"The welfare of dogs is more than just a numbers game. Limiting the number of dogs a person may own and confuses the real issue of animal welfare–the quality of care given to animals – with the number of dogs a person may own.
"Many of the new standards are confusing, arbitrary, and do absolutely nothing to improve the wellbeing of animals. Instead, they would add excessive expenses to responsible breeders who strive to produce well-bred family pets. Ohio currently has laws that protect dogs. The solution to dog breeding issues in Ohio isn’t more laws–it’s enforcing what’s already on the books.
"Responsible breeders cannot be defined by the number of dogs kept, or even whether they make a profit in selling dogs. Responsible breeders are characterized by the quality of care and conditions that they provide their dogs and the quality (health, temperament and breed type) of the puppies they produce.
"Unfortunately, cruelty and negligence can occur regardless of the number of dogs a person dogs someone owns. Arbitrarily limiting the number of dogs a person can own does nothing to improve the wellbeing of dogs."
“If the law passes, responsible, law-abiding breeders who own more than the number of dogs allowed will be forced to get rid of dogs in order to come into compliance. Some will be driven out of business. Many of their dogs will end up housed or euthanized at local shelters at taxpayers’ expense. And the problem kennels–those already violating Ohio’s negligence and cruelty laws–will thrive because we’ve taken away their competition.
“Proposition _____ is arbitrary, expensive, difficult to enforce –and it hurts responsible breeders.”
Many of the Rescue groups trying to push these laws consider ALL breeders to be "bad." (and they turn a blind eye to the fact that many "rescue groups" themselves are extremely inhumane - see the section "Watch out for some Rescue Groups" on the FAQ Doxies page). They cite the horrible atrocities of puppy millers, completely unwilling to admit that wonderful and caring dog breeders exist.
Not ALL breeders are puppy millers...not ALL breeders are inhumane or cruel. Many of the breeders I know are ALSO highly involved in animal welfare and animal rescues; and they abhor puppy millers as much as any rescue group does, as much as anyone with a heart does.
Unfortunately, the laws limiting the number of dogs is not going to touch the issue at all. I've recently come across NUMEROUS breeders who are selling dogs with "breeder rights." Which means that although the new owner technically (and legally) OWN the dog, the BREEDER owns the dog's reproductive rights. One Dachshund breeder I came across on the net must have had over 30 dogs she placed with "Breeder Rights" - so even though she's breeding tons of puppies - the laws will not affect her at all - because her dogs are in someone else's name and home. But that doesn't change the fact that she is a puppy miller who is bringing tons of puppies into the world and selling them to anyone and their brother who will hand over a fistful of cash.
Ohio HAS numerous (and good) anti-cruelty laws - the problem is, THE LAWS ARE NOT ENFORCED. I heard from a puppy applicant last summer that she came across a breeder with a cage full of puppies at one of those public yard sale places. The puppies were in the hot sun with no shade AND NO WATER, and were obviously suffering. She complained to the local law enforcement and dog warden, and was told that they couldn't do anything. This was in Ohio.
One of my biggest problems with the breeding laws up for consideration is that they consider a "high volume breeder" anyone who has 5 intact dogs - no matter how often or infrequently they are bred. They also stipulate very strict "kennel requirements" - no more than 3 adult dogs together, etc. They do NOT differentiate between an actual "kennel" and a breeder who has no kennel but keeps the dogs in the house. The breeder who has all her dogs in a home cannot possibly conform to the "kennel requirements" and yet will still, supposedly, have to. My kids live together as one big family, I'm not about to separate them into "groups of threes."
Home breeders will also have to allow unannounced inspections of their home at any time. If I had an actual kennel, of course that would be proper, but I don't relish the thought of strangers coming into my house and rummaging around my kitchen, living room, bedroom, etc.
No - the breeder laws which are pushed by the rescuers will barely affect puppy millers, however they will destroy the small compassionate breeders who do not have any kennels, and very adversely affect the compassionate breeders who do have kennels.
There will always be breeders and there will always be rescuers. They should be working together, not against each other. There are good breeders and bad breeders, just as there are good rescuers and bad rescuers. The GOOD folks (good breeders and good rescuers) should be working TOGETHER to get rid of the BAD folks (the bad breeders and the bad rescuers). THAT will be the only way to better the lives of the animals.
