In my original post I made the comparison to a small rudder steering a very large vessel, and I had expected that to be the crux of the post. In many cases the extremists are the minority that run the show and I believe that to be the case with PETA. In the balance of the post I had hoped to moderate the thread a little by heading off the generalized PETA comments since we have several very responsible and even handed PETA members here. I am diametrically opposed to many of the beliefs of these members but I care for them just the same.

To sum it up I had hoped to have a discussion about the notion that extremists want to take away our rights without lumping our friends into the mix.

When I used one word of your post I did not intend to offend you or suggest that you had said something wrong. I'm very sorry if that is how it came across.

The moderation was fair, i wrote that post just after i read the OP's link so you know i was already heated. It was post from labrown that put me on the defense, i guess :( and the post from Wylie's mom, that made me realize how i uncertainly posted, and lumped all Peta members together as extremist, which i know not all are. So i realize now that if you havent of stepped in, i probably could of offended more people, and that really wasnt my intentions.

THANK YOU!!! I agree!! Always remember that for peta and H$u$ it is NOT about the animals, its about the AGENDA.

I was actually trying to comment on this particular part of C C Kent's post
"The fringe element of any group will inevitably be used to malign the group's public image by those who disagree," and how we as humans do this in any situation when defending our own points. The original link does this by displaying the most radical opposition to pet ownership. I didn't mean it in response to you using the word extreme. I think I would have been clearer if I was more specific in my quotation. I just want you to know that it wasn't in response to your original post, which I fully understand and can see how you feel. I originally posted in this thread because the website made me see both sides of the coin, and I was surprised at my own feelings on the subject. The entire thread has been an opinion broadening experience for me. It is interesting that we never really know how we feel until we are faced with the opportunity to make our own opinions.

Well, considering the HSUS is fervently busting puppy mills and Rescued 300 Dogs from a horrid situation and 93 Yorkies from another mill, I would have to disagree with this statement.

And the HSUS Male Employee who has tears in his eyes at the end of that 1st video? I don't think his tears are about money and an agenda. It's about the dog in his arms and the other 299 dogs rescued that day.

There are alot of people that have the best interests of animals at heart. I am not disagreeing with that. But the bottom line agenda of peta and H$u$ is the eradication of ALL pets. Its all in black and white, written quotes of these fanatics.(not talking about you or the other non-fanaticals). Peta and H$U$ play an peoples heart-strings with heat-breaking adds and videos. The more they play these, the more donations they get, the more lobbyists/legislation they can buy, the more the agenda gets done. Ever hear of divide and conquor?

Yes, I have - and I hope they do. :thumbup:

Btw, the eradication of pets is not the goal of HSUS or PETA - read their websites. I've linked to their beliefs regarding pets a hundred times here.

Random quotes do not accurately represent their mission. Or, does gossip and unsubstantiated quotes, taken OUT of their context, mean more than the whole picture?

I am in the middle of fighting anti-dog breeder legislation in Indiana and I thank you for the link to the website.

The bill we are fighting is ridiculous, but not even close to what is going on next door in Illinois. In Illinois the proposal would include all owners of 3 or more intact bitches (I believe over 4 mos of age but it might be 6 mos) to comply with rigid housing requirements, including building indoor/outdoor kennel facilities. Most of us who are serious hobby breeders of toy dogs in particular have 3 or more intact bitches whether we are growing them out, showing them or *whisper* breeding them. I know I do and I know my mentor who lives in Illinois does. My dogs live in my house, as pets, they are not kept in indoor outdoor kennels and there is no way I could afford to build a useless building just to comply with such a law. This bill is being pushed by the HSUS (who funny enough on its website purports to recommend only breeers who keep their dogs in their home) and similarly restrictive bills are being pushed in, I believe, 34 states. Breeders would have all of 6 mos to comply, then if they are investigated and come up short, they have 7 days to either turn their dogs over to animal control or have their own vet euthanize them. The bill is called the cutesy "Chloe's bill" after a dog "busted" from a puppy mill. Funny enough, if the mill got "busted" I guess there is ALREADY legislation in place to deal with mills... so why the need to pass something that is going to affect small hobby breeders?

What we need are strong leash laws to punish those who allow their dogs to roam and breed uncontrollably and we need strong cruelty laws to punish people who neglect or mistreat their pets-- whether they have 1 pet or 20 pets. Adding yet another layer of administrative licensing requirements is not necessary.

Before claiming how harmless the HSUS and PETA are it is probably a good idea to see what they are actually doing, not what they are saying they are doing.

And I would say, before claiming how dangerous HSUS and PETA are, it is probably a good idea to see what they are actually doing, instead of believing what OTHER people say they are doing.

I think it's interesting that when it comes to Animal Rights, it seems that all people can think of are their own rights and how it may infringe on their rights over animals. Are we so human-centric that we can't even fathom that animals are a different creature than us, and that they may have rights unto themselves that have NOTHING to do with us or our agendas and plans for them?

I'm seriously trying to understand the breeder's perspective so please don't take me as being argumentative. Your perspective is as hard for me to grasp as mine is for you so please take this in the intended spirit of trying to understand.

