would chase them through the woods and catch them before they got off the ground.

However, as they got older they got more an dmore health problems. I don't think either one made it past 11 because of hip issues. They got to the point where they could barely get up from a lying down position. In one case a vet wouldn't put the dog down for that so me and my old man had to take matters into our own hands.

Do I care about animals (well yes to a certain extent, I have hunted most of them at one point or another) yes. Can I accept the fact that there are a lot of "puppy Mills" that shouldn't be breading, yes. Do I think banning them in a city is the right more, no. Instead the government should just enforce existing laws on animal cruelty to fine or shut them down.

I can't get on the ban wagon whenever something comes up people don't like. Sorry, enforce the existing laws is what I say. Obviously there is a market for those animals or else these people wouldn't do it.

Not everyone wants to pay an inflated price for a pet from a breeder. I looked at getting a dog for the kids, some of the prices these breeders want to charge is insane.

Posted 4 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Laws make people feel good. Takes little effort, largely symbolic, and makes it credible to say.. I support (blank) I supported the law to (blank).... I am a good (blank). I love my pets, give em better health care and prevention probably than 80 per cent of the worlds human population... but this is sorta an urban thing... the cats that survive the winter. kills the most rats and vermin.. get to breed another generation on a Wyoming ranch. Spending ten bucks on a barn cat is unfathomable to some.

Posted 4 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

kootch...

who wants to ban breeding?

a ban on dogs sold in pet stores would limit the market for irresponsible breeding..
and encourage responsible breeding.

Bostonman...

I do agree that sometimes the pricetag on a purebred dog from a responsible breeder seems a bit steep..

but you get what you pay for and in this case you should be getting far more than a dog for your dollars... a responsible breeder will breed to minimize problems like the hip dysplasia you experienced with your bird dogs.

if all you want is a family pet for the kids, you get a much bigger bang for your buck with a mutt or a rescue.

both come with bragging rights.

Posted 4 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

Well both my black labs were from licensed breeders in New Hampshire and they cost about $800 each. That was a while ago too. Still had the hip issues but that is to be expected when they are hunting every year in thik brush.

My kids wented either an English Bulldog or Pug for a dog. We looked at them from breeders and honestly even making a decent salary I can't afford that price tag. So, no dog. If I could have bought one from an unlicensed breeder for $600 I would have.

Posted 4 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

bostonman

bulldog rescue organization

http://www.rescuebulldogs.org/

Seattle pug rescue

http://www.seattlepugs.com/available_pugs.html

Warning..
following these links could lead to your family losing it's heart to a dog...

as for the breeder who sold you two dogs with hip displasia..
that was not to be expected.

Posted 4 months ago #
Bostonman
Member Profile

Good links but neither would place one in my home since I have a 7,6,1 year old with a baby due in summer.

Oh well.

Posted 4 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

then check the local pound for a mutt that will be tickled to share space with rug rats..

Posted 4 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

This is a favorite....

"better regulation with stiffer penalties for unlicensed breeders would be better.."

Like what? A big fat old fine? Jail time? I don't care if they breed 10,000 dogs. If they provide the food, exersize space, it's no different than a rancher who raises 100,000 head of cattle or one that raises 100. The worst of them don't have the money to care for the animals properly, much less a fine. It's an animal husbandry business. What you make illegal, goes underground. What is illegal that has a demand will attract a criminal element. Make the husbandry standards, enforce them, and for heavens sake don't shut down a legal, legitimate distribution network... or suffer the alternative one that rises in its place. Thank you funkitoo for that which you do... it IS making a difference and while not yet perfect... it is getting better, much better.

Posted 4 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

it's the not quite legal, not quite legit mills that this law is after. There will always be those, and if we just ignore, they will assume that's because it's OK to do what they do. And it's not.

Posted 4 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

kootch...

would it surprise you to learn that many of us who fight against puppy mills also fight against any agribusiness that institutionalizes abuse of animals to make a profit?

most of the time I only get to "vote" with my dollars... but once in a while i am lucky enough to get to participate in a good public fight against the abuses perpetrated in what you call "animal husbandry".

Even if you don't think that animal abuse is that big of a deal.. the same self interest should kick in.

That "puppy in the window" is likely to cost you far more long term than a similar pup bought from a responsible breeder because the puppy mills that produce those puppies in the window don't breed to eliminate known genetic disorders and don't invest in the nutrition and socializing that contribute to long term health.

The same can be said for animals that are mass produced to be slaughtered for human consumption.

Posted 4 months ago #
singularname
Member Profile

Is the person from NV being prosecuted under the law, per SMC 9.25.081 (H)? If not, why not? If not, then how do more laws resolve anything?

Posted 4 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

singularname..40 posts up until your last one. A long discussion about puppy mills, and laws to ban them, etc, whether it's needed or not....and out of that, all you can come up with is seeing if someone whose cat died was prosecuted? Really? Seriously?

Posted 4 months ago #
singularname
Member Profile

Ummm ... yeah. I'm not hitting Refresh 24/7. Things to do outside of the computer screen. Really. Seriously. Question still stands.

Posted 4 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

singlularname...

the person who owns the cat at Nickelsville was not prosecuted because the opinion that hammerhead expressed was not shared by authorities.

a person living in a stick house wouldn't be prosecuted for letting their cat get pregnant and give birth at home.

why should someone living in a tent house?

it's regrettable that so many people don't understand the benefits of sterilizing their pets...

the good news is that there are far fewer un-nuetered pets at Nickelsville than there once were...

education does matter.

Posted 4 months ago #
singularname
Member Profile

Dang-it JanS, I'm only one cotton-pickin' post behind! ;->

Thanks for taking the time to answer JoB. The prosecution part just keeps me in the same "why more laws if what we've got aren't enforced (or no one can come up with objective definitions of abuse)" space.

Not sure about the stick house/tent house point you're making, but ... Hey I'm totally down with neutering/spaying pets. Oddly, I've never had a neutered male: One of those "man things" my "country dad" had about "dog manhood" or something goofy; we did spay our females. When I had komondors, the breeder wouldn't let me neuter them, which worked out fine since they never left my side in 10 years. Fortunately, I've discovered komondor rescue, so when I return to a freelance life I know where to go.

And now I've completely gone off the puppy mill and animal abuse rails ...

Posted 4 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^