Good grief, I don't know of any "rescuer" who has personally rescued as many dogs as we have, 41 of our precious kids were rescues - who stayed with us for their entire lives. NO ONE could be more concerned about animal welfare than we are. We - as well as many (if not most) ethical breeders are EXTREMELY involved in animal welfare; and can't help but feel sad that the folks trying to pass these laws try to make us sound like "the enemy" because we breed dogs. Many compassionate breeders have stricter adoption stipulations than Rescue organizations do, and many breeders are a heck of a lot more knowledgeable. (Again, take a look at the FAQ Doxies page at the section "Watch out for some Rescues".)
I'd honestly like to ask that gal trying to pass the latest breeder law here in Ohio if SHE has actually rescued as many dogs as we have. Personally rescued, I mean; taken in and cared for by herself, for their entire lives - and WITHOUT any monetary or moral support, or without any assistance at all from any organization or group. I'll bet you a great big bag of dog food she hasn't.
It doesn't matter that folks say that these bills "do not target responsible small breeders." THOSE are exactly the breeders that these bills will hurt the most.
Puppy mills deserve to be done away with, especially the ones that the rescue organizations & HSUS publicize in heartbreaking ads. Those breeders violate already existing animal cruelty laws! Instead of trying to use those poor animals to further needless legislation - WHY don't rescuers, HSUS and law enforcement do something to help them - like making sure that the breeders of those animals are held responsible for violating existing animal cruelty laws??????
The irony is that operators of animal-abusing puppy mills would simply flout the new laws or find ways around them, as they always have - while law-abiding breeders would suffer. A further irony is that legitimate breeders passionately support effective animal welfare regulation and animal cruelty laws.
ENFORCE the anti-cruelty laws that are in effect! Whether the breeder is breeding one dog or a hundred dogs - ENFORCE the anti-cruelty laws and penalize (or shut down) those breeders who are in violation - however few or however many they breed.
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
~*~HSUS (Humane Society of the United States)~*~
And before you get all teary-eyed at the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) tv ads, and think that by donating to them you are helping those poor animals they are showing you - think again.
Matter of fact, do you know the difference between:
1) your local Humane Society,
2) the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), and
3) AHA (the American Humane Association)?
Don't accept all the commercial hype - do thorough research before giving your hard-earned money to any charity. Find out exactly how much of what you donate will actually HELP and not go to pay salaries, fund-raising expenses, legal expenses, etc. (Please also see the page “Scams, Charities, Abusers”)The HSUS counts on all those horrific pictures and stories to get you to donate immediately, and you assume that your money will go to help those poor cats and dogs – BUT IT DOESN’T (read below).
The Humane Society of the United States began as an animal welfare organization. Originally called the National Humane Society, it was established in 1954 as a spin-off of the American Humane Association (AHA).
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a radical animal rights group that inaccurately portrays itself as a mainstream animal care organization. The words “humane society” may appear on its letterhead, but the HSUS does not support your local shelter. Local humane societies in the U.S. are independent of similarly named national organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) does not operate, control, or fund local humane societies.
Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials and television commercials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And quite unlike the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.
HSUS is big, rich, and powerful. While most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $162 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.
If you examine their website, you will see them bragging about their five centers "which provide relief and protection to animals" - but all of those are either horse or wildlife centers - NOT dogs or cats or home pets. With all those horrid ads about puppy mills - they don't have ONE shelter which takes in dogs. Matter of fact, I couldn't find anything on their website where they directly helped dogs at all.
The organization: HSUS is a “factory fundraising operation” NOT closely tied to local animal shelters and rescue operations. In fact, these local operations, which do admirable work, receive little to no funding from HSUS. An analysis of its 2008 tax returns shows that HSUS received $86 million dollars of income and paid out $31 million in salaries (more than the White House payroll), $24 million in fundraising expenses, and $20 million in legal expenses (HSUS thrives on stirring up conflict which allows for more fundraising). Only $450,000 went into the actual hands-on care of dogs and cats, or less than ½ of 1% of HSUS’ income. That means for every $19 requested in HSUS emotional TV ads, one thin dime goes to the actual care of animals!
And, by the way, it was the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) which supported that monster Michael Vick who tortured and killed dogs purely for entertainment.
And if you think one penny of the HSUS went to help Vick's poor dogs - think again! They used Michael Vick to get donations and that's all. They did NOTHING to help those poor dogs:
First things first: We’re not fans of dogfighting. And if the charges against Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick prove true, he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But that hasn’t stopped the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) from making him the latest poster boy for its gargantuan -- and apparently misleading -- fundraising efforts. It looks to us like Vick isn’t the only one with some serious explaining to do.
Have we mentioned that we can’t stand dogfighting? We also can’t stand animal rights fundraising that smells of fraud, or smug activists who can’t keep their stories straight.