The responsible breeders on this forum are frequently furious over the horrible breeding practices of some. It effects the breeding dogs (health and actual life) and it effects the owners who purchase the puppies that end up sick or dying. It also contributes to the thousands of dogs put to death every day. If legislating breeding isn't the answer then what do you, who do this on a professional level, think is? I'm only talking about the bad breeders- I'm not talking about puppy mills which are also a huge problem and I wish we could legislate the hell out of them too. Iwould back any bill doing so whole heartedly.

I believe in education and economic pressure. The information is out there re: choosing to adopt shelter animals, rescues, or how to find a good dog breeder. But human nature unfortunately operates a lot on whim- as in gee I'd like to have dog because my neighbor's dog is so cute, I am going to get one this weekend.". So off they go to the nearest pet store or person breeding whatever to whatever that runs an ad in the Sunday paper. We need to keep trying to reach those people, to educate them that a dog is not a spur of the moment decision or desire that needs to be immediately fulfilled. We have lots to do on that level, lots of outreach which I know many all breed dog clubs are trying to do via their shows and Meet the Breed events etc. I just cannot agree that you can legislate away this mentality, and as long as it exists there will be producers of dogs to fulfill it.

One of my neighboring district's representatives is always pushing puppy lemon laws because his wife ran out and bought.a puggle from some nasty place that then died soon thereafter. He is an attorney and frankly 5 mins of internet research re; how to find a happy, healthy pet could have made all the difference. I just can't agree to legislate away what are property, due process and privacy rights because consumers won't educate themselves. The mills would be out of business in 6 months if people would just do their homework before buying a dog.

I agree with education too but it isn't working because honest people with good intentions can be conned by those they view as more knowledgeable. As far as dogs being property... true, that is how they are viewed legally. There is plenty of legislation in place on property though. There is actually plenty of legislation in place on our dogs. For example in my state I would be in legal trouble if I left my dog chained outside. In many places (surprisingly not all) you can not choose to have a sexual relationship with your dog. Obviously you can not beat your dog. Until it was legislated otherwise, you could put your dog on the garage floor and castrate him with a knife and no anesthesia- and some people did. You can not chose to fight your dogs. I doubt any of us think these are unfair legislation. When people stop protecting animals, the government steps in. I can't think of anytime that has been detrimental. It usually has to be at a critical point before it's even looked at. Most legislation in place regarding animals is in place to protect the animals but legislating breeding protects animals and the humans that suffer due to bad breeders.

One of the problems is that the legislation treats everyone who breeds-- good or bad-- alike. Under what is being proposed in Indiana I would be considered a "pet dealer" because I sold 5 puppies (I had a litter of 6 totally unexpectedly and kept 1). This would require me to provide my personal information and veterinary records to law enforcement. That is something no one has to do-- identify themselves to police-- unless an officer has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed (and if it is a misdemeanor it would have to be in his presence. Sorry, I am not a criminal suspect because I sold 5 puppies, it is just so stinkin' silly.

Strong leash laws and anti-cruelty laws that apply across the board to someone with 1 pet or many more is all the legislation that is necessary. It happens to be how all the "puppy mills" you hear about being busted are busted. They work.

Also on the issue of spay/neuter, I do not neuter any of my male dogs because it is not beneficial to their health. My females are spayed after they have retired because it is healthier for them. It is simple as wanting what I, in consultation with my vet, thinks is best for my pets. And it isn't really anyone's business but mine if they aren't running around knocking up the neighborhood girls and of course they aren't. Why punish me because someone else won't keep their dogs secured? I just plain don't get it.

Wow , many of the quotes on that site frighten me.

I am all for the humane treatment of animals , but the total eradication of household pets is crazy. I really don't understand the way some of the people in these organizations come across. PETA opposes having pets yet they name Oprah ( the pet owner) person of the year simply because she does a show on puppy mills ? while at the same time claiming we have no right to own animals!? It doesn't sound like they follow their own beliefs but yet they expect me too ? Their beliefs shouldn't be something they pick and choose when it's convenient for them to do so.

I agree bad breeding should be stopped. The "why stop them " part of the equation is obvious , it's the "how do we stop them " part we need to come up with , and I don't think the laws (as they are written now ) that they are trying to put on the books are the right way to do it , but atleast they are moving forward.

Thanks for the link, Yorkielist. The site does seem a little thin on info, though. It looks like they are using some inflammatory comments by PETA and others to get their point across, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I see where there's also a place to join for a fee so it remains to be seen if they're just collecting money or will actually do something. Are they a new group? My own opinion is that many states are trying to enact restrictive legislation as a means to collect revenue and don't have a clue as to what they're really doing. You have to ask just who is advising them as they draft these bills. I agree that you have to look at the overall agenda of animal rights groups and not give them a pass because of some good works. Personally, I like to support my local Humane Society as they are the ones trying to make a difference in my community. The animal rights extremists really turn me off and, in the case of PETA, it seems to be about fund raising first and the welfare of the animals second. Just how much good did the 3 million they spent on the Super Bowl ad do for the animals? Everyone supports better treatment of animals. It's just how to go about it that gets the arguments going. I don't think we need more laws as far as our pets go; just enforce the ones we already have in regards to animal cruelty and neglect. That, and education, will do more good than any half-baked laws to restrict breeders will ever do. Some of these laws may have the unintended effect of actually making things worse by driving millers and such underground. If extremists are instrumental in shaping these laws, you can bet that responsible breeders and the dogs will suffer for it.