MY DOG, MY CHOICE: Great web-site!!

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by chloesMama

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!?

You may want to read PETA's stance on companion animals:

About PETA >> FAQs >> Companion Animals

And this is from PETA regarding animal rights:

Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy—it is a social movement that challenges society’s traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.”

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by wildcard

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.

This is a great point. I agree wholeheartedly.

I would much rather discuss positive ways we might address the issues rather than all of us engage in, yet again, the pros and cons of PETA and HSUS. You know? It would be so much more productive.

[C C Kent]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

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.

There is no law that will change this self evident truth. In the present day when information has never been more accessible....people are only ignorant because they choose to be. 15 minutes of rudimentary searches on the internet should not be too much to ask of a person about to make a fifteen year commitment to a new pet. I think it's important to remember that we can't childproof the whole world. At some point adults have to accept some degree of responsibility.

[Akbritt]

Originally Posted by labrown

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.

Thank you!

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

This is a great point. I agree wholeheartedly.

I would much rather discuss positive ways we might address the issues rather than all of us engage in, yet again, the pros and cons of PETA and HSUS. You know? It would be so much more productive.

I agree, Ann, that we need to be more productive in our efforts. It seems we're essentially all of one mind but of many (often conflicting) voices. The problem is that so many laws are being hastily drafted. The rub seems to be in who is advising the legislators as they write these bills. For me, I'd rather see nothing done than the wrong thing being done.

[C C Kent]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

I agree, Ann, that we need to be more productive in our efforts. It seems we're essentially all of one mind but of many (often conflicting) voices. The problem is that so many laws are being hastily drafted. The rub seems to be in who is advising the legislators as they write these bills. For me, I'd rather see nothing done than the wrong thing being done.

Good Post

For example, there are businesses closing left and right because of the child safety legislation regulating lead. I've heard that some books printed prior to 1980 will have to be destroyed. Those retailers specializing in ATV's for kids are being forced to assure that no part of the motorcycle has a significant lead content. Compliance with this law will cost the industry about one full year's revenue. Or in laymens terms, everyone go home...were' done here.

This is characteristic of hasty legislation.

[chloesMama]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

You may want to read PETA's stance on companion animals:

About PETA >> FAQs >> Companion Animals

And this is from PETA regarding animal rights:

Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy—it is a social movement that challenges society’s traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.”

I have read it. I am only going by her own words ...and in my book if money overshadows your beliefs and convictions then you must not hold those beliefs very close ..... *and money and press is why I believe she would name Oprah , who has adopted almost all her dogs from breeders , something Ingrid is supposedly against , woman of the year even though that seems to contradict her feelings on the breeder situation* JMO

Like I said I am for the humane treatment of animals , but I think any bill that is rushed through would do more harm than good in the end. There is never a way to make everyone happy but to rush something that will have a state / nationwide effect is not good judgement. Everyone wants to see an end to puppymills and bad breeders , but In most cases it seems they are the ones least effected by the bills.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Yes, I have - and I hope they do.

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?

Well if you hope they do, I hope you look forward to having no pets at all, let alone Yorkies.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

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.

As usual, well said!!

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by wildcard

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.

Again, well said!

[yorkiekist]

If anyone still doubts that there is a very persistent and organized effort to curtail the rights of dog owners, please read this link in it's entirety:The Monthly National Legislation Report

[Breeze]

Weird I can't see the second page of this thread when I click the 2nd page link.

[yorkiekist]

You can read many more, similar, quotes from the leaders of the Animal Prohibition movement at this link NAIA: Quotes from animal rights extremist leaders Permission to cross-post this part, too!

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

You can read many more, similar, quotes from the leaders of the Animal Prohibition movement at this link NAIA: Quotes from animal rights extremist leaders Permission to cross-post this part, too!

As pointed out earlier by both sides of the issue - throwing quotes out there on some web page, quotes taken completely out of their context, should not be given much merit at all.

Quotes thrown on a page are nothing but alarmist propaganda, and hopefully most people are wise enough to see past that.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

I hope you look forward to having no pets at all, let alone Yorkies.

I'm not going to engage in snarky comments with you.

I look forward, as I always have, to decades of supporting animal rights and welfare, having pets, and especially being owned by yorkies. And I'm fully confident that all of those things will coexist quite wonderfully.