[xoxluvablexox]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

I have not read any posts by even one person in this forum saying that dogs were human. Maybe you could point out where that's been said? And while you're at it, could you also point out what section of AB1634 deals with human and dog equality, and what section deals with veterinary malpractice insurance?

I don't think anyone said that dogs were humans. I've said more then once that humans are animals. I'm not sure if thats the same thing. A dog isn't a cat even though they are both animals so I don't know how he would have switch humans being animals to dogs being human. Two completely different things in my opinion.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Not surprised that an AR fanatic would be against such a wonderful organization that is protecting the rights of ALL of us!!!!! Do you eat meat? If yes, they are protecting your rights. Do you not want to eat meat? That is fine, but it is not your right to tell me I can't and to pass laws to make it costly and impossible for me to buy steak or chicken at the supermarket.

I'ed start buying organic meat if I were you. The meat your eating is probably shipped over from China. Gods know your probably eating dog meat and they just call it whatever they want. It's really not healthy for you. So those AR fanatics could actually be saving are lives in the process. Who really knows what they put in those hot dogs??



Saveourdogs-
You are who is being referred to in Patti's book, those that can't see the AR extremists taking over the world. There have been all kinds of bad laws passed due to the activism of these fanatics. It is time for the majority of like minded citizens to say stop the insanity!! And speak up for the rights of all us.

-Taking over the world?! Oh no!! Save the women and children everyone! We're shipping them off to the moon!!

Saveourdogs-if you believe in not eating meat, don't.

-Thank you so much! I really needed your permission to live a healthy lifestyle.


Saveourdogs-If you believe your dog is your little furry child, you are incorrect. it is not a human, it is a DOG. It behaves like a dog, not a human.

-Your right dogs aren't humans. Dogs aren't cats. Dogs are dogs. Humans are humans. Welcome to the animal kindom. That's the way things work out. How nice!! I'ed love to have a nice doggy tail but sadly we lost are tails a long time ago.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Dogsrule

New to the forum, and usually I just browse on some topics of interest, but I had to join in on this conversation. Anyone talking about the virtues of a group like NAIA, and stating that they love animals at the same time, is pretty hysterical in my opinion. The top 2 officers in that horrible group are a lawyer for the Circus and a Cattle Rancher. The only thing they are missing is a chicken rancher, that raises their chickens with their feet stuck to the bottom of the cage because they can't move. You can't get much worse than that in my opinion, regarding animal rights. It is unbelievable that this NAIA group has the nerve to denounce animal rights groups. It would be like criminals banding together and trying to convince the public that the legal system was no good and should be done away with.

Here is there web site where this is clearly mentioned....... http://www.naiaonline.org/about/board.htm

They also are supported by PIJAC and furriers and rodeo groups.

Originally Posted by Dogsrule

Why did you have to skip about 15 names on the site that I posted, to get to the person that you mentioned? (Oh, ignore all the shameful people in charge, but right near the bottom of the list, there is someone that I am not to ashamed to mention )

This group you are bragging about, is an anti-animal group, pure and simple. It is run and organized by people that feel that animals should have no rights at all. That fits in pretty well with how the Circus treats their animals. ( get out the whips and prods)

Yep, you're right, and the person he mentions, along with the group as a whole, has it's interest in helping people protect their profits from animals than in helping animals, themselves. She, in particular, is a dalmatian breeder, and I can find nothing on the web linking her with dalmatian rescue at all. Not enough time, I guess. Too bad though since the dalmatian breed is in so much trouble.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

YOU are the one, in another thread, that thinks humans and dogs are equal. YOU said it, maybe not those exact words, but your intentions where quite clear.

LOL. So I didn't say it, but you know I was thinking it??? Does that go right along with you knowing that Animal Control wants to break down your door? Too funny.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Remember the critical thinking I keep mentioning? And UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES? This IS what will happen because you think dogs are little furry children and want the laws changed that you are 'guardian', not owner.

