Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Why Pet Stores Should Not Be Illegal

It is true that some -- maybe 'many' -- (hobby) dog breeders feel that dogs should not be sold at pet stores but while that freedom thing gives them the right to believe this, it doesn't make the view correct.

The great majority of hobbyists would not allow one of their own to go to a pet store. Of course that is not only a personal right but makes sense for us: we hobbyists don't have to be sure the public can find our puppies because the fact that it's a
hobby means we can limit our breeding to what we can sell through non-commercial channels.

But going beyond the view that "We would never sell one of
ours through a pet store" to "Nobody should sell dogs through pet stores is a really bad idea, because it supports laws against pet store sales and commercial breeding. Where such laws pass, they create shortages, leading to a gray and/or black market in which (because it is mostly hidden from view) there can be abuses of all sorts, from poor care, to fraud and the selling of known unhealthy animals, to tax evasion. Bad for breeders, bad for the public, and very bad for dogs.

And when small scale (have to be small to hide) commercial breeders are found to be the source of problems, guess who is about to get regulated?
All breeders, that's who -- including those "Pet stores shouldn't sell animals" hobbyists.

A substantial number of hobby breeders
do get it, that all forms of breeding and all visible and open sales venues must remain legal both for our own survival and the welfare of the dogs.

It's like Prohibition: The demand is so strong that there
will be supply. All that repressive laws can do is eliminate the visible suppliers but that leads directly to lower standards.

Monday, July 6, 2009

HSUS and Terrorism

From the Department of Homeland Security report on ecoterrorism:

Among the highlighted organizations, PETA, the Fund for Animals, In Defense of Animals, the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, and certain individuals within the HSUS are known or suspected of having financial ties to individuals and groups associated with ecoterrorism.48 In addition to financial ties to ecomilitancy, both HSUS and PETA, or at least individuals within those organizations, have an established record of supporting individuals and/or groups commonly associated with ecoterrorism.

That represents the most accurate statement I've read concerning the terror links of PETA and HSUS. These organizations do NOT themselves engage in terrorist acts and HSUS stays far away from settings in which the organization could be associated with terrorism. For example it has been several years since they officially attended the annual Animal Rights conferences because speakers and groups there, clearly encourage if not actually advocate terrorist acts.

However it is clear reading their publications and statements by leadership that PETA supports the people who DO engage in terrorism (they've given money) and that HSUS is glad that the terrorists are out there.

How 'glad'? Well, if HSUS really didn't like the fact that this stuff goes on, they would condemn terror tactics as strongly as they do dog fighting, maybe even offer rewards for tips leading to arrest and successful prosecution, again, as they do for dog fighting.

HSUS can say 'Oh ... we don't support THAT' all they want but as long as they do nothing to actually discourage it, they're at least passive supporters