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

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.

Favorite

0 members favorited this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Adina P on November 4, 2010 at 12:45pm

I find it hard to believe that the 'possible' end result would happen. Too many people who enjoy dog ownership enough that I don't think this imagined no-more-pet-dogs scenario would ever happen. But to a lot of people breed specific legislation--strict leash laws--anti-breeding propaganda--mandatory spay/neuter laws--people against any corrections in training...these are all supposedly connected and will end up ruining our rights to have dogs as pets that we own rather than are just 'guardians of'. I have a hard time believing this posited outcome.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adina P on November 4, 2010 at 12:38pm

I think what he meant was that CURRENT laws already take care of the animal welfare issues (I can't say if that's true as again I'm not familiar with MO laws, current or otherwise). This was a conversation I had with him over 2 years ago (there was no big tea party then) and it wasn't about any specific state. I can't answer for him regarding the setting a dog on fire issue.

As far as legitimate and responsible breeders...should our ideal of what that is (aside from animal neglect/cruelty) form the law? In other words...MY ideal is a breeder who only has a handful of dogs, who keeps them in their home, who trains them, who fully health tests them and only breeds dogs who pass health testing and are of a reasonable age, etc. But should THIS ideal be enforced by law? I would NOT knowingly buy a dog from a breeder with 50+ breeding dogs but between my ideal and 50+ is a huuuuuuge gap. By what criteria do we go on when approving the legality of a breeding program as far as # of breeding dogs? Just asking for the sake of conversation. I can't imagine a responsible breeder needing 50 dogs let alone 51+ dogs. But I'm also hijacking this post and don't mean to. So I'll stop.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Camilla and Darwin on November 4, 2010 at 1:43pm

I think this is an interesting question. I am really turned off by breeders with large numbers as well. I can't say for certain that EVERY breeder with 10+ dogs is a bad unethical breeder... but it's certainly not a good sign to me. I was researching Saint Bernard breeders and found that a very well known breeder lived close to me, one that health tests his dogs and had tons of AKC champions. Then he informed me that he had 70 dogs. WTD? 70 dogs? I never looked into him again. 70 is obviously excessive but what about 10? 15?

Then again... I don't really know how breeding works. I know a Great Dane breeder who is absolutely amazing and he keeps 3 Danes in the home with him. However, he has over 10 dogs that he breeds, that are co-owned and live with other people who live nearby. That seems like a good compromise, no?

Maybe number of dogs could be determined by income and property space? It's fairly obvious that a very low income person with no yard shouldn't have more than say... 4 dogs. Maybe I am way off base... I don't really know how the law works so maybe that would never work. But it does seem hard to draw a line for every breeder, because everyone has a different situation.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ricki and Tara (doodle) on November 4, 2010 at 12:58pm

I agree Karen, that this is primarily about money. There are probably a few people who have their ideas about moral infringement, etc. but they are in the minority. There has to have been some BIG money behind the opposition. Who was it? I have been trying to come up with the groups who benefit from these mills or are fearful of the "slippery slope" and would have provided the funds to kill Prop. B. Here is a list of supporters that I found on BallotPedia;

Opposition
Opponents include the American Kennel Club, the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners, the Missouri Farm Family Agricultural Alliance, Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Pork Producers Association. Joy Hicks, President of the Southeast chapter of the Missouri Pet Breeders Association, and Missouri breeders argue that they are concerned that the proposed legislation will lead to more stringent regulations. "We really don't need more regulations because this is just gonna be the tip of the iceberg to what they'd like to do," said John Schoen, who has a dairy operation in Missouri.[24] Other opponents include: the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners, Humane Watch and the Alliance for Truth.[11] The Missouri Libertarian Party opposes Proposition B.[25]

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle on November 4, 2010 at 2:38pm

Here's some of the big money that lobbies to defeat bills like this: PIJAC - the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council. These are the guys who want the mills to stay in business so the huge brokerage companies like the Hunte Corporation and the pet store chains like Petland can keep operating. OMG, imagine if they pass a law stating that every dog has to have his feet on the ground for twenty minutes each day!!!!! How can they afford to do that?????