That is an OPINION I've heard before, assuming you are talking about veterinary malpractice insurance. IMO, that really is a controversial subject with valid points on both sides of the issues. Why should vets be allowed to get away with malpractice simply because you don't put much value on dogs? It doesn't take someone thinking of their dog as a furry person to be severely hurt by the loss of their dog through negligent or intentional harm done in a veterinary clinic. But if it ever does get to the point where malpractice insurance makes costs rise prohibitively high, then the veterinary association will either have to come up with alternative methods or go out of business. Some people think vet costs are prohibitively high already. I pay more for an office visit, for instance to my vet than I do to my own doctor (with co-pay). There's already pet insurance companies that help with pet care, and if vet costs go up, that would likely to be used by more people. Did you disapprove of other veterinary advancements that caused costs to go up? Ultrasounds? Oncology? Etc.?

[quote=saveourdogs;78918] You seem to have a problem a) being polite, and b) being able to see what will REALLY happen when something is passed, not the eutopia that you think will exist.

a) you've got a lot of nerve calling me impolite when you came on this board calling people wackos that you disagreed with, and b) no one knows what will REALLY happen when a bill is passed - not you, no one. We can only guess, and a lot will depend, in regards to this bill, on the humane community and how much they are willing to step up and make it work. Right now we have nothing to work with. This bill gives us a tool. Right now we can't tell someone not to breed irresponsibly, because it's their legal right to do so. With this bill, when it becomes law, we will be able to tell irresponsible owners that it is NOT their right to produce irresponsible litters.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

More and more organizations that previously supported this legislation are changing thier minds as they see the truth and not the AR propoganda originally presented to them. They are writting letters officially opposing the legislation and apologizing for not researching thoroughly previously.

Name them. And I really think that if you want to have any credibility at all, you need to stop classifying people as either AR, or people you agree with. It's not either/or. If someone thinks differently than you do, they aren't automatically AR.

[Quincy]

Yes saveourdogs I'd invite Animal Control Officers to my home and to check things like licenses, permits and they can even say hello to all my doggies, and they do NOT need a warrant and I do NOT need my lawyer present, I'm happy to see them doing a good service to the community.

I noticed that there are some breeders with the American Kennel Club who do NOT want AKC "Field Inspectors" to come to their home, and where some breeders certainly do refuse to make their dogs and records available for inspection when requested, and "Field Inspectors" also want to inspect "Care and Conditions". I feel that heaps of breeders do welcome AKC "Field Inspectors", and similarly they could welcome Animal Control Officers especially if everything is in order and they have nothing to hide.

Here is copy and paste of a part from the lastest AKC Board Minutes, and things like the below seem to appear on a monthly basis, everyone see for yourself and just pick any Board Minutes (not the highlights of the minutes), but keep in mind heaps each month pass these inspections with no problems at all and where inspections are welcomed:-
http://www.akc.org/about/board_minutes.cfm

