Shut down those dark Satanic (puppy)-mills!
"There are hundreds of puppy mills in the state, close to a thousand, and many of them operate underground to avoid regulation," Hughes said.And Mr. Hughes thinks the solution to this is...more regulation?
I don't approve of inhumane dog-breeding farms (less perjorative term than "puppy mills"). But I really don't see how they are a legitimate concern of government. And when a legislator's view of the problem is as diffuse as this, the likelihood of the innocent being persecuted increases.
Comments
Posted by: Dave
Posted on: February 2, 2007 09:51 AM
[puppy mills] NOT 'a legitimate concern of government'?
Cruelty to animals has a long history as a
concern of government; whether you think it
legitimate is your opinion[of which you seem
to be an endless font]. We are not dealing
with vacuum cleaners here.
I think the legislation is far too lenient;
many 'pet dog breeders' are nothing more than
'high class', lower volume puppy mills with
perhaps better environmental conditions who
frequently breed for the rarer 'show quality' dog;
the vast bulk of this breeding is sold off as 'pet
quality'. There is a much misrepresentation
made by breeders of these animals who take advantage of the ignorance of the average pet
buyer; were these household appliances the FTC
might be involved.
Any commercial endeavors not regulated will most
assuredly be the ones most likely to be unscrupulous abusers of public trust and/or ignorance. Regulations involving commerce are
frequently put in place to protect those who
may not be authorities on every item available on the market; this probably describes most of us.
Regulation may be loathsome to many, but it is
preferable to chaos.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: February 2, 2007 10:44 AM
Hello, fellow Core-commer!
Yes, I'm an endless font of opinion; this is a BLOG. If you weren't interested in opinion, you wouldn't be here.
Length of concern is not a measure of legitimacy. Governments have been concerned about the religion of their citizens far longer than they have been concerned about cruelty to animals, but now we do not consider that a proper concern of the State.
I am all in favor of purebred animals getting what they pay for. I note to you that that there are breed associations out there for most animals. I am a member of ARBA (American Rabbit Breeders Association) and within ARBA there are sub-associations for most major breeds of rabbit. There is no reason why breeders can't police themselves; in fact, they are the ones who MUST do the policing, as what policeman has the knowledge to know whether animals are being bred true to type and without defects? An organization can endorse certain breeeders and warn of others; if a person chooses to patronize an unknown breeder, well, they get what they pay for. Meanwhile, those who aren't interested in the animal do not have to pay for enforcement costs or otherwise concern themselves.
The problem with regulating to control for imperfect knowledge is that the regulations also fall on the knowledgable, and replace the wisdom of many heads with that of one. I'll probably be blogging on this at leangth today, in another context, if you're interested.
If regulation is good per se, then more must be better, yes? Consider the chaos of the religion market, with so many wastefully duplicative denominations. Wouldn't one state church be better, so that everyone would hear only the truth?
Posted by: Dave
Posted on: February 5, 2007 05:27 AM
"Hello, fellow Core-commer!"
Pretty decent service experience; how about you?
"Yes, I'm an endless font of opinion; this is a BLOG."
Touché-
If I give you the point that length of
concern is not a measure of legitimacy,
it[concern for animal welfare]remains
legitimate concern for government because
individuals/groups cannot be trusted
to 'do the right thing'.
"I am a member of ARBA (American Rabbit Breeders Association)"
I love rabbits....
http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH197.html
Many animal/breed associations DO police
themselves, but knowledge about 'violators'
shared between them has limited effect in
that it is the 'insiders' who have the
information, whereas it is the pet-buying
population at large most in need of this.
You're not going to read about this-or-that
breeder who's strayed from the straight and
narrow in any print or online media; worries
about lawsuits will inhibit this. Only the
most flagrant violators as large-scale
puppy mills where the evidence is easily
seen and documented will end up being the
subjects of newspaper exposé articles...
unfortunately.
"The problem with regulating to control for imperfect knowledge is that the regulations also fall on the knowledgable, and replace the wisdom of many heads with that of one."
Isn't that the case with most things? We
don't live in a perfect society/government.
There is no reason why there can't be numerous
'heads' contributing to the wisdom base; the
internet[or is that 'INTERNETS'?] does that quite nicely[for those who have/desire access to it.
"If regulation is good per se, then more must be better, yes?"
No, not necessarily. Overregulation can be as
bad as none.
"Consider the chaos of the religion market, with so many wastefully duplicative denominations. Wouldn't one state church be better, so that everyone would hear only the truth?"
The religion market can stay as chaotic as it
likes. I don't care WHAT they do as long as they
keep their theological tentacles out of government[this from a hypothermic RC].
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: February 5, 2007 09:08 AM
"It[concern for animal welfare]remains
legitimate concern for government because
individuals/groups cannot be trusted
to 'do the right thing'."
That's true. Unfortunately, government is a group made up of individuals. And they have the armed force to inflict their wrong-thingness on the rest of us. Utopia is not an option. If a breeder does the wrong thing, the effects are local, and felt more by animals (who don't have all the rights of humans). If a government does the wrong thing to prevent that...well, where do you stand on NAIS?
Posted by: Petafoo
Posted on: March 18, 2007 03:53 PM
I agree inhumane and poorly maintained puppy mills should be shutdown and the owners fined. The industry needs regulations and self-regulation obviously won't fly, thus the gov has it's place. Although, it can have reverse effects on the industry if those in charge implement poorly planned regulations that may cause humane and upstanding breeders undue costs to comply.
-------------------------------------
Puppy Images - We Love Animals
Posted by: susan
Posted on: November 11, 2009 01:12 PM
I have a major concern and do not know what to do.
! I recently bought my little "Barkley" from a puppy mill...unknown to me! When I finally realized what was going on I called the aspca,hsus,local vets and save a pet..............no help!!!!!! This mill is in the Wi Dells and the pups are being sold right across the border in IL. I have the name of the vet in WI and the phone number they run out of in IL. If anybody is interested in helping to stop this .............................PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: November 11, 2009 02:34 PM
Hey, Susan, 'splain to me:
1. What is the difference between a puppy farm and a puppy mill?
2. If people didn't raise puppies, where would you get them?
3. Was there anything wrong with Barkley when you bought him? If so, why did you buy him? If not, what's the problem?
4. If your issue is humane raising of animals, why didn't you do due diligence before you bought the dog? I mean, if I were interested in humanely-raised chicken, I wouldn't buy the 50¢ leg quarters from WalMart.