Alliance for Truthiness: dumbing down Proposition B

so (0.00 / 0)

Home foreclosures in California are due to the fall of the Egg Industry?

Who knew that the egg industry was the foundation of those beachfront estates?

Surprised they didn't find something that the Humane Society did in Michigan to claim that's the reason for unemployment in that state. Or say that the Humane Society made Oklahoma ban cockfighting and now Oklahoma is swamped with crystal meth or something.

Hailing from the land of milk, honey, and Democrats

---

by: RBH @ Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 00:17:16 AM UTC

Side by SIde Comparison (0.00 / 0)

Please compare current law vs. Proposition B before casting your vote. There are links to the actual current law and Proposition B at the top.

http://www.showmedaily.org/201...

I am not a commercial breeder, I simply believe voters should read the genuine article they are voting on rather than base their decision solely on blogs, no matter who's blog it is.

As a former veterinary technician, shelter volunteer, rescuer, and canine behaviorist I'd like to share of few of my own observations and experiences.

One is, that dogs are not universal, what is necessary for the well being of a litter of Chihuahuas might not be beneficial to a litter of Alaskan Malamutes, such as temperature setting.

Two, if dogs are to be given constant and unfettered access to the outdoors breeders will lose the option of allowing the mother dog to deliver and raise her puppies inside the breeders home. While I realize this is probably not done with large scale breeders most of the very small hobby and show breeders I have known often raise their puppies this way as it is preferred by both the breeder and the good homes some of the puppies will be going to.

And I have seen the wonderful result of home raised puppies first hand in the puppies brought into the veterinary clinic/hospital I worked in. I don't believe outlawing it's practice is a step in the right direction. Do you?

Three, Proposition B states:
2) "Sufficient food and clean water" means access to appropriate nutritious food at least once a day sufficient to maintain good health; and continuous access to potable water that is not frozen, and is free of debris, feces, algae, and other contaminants.

Initially, that seems like good common sense. But what if you are potty training a dog and need to take up the water bowl at night to prevent accidents, like I did with my kids when they were young? Why would that be criminalized under Proposition B. I fail to see the logic or decency behind it.

Four, what qualifies as debris in a water bowl? Grass clippings from that mornings lawn mowing? With constant and unfettered outside access you can bet they'll be tracking in grass on their paws and if any are like my dog they'll stick their front paws in their water bowl. It isn't right to criminalize a citizen for caring for a dog in a usual normal manner. The average rational person wouldn't bat an eye at letting their own dog out as they see fit, or a couple of grass clippings in a water bowl that can end up in there in an instant. How would you like to be told you are too stupid to let your own dog out?

Please think of the quality breeders who raise their dogs like pets yet have ten or more, some could be fosters waiting to be spayed/neutered. With Proposition B requests to foster an intact dog would have to be denied, even temporarily in an emergency situation, if fostering put the breeder at or over the 10 dog limit.

I wouldn't purchase a puppy from a large scale commercial breeder, but I know ten dogs is not large scale. I know four out of those ten could be older puppies there for training purposes or showing before going on to another quality breeder and/or show home, or most likely pet home. WIthout keeping a minimal number of dogs easily higher than ten breeders risk bottlenecking the gene pool, nobody wants that right?

Please read and think before voting. Thank you for your time.

---

by: VoiceOfReason @ Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 18:03:14 PM UTC

Or, for that matter... (0.00 / 0)

...I simply believe voters should read the genuine article they are voting on rather than base their decision solely on blogs, no matter who's blog it is...

...over the top literature from a campaign committee that popped up in the last few weeks stating that the Humane Society is pushing Proposition B:

...To abolish all hunting and fishing...

...To cripple and/or destroy all animal industries...

...To make it impossible for anyone to own pets...

...To become the "enforcement" arm of the Federal Government...

If you're opposed to Proposition B this stuff doesn't serve you cause well at all.

543,895 votes

---

by: Michael Bersin @ Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 18:49:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree that it is good to read both the earlier and the proposed legislation; (0.00 / 0)

having done that I still strongly support the slightly higher standards put forth in Proposition B. There are just too many loopholes in the earlier legislation (such as not mandating check-ups by a licensed veterinarian, etc.)