Case in point: In yesterday’s New York Times, HSUS president Wayne Pacelle called for the pit bulls seized from Michael Vick’s house to be “put down.” That’s HSUS-speak for “killed, because we’d rather not spend part of our $223 million nest egg actually operating any pet shelters.” Pacelle also lamented: “We don’t know how well they are being kept.”
But just a few weeks ago in HSUS’s prominent plea for the public’s donations, the group wrote that it wanted money “to help The Humane Society of the United States care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case … your gift will be put to use right away to care for these dogs …” Click here to see a screen-capture from HSUS’s website, dated July 18. A week later, HSUS quietly changed its fundraising tune. (Click here to compare it with the current, edited pitch for cash -- not that we recommend giving.)
Let’s recap: Vick was indicted on July 17. The next day, HSUS was raising money on the promise that it would be used to “care for” Vick’s dogs. Just two weeks later, the Times reports that not only wasn’t HSUS “caring for” them, but its president had no idea who is, or where. And -- oh, yes -- he’d very much like them dead.
Lest HSUS spin this into a claim that we’re somehow defending Michael Vick, we’ll say it one more time: Dogfighting is disturbing. But so is a predatory animal rights group that’s willing to exploit Americans’ emotions about dogs to build its war chest for unrelated anti-meat, anti-dairy, and anti-medical-research campaigns.
HSUS appears to have had similarly warped scruples following Hurricane Katrina; the Louisiana Attorney General is investigating the disposition of the $32 million HSUS raised in the devastating storm’s wake:
(Red Cross, Humane Society Under Investigation)
(Louisiana attorney general launches HSUS investigation)
Did you know: HSUS raised a reported $34 million in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, supposedly to help reunite lost pets with their owners. But comparatively little of that money was spent for its intended purpose. After the investigation was launched by the Louisiana Attorney General, it was discovered that the HSUS disposition of the $34 million in Katrina-related donations add up to less than $7 million.
Be aware that the HSUS is NOT the American Humane Association, who wrote:
"Through your letters, calls and emails, it is apparent that many of you may be confusing us (the American Humane Association) with a separate organization regarding a relationship with Michael Vick.
"It is The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) that is working with Michael Vick on an anti-dogfighting campaign, not the American Humane Association.
"We are different organizations with different approaches to the issue of dogfighting. American Humane is in no way affiliated or aligned with Michael Vick.
"We are absolutely outraged and heartbroken by Michael Vick’s actions, and have publicly said so. For more than 13 decades American Humane has fought long and hard against any type of animal or child abuse."
A very interesting article about the HSUS' Humane Society University here (talk about spending big bucks for non-accredited schooling, actually run by a non-accredited man - the degrees he has are bogus):
Matter of fact, you want to learn more about the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States)? Click here:
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
~*~ The American Humane Association ~*~
In the late 1800s, several Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals had been established throughout the United States. But it was not until 1873, with the highly publicized story of Mary Ellen Wilson, that the first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was created.
To learn more about the American Humane Association and what they do, visit:
The American Humane Association (AHA) is truly an animal welfare organization, not an animal rights lobbying organization such as HSUS.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) takes advantage of situations such as Hurricane Katrina, Michael Vick and Breeder Laws to bring publicity to themselves and raise funds.
American Humane Association (AHA) actually help animals.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) help themselves.
You should be aware of the difference.
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
What good are any kind of laws if they are not enforced? Anti-cruelty laws exist. The rescue groups showing horrid puppy mill dogs are always "blaming breeders" - that's like calling ALL car drivers homicidal maniacs because some can't drive responsibly.
The REAL issue is CRUELTY - NOT NUMBERS.
Whether it's 100 dogs or 1 dog, the anti-cruelty laws should be enforced.
Trying to reduce cruelty by limiting the number of dogs that are bred is not going to work. It will work to put ethical breeders out of business is all - which seems to be the aim of the rescue groups. Makes me wonder if they are REALLY interested in cruelty - seems most are only interested in shutting down breeders - whether or not they are responsible and loving.
Like I said before - there are good breeders and there are bad breeders - just like there are good rescuers and bad rescuers (see the FAQ page & Animal Scam page for some of the atrocities that some rescues are committing).
Just because a person is a breeder - that doesn't make him "bad", and just because a person is a rescuer - that doesn't make him "good." You have to dig deeper, and IF that person (whether a breeder or a rescuer) is cruel - then shut him down. But for heaven's sake - don't let "general numbers of dogs" dictate whether or not a person or organization is cruel - or think that by regulating the numbers that you'll be putting a stop to the cruelty.
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~