Quote:
Originally Posted by concretegurl  Why is it all good intentioned legislation has some random or obstuse bit that throws it all away?
Frustrating
I wont comment on the PETA fringe other than to say many people get involved with supporting PETA because they beleive in the ethical treatment of animals and are inaware of the true extremist and illogical advocacy of PETA now. |
I think that this letter does not show random or obtuse bits at all, in fact as written it seems to show glaring obvious infractions of due process in putting forth the proposed New Ruling.
The FAQ or FACT sheet published is not worth the paper it is written on.
I know we including (I), would love if things could be simple, clear cut, unambiguous, well reasoned, and thoughtfull. This regulation fails on so many levels.
Why? Perhaps all stakeholders were not invited to participate in a proposed new regulation.
Each human can only see to the limit of their vision. Their own small view of the world. But if you solicit many of those small world views, you begin to get an overall view.
If you want to "regulate" internet sellers masquerading as good breeders, is there not another way to do it?
Why not consult with the "brains" of internet to help determine how and in which way is the best cost effective way to do this?