Quote:
Originally Posted by RachelandSadie  Wayne Pacelle, President of HSUS says,
"I don't want to see another dog or cat born."
"We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals."
Oh really Mr. Pacelle? So then you are OKAY with thousands and millions of euthanized pets because in your opinion there should be NO domestic animal left? Hmmm... I cannot and will not support a group such as this no matter if Prop. B was worded exactly perfect and would really attack mills and pet stores in MO. i hate this group who spends all their money on themselves and not on the rescues and the spay/neuter clinics who actually do work hard to save puppies. this group is sick and against even pet ownership and wants to completely abolish pets entirely. i will not support them. Yes something does need to be done. this bill has raised a lot of great ideas in order to help shut down puppy mills, but it needs revised, redone, and to have a lot more thought and research into it before any Missourian is going to vote for it. and no one in my family or farming community will support any group that acts like HSUS or PETA they just won't. if ASPCA or AKC put forth a bill like this with much better writing and that made more sense and did something i'd be banging down doors trying to get voters.
What does need to be done:
Funding: we need the money to put MO dept. of agriculture out there enforcing the current laws rather than making new laws that we still don't have the man power to carry out.
Attacking Puppy Mills Specficially: We need a bill that forces all people with ANY number of dogs used in breeding to come under the current law or be fined or jailed. How can you catch a miller if they aren't opperating under any laws? You can't. we need the man power out there regulating ALL operations and not just regulating the law abiding ones.
Attacking Pet stores: you want to shut out puppy mills shut out their main source of sales. the pet store.
Attack the number of dogs: here is where i personally agree with Prop. B. no one shuold have more than 50 dogs breeding at a time that's crazy. while i agree dogs are property, that is cruel to have that many animals at once for the purpose of breeding them for money (dogs and cats only) that should change
Sufficient space and food and water. the current laws are set to already establish heathy food and clean water. sufficient space could be improved upon, but a Yorkie doesn't need 12 square feet of space to live all the time when it's in a transitional period between birth and going to a forever home. shelters don't even have that much space for their dogs...it's nuts. yes we all wish all bred dogs lived in people's warm and cozy homes full of giant living areas, but they don't. that's not realistic, so at least asking them not to use stacked crates and live in filth and have a little more room isn't too much to ask.
we all agree on one thing something has to be done! and fast! but personally i do not believe this bill is written well enough or well educated enough to work and i don't agree with the radical agenda of HSUS. |
My sentiments exactly and I couldn't agree with you more.
The “Humane Society” That Isn’t
Our analysis last year of the Humane Society of the United States’ 2008 tax return drew a lot of eyeballs, because HSUS’s animal-rights priorities became clearer than ever before. Just one-half of one percent of HSUS’s 2008 budget consisted of grants to pet shelters. Meanwhile, the group spent lavishly on animal rights campaigns, lobbying, and litigation to push a PETA-style agenda on Americans.
This week we obtained a copy of HSUS’s 2009 IRS filing, and once again, it doesn't tell a pretty story. (You can view the whole return here.)
As we're telling readers of HumaneWatch.org, HSUS collected $97 million in donations last year and spent $22 million on fundraising. In other words, 23 cents of every dollar HSUS collected went right back out the door to raise more money. (We don't call 'em factory fundraisers for nothing.)
The bottom line for 2009 is the same as usual: HSUS sucked in millions from unsuspecting Americans who believed it was running pet shelters (it wasn’t), or that it would give a substantial portion of that money to pet shelters (it didn’t). Instead, HSUS funneled millions to political front groups and affiliated organizations that it controls.
Last year, HSUS earmarked between 1 and 1.5 percent (we're still crunching the numbers) for grants to hands-on pet shelters. That's a step up from the 0.45 percent HSUS shared with cash-strapped pet shelters in 2008, but it's still a pathetic total.
HSUS’s biggest expenses in 2009 were for direct-mail and online marketing costs, not animal care. Wayne Pacelle, HSUS’s tel-evangelical vegan activist CEO, now has an annual compensation package worth over $269,000. And HSUS contributed another $2.59 million to its bloated executive pension plan in 2009.