Dog Breeders Licensing Bill

of course if someone wanted to target one religion this would be a good way to attack them without showing your true purpose

auroranorth wrote:

of course if someone wanted to target one religion this would be a good way to attack them without showing your true purpose

Aurora, the bill calls for minimal care requirements for households breeding/selling more than 25 dogs per year (I believe). How is that attacking a religion? And which religion? A person using livestock of any kind for profit, from farmers to backyard breeders, has an ethical responsibility to manage the animals in clean, humane conditions. If you're a responsible breeder with a clean facility then you shouldn't mind the inconvenience of licensing.

Two things I think need to happen concurrently with this bill. First, restrictions on shipping puppies. People are buying dogs sight unseen from kennels who look good on a web page, but in reality some of those kennels are atrocious. This is true not only in Wisconsin. If a breeder knew that buyers would be visiting the facility before purchasing their puppies, I guarantee you an immediate decline in puppy mills.

The other action needs to be taken by the American Kennel Club, and that is some type of accounting for the dogs that are papered. As it is now, the AKC is abetting puppy mills by handing out registration through the mail without verifying the health or bloodline of the dogs in any way. Greed is driving some people to breed for traits that are a novelty but not in the best interest of the dog, its bloodline, or the breed at large.

Zen

unless your ignorant of who is breeding puppies on that scale the majority are amish or similar,and i find it highly suspicious that this law originated in the district they have the greatest population in. from reading your post i can see that you spend a disproportionate amount of time and have an agenda,i dont think that we need any of this what i see is left wing nut jobs attacking small businesses.the fact is is that peta takes in millions and gives almost nothing to shelters, if they were a medical Charity they would be in jail for fraud. the same can be said of the HSUS you sound a lot like a paid professional hack they really ought to be limiting the number of times you can attack other people with impunity. i have seen you people from what you are you have an agenda and a lot of guff but your not anywere around when there is a legit case, you are mostly parasites being manipulated to make it impossible to raise livestock or raise a pet. scratch an activist like this and every time you find a nut.

. If you're a responsible breeder with a clean facility then you shouldn't mind the inconvenience of licensing.

what this means translated from idiot is that your home will now be a facility, subject to search by government goons at their whim

you want to make the dog breeders provide genetic background information, the president hasnt even done that.

auroranorth wrote:

unless your ignorant of who is breeding puppies on that scale the majority are amish or similar,and i find it highly suspicious that this law originated in the district they have the greatest population in. from reading your post i can see that you spend a disproportionate amount of time and have an agenda,i dont think that we need any of this what i see is left wing nut jobs attacking small businesses.the fact is is that peta takes in millions and gives almost nothing to shelters, if they were a medical Charity they would be in jail for fraud. the same can be said of the HSUS you sound a lot like a paid professional hack they really ought to be limiting the number of times you can attack other people with impunity. i have seen you people from what you are you have an agenda and a lot of guff but your not anywere around when there is a legit case, you are mostly parasites being manipulated to make it impossible to raise livestock or raise a pet. scratch an activist like this and every time you find a nut.

So much to respond to...

As a matter of fact, I hadn't heard that puppy mills were predominantly run by Amish folk. Being that you're obviously not Amish, I wonder what your stake in this is. Do you breed and sell dogs out of your home? I don't, but I've bred and sold exotic birds from my home. Ethics apply across all groups, classes, and borders. I have no prejudice when it comes to that.

You go on to call me a left wing nut job, a paid professional hack, alleged that I made some sort of attack (on whom, I'm not certain), I'm a parasite who isn't around when there's a legit case (of animal abuse, I presume), and I'm making it impossible for you to raise livestock or a pet. Did I get all that?

After I stopped breeding parrots for sale, I took a different direction and worked with the local shelters to help place birds that were in emergency situations. I spent a few years doing rehab with unadoptable birds, and personally drove to Georgia to deliver two beautiful parrots to a suitable home. While I have never bred dogs, I have taken in stray dogs and cleaned them up and vaccinated at my expense before finding them responsible new families.

I am not an activist. I'm a housewife with a conscience who has seen first-hand the types of kennels that need this licensing bill. If that offended you personally enought to spend two emails attacking me, then I guess you've got yourself a bit of a problem and I feel for you.

Zen

no i am not a hunter or an animal breeder, nor a research worker. But I have researched a lot of rescue set ups and found fraud more often than not. and I am a consumer and I dont want well meaning fools to jack the price of food to cover your hobbies
a good example of the bs people like you preponderate
would be right here.

http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php...

below here is the kind of crap you people caused then waltzed onto the next idiotic spectacle

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view...

Now thanks to goofballs like your self we have all of the cattle in Wisconsin micro chipped under this voluntary mandatory,(no that isnt a typo)
program and they have satellite tracking numbers and gps and the family farm inst a family farm anymore now its a facility subject to warrentless search by the people who brought you waco, ruby ridge and the vince foster murder. of course tha fact that the chips cause cancer and tumors in every use is ignored, tommy gets his cut, the nuts are happy and the cost gets passed on to a consumer, of which the elderly wont get a cola.
once they are done with the cattle then they will do horses, goats, pigs,sheep, chickens , ducks, Thompson even wanted the government to implant them as a part of a new medical program in PEOPLE.
when a police state comes it will be gradual under the guise of do gooders who dont think straight.

What is with you calling me "you people"? I've already told you that I am not an activist and I don't work with any agency. Disagree with my viewpoint all you want, but you'd have better luck convincing me (and others) that your argument is a good one if you'd only leave out the personal attacks and finger-pointing.

Aurora, I just opened the links you provided. The first is a broken link. The second one is an article about microchips causing tumors in animals. Neither of those have anything whatsoever to do with the article, which is about licensing dog breeders in the state of Wisconsin. It's strange to me that you'd be alright with the conditions of puppy mills but rail against microchipping. You say you're not a breeder, but you obviously have some kind of agenda or personal relationship to the issue that drives you to attack anyone suggesting that licensure is a good idea. Care to explain your position more coherently?