I am not actually sure that your specific objections would pertain; it is not likely that a breeder would be cited for bringing a pregnant female indoors to breed.

Puppies under six month are not covered under the terms of Proposition B.

Stipulating that water be kept free of debris would insure that attendants keep the water clean - leaving debris, no matter how it gets into the watter is not acceptable. If you undertake to breed dogs, you need to make sure you are equipped to keep their living conditions sanitary.

Currently, animals can be kept in wire cages, stacked on top of each other, each cage only six inches taller and longer than the dog. Not acceptable.

---

by: WillyK @ Mon Oct 11, 2010 at 01:01:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Puppies should be socialized and watched over (0.00 / 0)

Not likely is not the same as can't happen.

Everyone should have to play by the same rules. There should be no exemptions for shelters, HSUS, grooming shops, veterinary clinics, or any other dog owner. If Prop. B set of rules is just to establish a minimum standard of care why did they make sure they won't have to follow them?

So, if you're bathing a dog while another dog tracks grass clippings into it's water bowl you actually believe it's reasonable to be convicted of animal cruelty?

I have a dog that dirties his water every time he drinks from it. I change it frequently but if it happens while I'm away it stays like that until I arrive back home to change it...But OK if that's your answer.

Dogs eat grass for goodness sake and you think a piece or two in a water dish for a few minutes is a crime. You couldn't live up to it yourself.

I hope you realize this will actually force farm style raising of puppies and I can't believe you want that to happen. Why don't you prefer them raised in a family environment? - Please, no wise cracks, I'm not talking about huge breeders. I'm thinking of those who show and have just over the limit, 15-20 at varying times. That is the good conscientious breeder I saw at the clinic/hospital.

---

by: VoiceOfReason @ Thu Oct 14, 2010 at 07:08:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Puppies under six months are exempt from the stipulations fo Prop B. Read it. But seriously, (0.00 / 0)

do you really think big breeders (as defined in the proposed proposition) are really bringing all the puppies (a litter each cycle) into their houses and watching over them. No, the puppies and mothers are sitting in tiny cages in often appalling conditions that still actually meet the stipulations of the current law.  As for pets and fostered dogs, they do not fall under the provisions of Prop. B which is solely concerned with dogs over six months of age that are used for commercial breeding.

---

by: WillyK @ Thu Oct 14, 2010 at 15:36:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dogs eat grass when they can get to it . Of course, many dogs in current (0.00 / 0)

breeding facilities in Missouri (legal facilities) don't see much grass.  Also from from my experience though they may eat it, they rarely spit it into the bowls - and if they do, appropriate care and checking would see that the water is changed when necessary. What this provision does is insure that that regular water changes take place.

---

by: WillyK @ Thu Oct 14, 2010 at 15:39:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I should add that inspections have to address evidence ofsystemic violations, not (0.00 / 0)

not the exceptional cases you cite.

---

by: WillyK @ Thu Oct 14, 2010 at 15:42:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

fostered dogs? Seriously (0.00 / 0)

That the owners could be fostering some poor dog and that puts them over the limit?

Seriously?

How unfortunate for you that we can read Proposition B for ourselves and see how your attempts to generate sympathy fall flatly on well informed ears.

This bill would not impact in this situation at all...unless the kindly soul was planning on immediately breeding that poor little defenseless dog in order to sell her puppies through a dog store, or a callous puppy broker like Hunte Corporation.

---

by: shelleyp @ Mon Oct 11, 2010 at 02:27:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course seriously. (0.00 / 0)

Yes, it would. They would not be able to have an eleventh female on their property for any reason.

Look, I don't personally want to see dogs mass farmed either, I am just saying I can definitely some major unfair problems with prop.b.

The nastiness of your comment is unwarranted and does nothing to generate anything positive for animal suffrage.

---

by: VoiceOfReason @ Thu Oct 14, 2010 at 06:42:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where do you get th at from the proposition - it is careful to specify that (0.00 / 0)

the provisions apply only to dogs over six months of age that are used for commercial breeding purposes. A fostered eleventh dog that is not used for commercial breeding purposes would be exempt, as would any household pets. Check your facts.

---

by: WillyK @ Thu Oct 14, 2010 at 22:58:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]