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Mr. Tim Amey, Grove, OK, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for refusal to make his dogs and records available for inspection when requested. (Multiple Breeds)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Mr. Darvin Fowlkes, Newman Grove, NE, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for refusal to make his dogs and records available for inspection when requested. (Dachshund, Shiba Inu, and Weimaraner)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Ms. Debby Loy, Barnard, KS, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for refusal to make her dogs and records available for inspection when requested. (Multiple Breeds)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Mr. Steven Schulz, Fenton, MI, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for refusal to make his dogs and records available for inspection when requested. (Golden Retriever)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Ms. Kimberly C. Schulz, Fenton, MI, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for refusal to make her dogs and records available for inspection when requested. (Golden Retriever)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Mr. Henry Yoder, Cannelburg, IN, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for refusal to make his dogs and records available for inspection when requested. (Multiple Breeds)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Mr. Kiplee K. Sherman, Show Low, AZ, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for violation of the AKC’s record keeping and dog identification requirements, pursuant to Chapter 4, Section 7, of the Rules Applying to Registration and Discipline. (Alaskan Malamute and Chow Chow)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Ms. Carolyn Stoffel, Phoenix, AZ, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for conduct prejudicial to purebred dogs, purebred dog events, or to the best interests of The American Kennel Club, based on her being found guilty of Cruel Neglect Or Abandonment Of An Animal in the Municipal Court of the City of Phoenix, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona. (Basenji)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Ms. Rebecca Wylie, Dormont, PA, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for conduct prejudicial to purebred dogs, purebred dog events, or to the best interests of The American Kennel Club, based on her being found guilty of Cruelty To Animals/Abuse Of Animals in the County of Allegheny, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Shih Tzu and Basset Hound)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Mr. Joseph Powers, Vinton, VA, from all AKC privileges for five years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $1000 fine for refusal to produce litter records when requested, pursuant to Chapter 4, Section 7, of the Rules Applying to Registration and Discipline. (Boxer, Dachshund, and Boston Terrier)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Mrs. Trisha Powers, Vinton, VA, from all AKC privileges for five years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $1000 fine for refusal to produce litter records when requested, pursuant to Chapter 4, Section 7, of the Rules Applying to Registration and Discipline. (Boxer, Dachshund, and Boston Terrier)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Ms. Rose Becker, Central Point, OR, from all AKC privileges for one year, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $1000 fine for non-compliance with AKC’s Care and Conditions Policy (unacceptable, conditions, dogs and/or facility). (Multiple Breeds)
.

[DogAdvocat]

Thanks for the website, Quincy. Did you notice the motto at the top? "We're more than champion dogs. We're the dog's champion."

I wonder how the puppymills they register fall into that motto? They really should stick to saying they "are just a registry". I've always thought it was illogical that most breed clubs have in their Code of Ethics that they are not allowed to sell to pet shops, but it is common to see AKC puppies in pet shops.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Thanks for the website, Quincy. Did you notice the motto at the top? "We're more than champion dogs. We're the dog's champion."

I wonder how the puppymills they register fall into that motto? They really should stick to saying they "are just a registry". I've always thought it was illogical that most breed clubs have in their Code of Ethics that they are not allowed to sell to pet shops, but it is common to see AKC puppies in pet shops.

evidently I just have a differing definition of what 'puppymill' means. There are plenty of commercial and/or high volume breeders who keep their dogs in wonderful conditions. kennel situations alone does not indicate bad conditions, dog abuse, etc. Simply keeping your dogs in a kennel building or a walk-out basement does not mean puppymill or abuse.

I consider a substandard kennel a puppymill. and the AKC reports them to local authorities and rescinds thier registration priveleges as indicated by the number of commercial establishments that are fined each month.

Did you know that if you are convicted of animal cruelty, you will automatically lose AKC priveleges?

AKC is not AR, they dont automatically assume anyone who keeps their dogs is a kennel, breeds, etc is a dog abuser.

[Dogsrule]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

evidently I just have a differing definition of what 'puppymill' means. There are plenty of commercial and/or high volume breeders who keep their dogs in wonderful conditions. kennel situations alone does not indicate bad conditions, dog abuse, etc. Simply keeping your dogs in a kennel building or a walk-out basement does not mean puppymill or abuse.

I consider a substandard kennel a puppymill. and the AKC reports them to local authorities and rescinds thier registration priveleges as indicated by the number of commercial establishments that are fined each month.

Did you know that if you are convicted of animal cruelty, you will automatically lose AKC priveleges?

AKC is not AR, they dont automatically assume anyone who keeps their dogs is a kennel, breeds, etc is a dog abuser.

AKC encourages people that buy dogs from Pet Shops ( puppy mill retail) to register their dogs with the AKC. AKC has one goal, raise money to keep AKC going. http://www.doghobbyist.com/articles/PetShopPuppies.html

If you really want to be realistic, AKC registered is pretty worthless. http://www.canismajor.com/dog/akc.html



This is copied from the link below.

