Who won the election?? The animals did!!!

[Kyoko]

Big wins for animals!

The following is a statement from Wayne Pacelle, President & CEO of The Humane Society of The United State.

We can make a difference in lives of others ( and ourselves ) by just voting for what you belive in.....Right to vote is such a previlege, believe it or not.... 

I have been in US since 1984. But I am still only a legal residencial alien ( what a title) and does not have a right to vote. Out of all the rights in the constitution, this right to vote got me to apply for the citizenship this year....

 

Here's the statement......

We have declared victory in Missouri on Prop B! We have prevailed with a 60,000 vote margin. What a night for the dogs! Missouri is the number one puppy mill state in America. We now have a pathway to turn this terrible situation around.
We also won in Arizona -- defeating Prop 109. We protected the right of Arizona citizens to make wildlife policy through the initiative process, and we turned back this terrible power grab by the NRA and their politician allies.
Unfortunately, North Dakota voters rejected Measure 2, an effort led by hunters in the state to ban canned hunts of tame deer and elk trapped behind fences. Read my blog for the latest updates.
Thank you everyone for your support in Missouri and Arizona. This was an incredible victory.
 
Wayne Pacelle, President & CEO
P.S. Monday marked the start of another chance to vote to help animals. We're competing in the Pepsi Refresh Project to help animals who are victims of extreme cruelty. You can vote twice a day, every day, until Nov. 30 to help us win $250,000 to use in rescuing animals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Camilla and Darwin]

I am SO excited about this victory of prop B. It makes me hopeful that we really can get rid of these horrible puppy mills. Definitely a great motivation to keep educating people!

[Jane, Guinness and Murphy]

This is really wonderful news!

[Kathy Spyker]

Great news, a little at a time in the right direction.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

It was so close in Missouri- I think the final vote was 52% to 48% in favor of Prop B. Proof that every vote counts! Little by little, each of us can make a difference, and move one step closer to ending puppy mills for good.

[Allyson, Peri & Taquito]

I just don't understand why this was not a slamdunk. Are there THAT many groups of people that gain from puppy mills? WTD????????????

But I am with everyone else, this is great great great news.

And good luck, Kyoko, on your citizenship :)

[Camilla and Darwin]

There were a lot of groups against it. The AKC was even against it. They claimed that it wouldn't do anything to stop puppy mills, and suggested that the laws already in place simply be enforced more strictly.

[Adina P]

This is my take on the lack of a slam dunk (though I honestly haven't kept up with the specifics of the law/bill in MO):

I don't think anyone except those involved in puppy mills WANT puppy mills. No compassionate person who cares about animals thinks it's a good idea to keep dogs in tiny cages where they have no life and are living in their feces, etc. But I think the issue (with those voting against these 'anti-puppy mill laws') is in defining what constitutes animal neglect/cruelty and fear of freedoms that will be taken away from humans to conduct fair business.

I know one dog lover/trainer whose political beliefs tend toward minimal government involvement in the lives of citizens and while he doesn't in any way support the mass neglect/cruelty/crappy breeding of puppy mills believes that HIS morals shouldn't infringe on the lives of other humans as long as those humans, in return, don't infringe upon his life and liberty to live as he pleases. He is one who thinks that the current neglect/cruelty laws should be better enforced rather than more laws added. He believes strongly that more laws generally do more harm than good and result in the restricted freedom of responsible citizens. This is his GENERAL political stance on most things.

There is also a fear among some dog people that a lot of these laws are signs 'animal rights' groups are winning the battle to remove pet ownership and the reasonable rights of pet owners (breeding, right to train and have 'ownership' over one's pets, right to decide whether or not to spay/neuter, etc). So aside from the terribly biased views of whoever is directly benefiting from 'mills'...there is a group of dog folks with a huge fear of loss of our freedom to live with, enjoy, and own pets, have pet-related businesses, breed, etc...based on the extreme views of PETA and other special interest groups who want to see pet OWNERship abolished. They fear a slippery slope where government or local laws end up controlling pet ownership.

Not sure HOW likely that is to EVER occur...but that's part of the reason for a division as I understand it. Now does anyone have a succinct summary of this law/bill in MO---a summary from a non pro/con site?

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I think this is really only about money. The AKC registers puppy mill dogs the same way it registers any purebred dog...for a fee, based solely on the fact that both parents are of the same breed. That's a ton of money lost if puppy mills didn't exist.
I read some of the Tea Party propaganda which fed into the "slippery slope" fears, and it was logic a five-year-old could have torn apart...but once again, people don't read anything. They don't look at facts or think about whether something makes sense or not., They read a statement "If these laws are passed, legitimate and responsible breeders will be put out of business" and they don't look any further. If they did, they'd see that limiting the number of dogs one person can have on his/her property to 50 would not put any decent responsible breeder out of business. This is just one example.
Fear of freedoms being taken away? I have heard one group protest that our current laws have taken away their freedom to refuse to do business with people of certain races or religions. I have a hard time believing anyone here would say that racial discrimination is a "freedom" that our laws took away from them.
Your trainer friend, I just plain don't understand. " ... believes that HIS morals shouldn't infringe on the lives of other humans as long as those humans, in return, don't infringe upon his life and liberty to live as he pleases". Morals????? How can we base our laws on individuals' morals? What if my morals say it's okay to set fire to my dog? What if it pleases me to do that? Who are you to tell me it's cruel or immoral? It's my dog, and my setting fire to it isn't infringing on anyone else's life. So is that okay?

[Camilla and Darwin]

Slippery slope arguments are always a dangerous thing. Refusing to vote for decent movements because further down the road outrageous outcomes MIGHT occur. Not to get political, but I've seen the slippery slope argument used as justification for a lot of different issues. It's very frustrating, and all subjective.

I agree that the AKC might be protecting their own interests. They generate income from registered purebreds... and that makes them pretty biased in my opinion.

[Adina P]

What exactly does AKC need money for? Are their paid staff WELL paid? It seems so silly how they've sacrificed the awesome benefits of exclusivity and elitism (so membership MEANS something) for the sake of volume of members and meaninglessness.

[Camilla and Darwin]

I don't think it's outrageous to assume the AKC desires more influence, money or power. What organization DOESN'T want to make more money and be more influential. They obviously are a very influential power in the dog world. It makes sense that they want more dogs to be registered under them, because it makes them bigger. The more money they have, the more commercials, dog shows, events, etc. they can do. Which means more people know about them, and they gain influence and power that way.

I am not suggesting a big conspiracy theory, just stating that the AKC obviously has something to gain by having more dogs register with them.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I don't know what all the AKC funds, but they clearly have some major expenses; I mean those big trophies must cost something, and then those judges must be pretty well paid to be able to afford to wear beaded evening gowns to examine a dog's privates.
Seriously, there are more than salaries, but i would have to do some reaearch to find out exactly what their budgets involve. But it is an absolute fact that they charge for those AKC registration papers. And yes, I think it greatly cheapens their image and the meaning of their resgistry.