So, I'm in Jeff City, MO getting ready to take the MO Bar Exam tomorrow. On the 3 hour drive down here, I was feeling sorry for myself and angry at the world (unusual emotions for me), so I decided to allow myself 10 minutes once here to whine and complain, then get back to work. This my whine forum. So here goes...
Puppy mills all over the world are pissing me off. That people can't see the need for compassion towards an animal that was created by humans, is totally reliant on humans, and is relentlessly forgiving of our flaws is so sad. I typically think people are inherently good, but I do judge people for their inability to feel empathy for an animal. People think animals don't have human emotion, but you only have to spend a week, a day, in our home to see that isn't true. To see my dogs anxiety when I cry, to see their shame if they have an accident in the house, to see their joy when a toy or leash comes out. How can people not see that?
Puppy mills are the reason Gus is the way he is. Why he was so afraid when he came to live with us for 2 months. Why, when placed in his new home, he was so fearful as to break through his leash and run and run and run until no one knows where he is. Why, even if we find him, he won't trust us to approach him and take him home where he can be taken care of. The two months he spent being loved and cared for in my home are nothing compared to the two years of neglect and indifference he learned at the puppy mill.
And then no one seems to care. I've heard more times than I can count that he was just a foster, not my dog, etc... I'm not sad for me, because he wasn't my dog, I had no future with him. I am sad for him. That he is out there in the cold and scary wild, a place he has never been before, dealing with coyotes and cars and all other sorts of things he has never seen before. That he may very likely die afraid and alone, not in the loving arms of someone who cares about him. That if he trusted anyone in the world, it was me, and this is where he has ended up. How can I not do anything I can to help save him from the situation he is in?
I'm frustrated with the dog lovers in Colorado. I expected a community of people to come forward to help find him, but the response has been small. Only a few kind people have come out to look for him. I couldn't imagine a lost dog, especially a Berner, being lost in Kansas City or within a few hours and I wouldn't go out to volutneer to help look for him. Am I so busy I don't have time to do that? That instead of going out for lunch one day I couldn't go look for an hour? Instead of watching tv at night? Instead of staying at a dog show all day, even after my dog is finished showing? I know I would want people to help me look if I lost Jackson, Hilga or Lemon. I know I want people to help look for Gus.
Today driving out of Sedalia, I saw two dogs running along side of 50 highway. Were they lost? Probably not, they were probably farm dogs. SO I didn't stop and pick them up. Maybe I should ahve. I did call the Sedalia Animal Shelter, who told me they didn't do that and to call the Sedalia Animal Control, who said said their Animal Control person wasn't in today and to call the neighboring county, who said they don't have Animal Control so they coulldn't do anything, so I called the Animal Shelter back, who said, well... hopefully the police do something. To which I just about screamed. Its not that the world isn't helping, but that it seems to fighting this effort every step of the way.
Last summer in Sedalia, when Jackson won his major, the day was pretty much ruined. It was pouring down rain outside, we were in the motor home, and there was a lost dog running around on the fairgrounds. A beagle mix. When we talked to the show chair and told them a beagle was lost on the fairgrounds, they were so concerned and told us to bring him in. When we came in dripping wet with a mix, they didn't want to take him. We would have taken him to the shelter, but it was closed and we were in the motor home and didn't live there. One lady actually suggested we let it loose again outside. One suggested the reason I was being so insistent was because we lost (we didn't even lose). Finally, one lady, who had an ounce of compassion, said better not just let him go, one got hit by a car last time we did that. And these are dog people... what does that say?
At the vet on Thursday, sitting in the waiting room with all three dogs, a little dog was hit by a car out in front of the clinic. Someone came in carrying the dog, a very gruesome sight, into a room, but it was obviously dead. The driver didn't even stopped. I felt sad for the dog, and sad for Gus, as that is one of fates he is looking at.
I have to take the bar tomorrow, enough said about that one.
I have to leave my job for the rest of the week to go out to Colorado, and I think this must feel similar to leaving your new born child alone for the first time.
I think that is it. No more feeling sorry for myself. Back to bar prep.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Going Political
I thought it was about time to post some emails on the blog that I've posted on various listservs I'm on. Most of these emails are responses to fear generating posts regarding the HSUS and puppy mill legislation. Nothing frustrates me more than people in the purebred dog world getting caught up in a fear campaign promoting the idea that if we allow protective laws now, next we won't even be allowed to own/breed dogs. It is a ridiculous concept, that if followed strictly, would prohibit any legislation on any topic. Anyways, here are my recent rants...
