| If you're kind to me, your family will starve. |
A group called Missourians for the Protection of Dogs (backed by the Humane Society of the United States) is gathering signatures to get the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act on the November ballot in Missouri. The ballot initiative would require breeders to do all those things mentioned in the first paragraph.
This does not sit well with the Missouri Farm Family Agricultural Alliance, which claims that Missourians for the Protection of Dogs doesn't really want to help dogs. No, the whole thing is actually a "veiled attempt to regulate animal agriculture in Missouri":
The proposal is less about the welfare of animals and more about achieving their stated goals, which is dangerous for Missouri's agribusiness industry and poses an even bigger threat to the price and availability of food. In the next four decades, worldwide food needs will double while the land mass to produce that food will continue to shrink. Additionally, threats posed by groups such as HSUS [Humane Society], create another type of risk to that food supply.
You see, once we're forced to be nice to sweet little puppy dogs, there's nothing to stop us from being forced to be equally nice to pigs, cows and chickens. It's a slippery slope to the starvation of the entire human race.
Showing 1-4 of 4
One must research HSUS and other animal rights groups to see and understand their true agenda of ending the use and enjoyment of animals as well as agriculture, food sources, sports such as hunting and fishing, research that benefits both humans and animals, and eliminating the human/animal bond that we cherish with our pets. They have published their agendas of ending agriculture as we know it countless times, and have established a pattern in many states across the country as they strive to achieve those goals.
Sadly, the ballot initiative targeting Missouri's dog breeders does nothing to address substandard care of animals. Rather, it targets those who are complying with state and federal laws while allowing those who do not breed dogs to keep any number of them in any environment regardless of how poor the conditions.
Supporting the ballot measure will not improve living conditions for dogs; it will merely eliminate those who are inspected and licensed by the USDA and state agriculture department. That is wrong for Missouri and wrong for our beloved dogs.
There are valid concerns with the ballot proposal mentioned in this story. One of the primary things this proposal would do is limit the number of dogs a breeder can raise to 50. It doesn't matter whether or not the breeder is kind, loving and treating his dogs in the best possible manner, this ballot initiative would impose a ban on all breeding operations that would choose to breed more than 50 dogs.
That may seem arbitrary to some people, but it could set a precident that restricts the number of animals of any species that someone could raise. If the animal rights groups can limit the number of breeding dogs to 50, why wouldn't they come back and try to do the same to farmers who raise cows, chickens or pigs? The slippery slope argument isn't that far fetched, and it's not about animal welfare, it's about imposing limits on production.
Great article! Hopefully Missourians will put this issue on the ballot and help the dogs. Another great piece can be found here, http://hslf.typepad.com/politi... ironically these claims made by the opposition were made 12 years ago, to defend cockfighting. They were wrong 12 years ago with the same claims, and their attempts with the same tactic today are just as wrong. Anyone with questions should visit missourifordogs.com
Expect the agriculture people to come on here in the next couple hours and start leaving endless angry comments about your post.
Seriously though, you're right. There may be valid arguments against this bill (sadly everyone has an agenda, so it's tough to sift through them and see what's valid), but the slippery slope argument certainly isn't one of them.
like
dislike