The AKC Plays a Major Role in Keeping Puppy Mills Running

Please take another moment to e-mail the AKC and ask them to stop registering pet store puppies that are produced in puppy mills by clicking here: http://www.akc.org/akc/contact_akc.cfm If puppy millers could not register their genetically defective, sick, neglected dogs, they would be instantly out of business. Who would pay thousands of dollars for a mutt in a pet store window?

The AKC will tell you that it is not their job to enforce the law and they are doing all they can. This is just a poor excuse - they are making thousands, if not millions of dollars every year from puppy mills, and they have the power to shut them down almost instantly. It's sad that an organization that is supposed to care so deeply about the quality of each breed of dog is making money off the suffering of so many. Their pockets may be lined, but they are definitely dirty. Let them know it is everyone's job to stop animal abuse and they can help by refusing to register puppy mill dogs.



http://www.mydog8it.com/puppy_mills.htm

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

evidently I just have a differing definition of what 'puppymill' means. There are plenty of commercial and/or high volume breeders who keep their dogs in wonderful conditions. kennel situations alone does not indicate bad conditions, dog abuse, etc. Simply keeping your dogs in a kennel building or a walk-out basement does not mean puppymill or abuse.

I consider a substandard kennel a puppymill. and the AKC reports them to local authorities and rescinds thier registration priveleges as indicated by the number of commercial establishments that are fined each month.

Did you know that if you are convicted of animal cruelty, you will automatically lose AKC priveleges?

AKC is not AR, they dont automatically assume anyone who keeps their dogs is a kennel, breeds, etc is a dog abuser.

The fact that you can even say that a "high volume breeder" could keep their dogs in "wonderful" condition, speaks loud and clear about you. High volume breeders cannot keep their dogs in wonderful conditions. It's an oxymoron. The more dogs there are, the less attention they will get. To give them more attention means hiring more people, which means cutting down on profits. High volume also means that these dogs are not socialized to family situations, which is exactly where most pet shop puppies will end up.

No matter what the conditions, responsible breeders do not sell through or to pet shops, and that means that the AKC caters to irresponsible breeders, which certainly is not to the benefit of the dogs.

[Dogsrule]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

The fact that you can even say that a "high volume breeder" could keep their dogs in "wonderful" condition, speaks loud and clear about you. High volume breeders cannot keep their dogs in wonderful conditions. It's an oxymoron. The more dogs there are, the less attention they will get. To give them more attention means hiring more people, which means cutting down on profits. High volume also means that these dogs are not socialized to family situations, which is exactly where most pet shop puppies will end up.

No matter what the conditions, responsible breeders do not sell through or to pet shops, and that means that the AKC caters to irresponsible breeders, which certainly is not to the benefit of the dogs.

High volume breeders are about the almighty dollar, plain and simple. Money first, dogs last. How sad........

Anyway, AR1634 passed, so truth wins out........

[rpe]

saveourdogs,

You are spot on about the AR movement and their wish to make us all petless vegans. There is an abundance of evidence. With ab 1634 the author Mancuso has very close ties to PETA and PETA has said many times they don't think anyone should have pets. It appears many ignore the evidence and just go on emotional appeals. People who wrote and support this bill aren't advocates for animals. When you support a bill that is purposely designed to help ARs eliminate breeding you are working against the very animals you claim to be an advocate for. There's a wealth of information out there on the real AR agenda.


"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive."
-PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?

"I don’t use the word "pet." I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

[LassiesDad]

Originally Posted by rpe

saveourdogs,

You are spot on about the AR movement and their wish to make us all petless vegans. There is an abundance of evidence. With ab 1634 the author Mancuso has very close ties to PETA and PETA has said many times they don't think anyone should have pets. It appears many ignore the evidence and just go on emotional appeals. People who wrote and support this bill aren't advocates for animals. When you support a bill that is purposely designed to help ARs eliminate breeding you are working against the very animals you claim to be an advocate for. There's a wealth of information out there on the real AR agenda.


"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive."
-PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?

"I don’t use the word "pet." I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

I thought you were banned, Saveourdogs?

[RonE]

That would be the reason why it says "Banned" below saveourdogs user name.