During a discussion regarding the recent Missouri Prop B, it was requested that someone address the negative parts of Prop B (as no legislation is perfect). My response was, as follows:
The entire text of the proposed legislation can be viewed at the following web
address:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp
Issue #1-- Spiral Effect
From my perspective, one of the biggest issues leading the opponent argument has
nothing to do with this legislation or the language contained within it. The ag
lobby is very strong in Missouri (and this includes puppy mills, but more
significantly beef, pork, and chicken commercial farmers on a larger financial
scale). While puppy mills have obvious objections to the legislation (they have
to actually take care of their breeding dogs and possibly reduce profitability),
there is objection from the ag lobby as a whole, who fears the spiral effect.
They don't want to see any legislation (even reasonable legislation) because
what comes next? Next will it be the commercial meat producers who are
regulated? Next will it be the reputable hobby breeder who is regulated? They
are leading a fear campaign based on the concept that this is the first step to
Missourians losing their rights to own pets and eat meat... a concept that is
in no way based on the language in the legislation.
Issue #2--Limit of 50 Breeding Dogs
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may have custody of more
than fifty covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling
any offspring for use as a pet." (sec.4)
The issue with this part of the statute is that it picks a random number, 50,
and makes that the highest number of breeding dogs a person can own. What about
the imagined puppy miller who has 300 dogs, 300 kennel assistants, and 20
million dollar facilities? While that is an exagerrated example, it is possible
that an owner could provide reasonable care for 50+ dogs. However, legislation is typically intended to work for the rule, not the exception. Lucky for the puppy
millers, there are plenty of loopholes around this requirement. Some of the
loopholes I've heard (not sure how legit they are) are multiple addresses can be
given for one facility, breeding dogs can be owned by different businesses set
up through whomever is convenient (puppy miller's daughter owns 50 breeding
dogs), in-tact dogs aren't neccesarily breeding dogs, etc... However, despite
legitimate opposition to this part of the legislation, I can't imagine that this
measure would affect a reputable breeder.
Issue #3--Care For Dogs
3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or
ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those
animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered
dog:
(1) Sufficient food and clean water;
(2) Necessary veterinary care;
(3) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;
(4) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his
or her limbs;
(5) Regular exercise; and
(6) Adequate rest between breeding cycles.
This applies to breeders having more than 10 female dogs for the purpose of
breeding, so could potentially apply to a reputable breeder. In my opinion,
most reputable breeders will not (should not) have a problem with #1, #2, #3 or
#4 as their dogs live in the home, are fed and watered every day, go to the
vet when they're ill, and aren't crated 24/7. # 5 may be a problem, as regular
exercise requires "unfettered access" to an outdoor run. I would argue
that this is truely intended for dogs living outside of the home in cages; but
to be fair, the legislation reads the way it does, so that is a legitimate
opposition. #6 requires litters be limited to 2 in an 18 month period. I
believe that goes along the same lines as the AKC or BMDCA requirements (can't
remember where it comes from) that a bitch shouldn't be bred more than two times
in a row, with one resting period.
The other argument here is that the standards are too high. The requirement for
clean water requires water be free of debris in the water bowl (grass blade?
drool?). Granted, that is a legitimate concern based on the reading of the
legislation.
When it comes down to it though, this legislation is not intended to pass out
misdemeanors to hobby breeders whose dogs live in the house and are pets first.
There is actually language in the statute that specifically excludes hobby or
show breeders with fewer than 10 breeding females. It is intended to regulate
puppy mills. I can't think of any reputable Bernese Mountain Dog breeders in
Missouri who have more than 10 breeding females, so the numbers of reputable BMD
breeders that this legislation will apply to are VERY few and far between
(athough I could be overlooking someone). If there is one, then granted there
is a risk that some day they may be inspected and the inspector will find a
blade of grass in a water bowl and they might then be charged with a
misdemeanor. A very low risk with very minimal consequences. In my opinion, a
very low risk for a great reward.
