Quote:
Originally Posted by Woogie Man  I don't want to make it about who's doing what either. You brought up that there are organized lobbyists for commercial breeders trying to influence these bills. Also, I'm not 'sitting back' thinking anything. I replied that I had only seen things about the HSUS lobbying for these bills and asked you for more info on any commercial breeder lobbyists. I couldn't find any and you still haven't posted any. For a critical perspective of the HSUS, however, here are a few links.... Humane Society of the United States 7 Things You Didn't Know About HSUS The Death of Hope at HSUS : Nathan J Winograd I also think the rationale for the Courts and Criminal Code Committee writing such an extensive breeder bill ( (l) As a condition of parole, the parole board may prohibit a parolee from owning, harboring, or training an animal, and, if the parole board prohibits a parolee from having direct or indirect contact with an individual, the parole board may also prohibit the parolee from having direct or indirect contact with any animal belonging to the individual.) isn't very convincing. The rest of the bill, that which is in bold type, goes far beyond the Courts and Criminal Code Committee's purview. I see this as legislative sleight-of-hand. Ill-conceived laws are seldom effective and are likely to be challenged in the courts and this bill is a good example of bad legislation. Also, being in opposition to this bill doesn't mean I'm opposed to shutting down puppy mills. I think we all agree on that issue. It just means that I'm opposed to this bill. I can only hope that my state does a better job if they decide to tackle the issue. |
You say, "The rest of the bill, that which is in bold type, goes far beyond the Courts and Criminal Code Committee's purview." I'm not sure what that means. They want to make certain things regarding animals and those who works with them illegal, so wouldn't the bill be best in the criminal code? Maybe this means it will have some teeth, instead of the darn $25.00 fines. Not sure about this, but when things are included in the criminal code and not just any business or agriculture code, both police and sheriffs departments get involved, and it is taken more seriously.
When a policeman finds a person selling drugs, he doesn't just write him a citation, and say, next time I come back, I want to make sure you're not selling drugs. He can arrest the individual, and in fact, it's his duty to do so, because it's in the criminal code as being illegal. This is what happens with the USDA, they are giving multiple warnings and are
asked to fix the problem. They may not even be inspected for another year to see if the problem was fixed. After repeated warnings, they a small fine. This was enough to get some breeders to comply, but it wasn't enough to get other breeders to treat the dogs humanely.