During a discussion regarding the recent Missouri Prop B, it was requested that someone address the negative parts of Prop B (as no legislation is perfect). My response was, as follows:
The entire text of the proposed legislation can be viewed at the following web
address:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp
Issue #1-- Spiral Effect
From my perspective, one of the biggest issues leading the opponent argument has
nothing to do with this legislation or the language contained within it. The ag
lobby is very strong in Missouri (and this includes puppy mills, but more
significantly beef, pork, and chicken commercial farmers on a larger financial
scale). While puppy mills have obvious objections to the legislation (they have
to actually take care of their breeding dogs and possibly reduce profitability),
there is objection from the ag lobby as a whole, who fears the spiral effect.
They don't want to see any legislation (even reasonable legislation) because
what comes next? Next will it be the commercial meat producers who are
regulated? Next will it be the reputable hobby breeder who is regulated? They
are leading a fear campaign based on the concept that this is the first step to
Missourians losing their rights to own pets and eat meat... a concept that is
in no way based on the language in the legislation.
Issue #2--Limit of 50 Breeding Dogs
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may have custody of more
than fifty covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling
any offspring for use as a pet." (sec.4)
The issue with this part of the statute is that it picks a random number, 50,
and makes that the highest number of breeding dogs a person can own. What about
the imagined puppy miller who has 300 dogs, 300 kennel assistants, and 20
million dollar facilities? While that is an exagerrated example, it is possible
that an owner could provide reasonable care for 50+ dogs. However, legislation is typically intended to work for the rule, not the exception. Lucky for the puppy
millers, there are plenty of loopholes around this requirement. Some of the
loopholes I've heard (not sure how legit they are) are multiple addresses can be
given for one facility, breeding dogs can be owned by different businesses set
up through whomever is convenient (puppy miller's daughter owns 50 breeding
dogs), in-tact dogs aren't neccesarily breeding dogs, etc... However, despite
legitimate opposition to this part of the legislation, I can't imagine that this
measure would affect a reputable breeder.
Issue #3--Care For Dogs
3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or
ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those
animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered
dog:
(1) Sufficient food and clean water;
(2) Necessary veterinary care;
(3) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;
(4) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his
or her limbs;
(5) Regular exercise; and
(6) Adequate rest between breeding cycles.
This applies to breeders having more than 10 female dogs for the purpose of
breeding, so could potentially apply to a reputable breeder. In my opinion,
most reputable breeders will not (should not) have a problem with #1, #2, #3 or
#4 as their dogs live in the home, are fed and watered every day, go to the
vet when they're ill, and aren't crated 24/7. # 5 may be a problem, as regular
exercise requires "unfettered access" to an outdoor run. I would argue
that this is truely intended for dogs living outside of the home in cages; but
to be fair, the legislation reads the way it does, so that is a legitimate
opposition. #6 requires litters be limited to 2 in an 18 month period. I
believe that goes along the same lines as the AKC or BMDCA requirements (can't
remember where it comes from) that a bitch shouldn't be bred more than two times
in a row, with one resting period.
The other argument here is that the standards are too high. The requirement for
clean water requires water be free of debris in the water bowl (grass blade?
drool?). Granted, that is a legitimate concern based on the reading of the
legislation.
When it comes down to it though, this legislation is not intended to pass out
misdemeanors to hobby breeders whose dogs live in the house and are pets first.
There is actually language in the statute that specifically excludes hobby or
show breeders with fewer than 10 breeding females. It is intended to regulate
puppy mills. I can't think of any reputable Bernese Mountain Dog breeders in
Missouri who have more than 10 breeding females, so the numbers of reputable BMD
breeders that this legislation will apply to are VERY few and far between
(athough I could be overlooking someone). If there is one, then granted there
is a risk that some day they may be inspected and the inspector will find a
blade of grass in a water bowl and they might then be charged with a
misdemeanor. A very low risk with very minimal consequences. In my opinion, a
very low risk for a great reward.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Xmas Part 2: Jackson Helps Chris Open His Stocking
Chris has quite the helper as he opened his stocking this year. Here is the photo series of Jackson double checking all of the gifts to make sure Santa hadn't accidentally put one of his presents in Chris's stocking.
Gus
Below is a photo of Gus, our first BARC foster and most recent Berner foster. He is a puppy mill turnover as a result of Prop B passing in Missouri. Most likely, we will see a lot more Berners being turned over to rescue as a result of the new legislation. But, for the Berners that is great news! Gus is a sweet guy who is still getting use to being loved on and the daily happenings of a house. He is progressing quickly though, and his absolute favorite thing to do is snuggle on the bed. More pictures to come later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)