yes, that NRA. Yes, those kinds of puppy mills:

The National Rifle Association says it's about defense of the Second Amendment. But more and more, it's about doing harm to man's best friend.


In the 2009 legislation session, the gun group has been going state to state setting its sights on public policies that would crack down on abusive puppy mills. They actively lobbied against an Arizona bill requiring that puppy mill producers are subject to inspections by county enforcement agents at any time during regular business hours. They are working hard in Indiana and Minnesota to derail bills that would limit the number of dogs confined in puppy mill cages and set basic standards of care for exercise, flooring, and veterinary treatment. The Arizona and Minnesota bills have been shelved, and an NRA-backed amendment would gut Indiana's legislation.

It's a mystery why the NRA cares so much about defending the status quo when it comes to puppy mills. It can't be a core issue for gun owners. The NRA claims that the puppy mill bills would impact hunting dogs, but surely most sportsmen would want their dogs raised humanely by responsible breeders, not treated like a cash crop. A dog who lives in a filthy wire cage with no exercise, socialization, or human interaction might not end up being a very good hunting partner out in the field, after all.

It may just be that the NRA has a knee-jerk opposition to any animal protection issue, no matter how modest or common-sense.

Not so fast there. Think about it. We already license and register dogs. So how much longer will it be before we face total dog confiscation? Well, according to the NRA, if the anti-freedom, er, anti-puppy mill lobby has its way, not long. Not long at all.

<snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/why-does-the-nra-hate-pup_b_263235.html

There was a time when the NRA was about training people on the safe handling of guns. There was also a time when our money was backed by silver. These times are over.

before right wing nut Wayne LaPierre took over the reins in the 1980s or 90s. When I started getting literature from them telling me to vote for republicans, I stopped supporting them.

and made it obvious what they really are...

That was the turning point.

And yeah, in the 1950s as a kid, I took a marksmanship course sponsored or set up by the NRA, at a summer camp for girls. That was the sort of activity the NRA spent their money on in that era and those that followed.

I have guns, but they have never been transferred out of PA and were purchased by my late father-in-law LONG before they recorded such transactions.

WTF?

Maybe the NRA's "paranoia" about gun registration is a cover for their own recording of who has what guns. They are a RW organization, in their modern form, and historically it has always been the right that has confiscated the citizenry's weapons.

:cry: :cry: :cry:

Why OBAMA? WHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?!?!?!?

Trying to make "sense" of anything coming from the neanderthal NRA is insane.

nt

I can't think of any reason the NRA would defend puppy mills.

The NRA has been campaigning against the HSUS under the guise that they are trying to take away the 'right' to eat meat and 'own' and kill animals.

"Unfortunately, Senate Democratic Leadership chose to side with the anti-hunting extremists at the HSUS" ... "HSUS will use this bill, should it pass, as a template for future legislative efforts in order to achieve its true goal — eliminating ALL commercial dog breeders." ... "NRA will continue to work to oppose the HSUS agenda,"
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5084

and not jumping off cliffs...

not to mention pathetic as well.

gun rights??? the only connection i can make is that these puppy mills must have guns and they are afraid inspections will make them take their guns away?? i don't understand. i don't want to make a leap as to the possibility of use of guns to harm or kill puppies or dogs. i can't imagine that would be it. do they not care about animals??

that will reduce the availability of certain hunting dogs.


Puppy mill is one of those emotionally explosive words that not easy to define. The concern is that such broad brush legislation will put legitimate and caring dog breeders out of business. It also raises the issue of why existing anti-animal cruelty laws can't address the problem.

Only their opponents do, it seems....

I have no strong feelings on the issue one way or another. I was just answering a queestion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=357739&mesg_id=357739

You may develop some feelings on the issue yet...

OK, puppy mills are bad - I don't question that at all. But do the details of the legislation also put out of business breeders who do not run puppy mills? Good breeders that take care of their dogs?

Do you recall a common ruse to shut down abortion clinics? They would try to pass legislation that said that clinics had to meet the same standards as hospitals - an impossible standard. And when challenged, they would claim you didn't care about endangering the lives of women. Emotional labels to hide their true intent.

In this case, the question is what is the practical effect of the legislation. Is is tightly drawn to impact just puppy mills as shown in your link or is the true intent to significantly reduce the number of dogs breed in America? The Humane Society has an agenda too and it extends well beyond puppy mills.

And claiming that shutting down puppy mills is a "ruse," akin to the agenda of Operation Rescue?

did I not say that shutting down puppy mills is a good thing. The question is whether the law will shut down dog breeding businesses that are not puppy mills.

the puppy mill legislation isn't exactly the stuff of "Hidden Agendas...."

If you want hidden agendas, you'd be better off casting your gaze toward the NRA, in this instance...

will this law do harm to dog breeders that do not run puppy mills?

"Commercial breeder" means any person who owns or maintains 15 or more
intact female dogs of breeding age and 30 or more puppies for the purpose of
sale. Nothing in this Article shall apply to those kennels or establishments
operated for the purpose of boarding or training hunting, sporting, herding,
show, or working dogs.

You might want to take the time and look it up. The bill itself is only 4 pages long.

to hell with the right wing NRA.

Keep the gubmint off my dog raisin'! I'm sure they'll skim another few mill off their core rube base.

What does the second Amendment have to do with puppies?

They probably support dog-fighting too.

Since it impacts hunting dogs the NRA had a POV on it. Makes sense to me.

Apparently they passed S460 that allows for the confiscation and euthanizing of "illegal" dogs from unlicensed breeders or Puppy Mills.

A lot of people that work training retrievers and other hunting breeds (my uncle out West of Omaha for instance) may raise one litter a year. He has an excellent reputation for good stock and great training when the dog matures.

Typically all the puppies are sold before the litter is even born, most of the first few picks go for well over $1000 a pup. Those dogs get treated better than my cousins do. If a customer is unhappy after a few months with the dog he finds a family to take the dog as a pet with no trouble. That's happened maybe twice in over 20 years and I took one of them.

From what I can tell S460 is a poorly written bill that would allow a government official to determine that he, or any other occasional sporting dog breeder, is an unlicensed "puppy mill" and come in, confiscate the dogs, and euthanize them all.

Since the difference between a puppy mill and a specialized and occasional breeder is pretty obvious it would seem that a simple redrafting of S460 could easily correct the problem.

But heck, why let actual facts get in the way of a good rant and rave.

...typical scattershot approach to any legislative issue which they feel threatens their developmentally stalled "Libertarian" approach to the world and all its issues...

They don't work on solutions -- just hammer and tongs opposition to *anything* they fear might impinge on their self-created "lifestyle." Ergo, they are not about "re-drafting," just inflexible, fear-based opposition.

They work on an entirely emotional level. But why let that get in the way of a good apologia?

... why not spend the 5 minutes it would have taken to actually read the NRA bulletin noted in the article and give people an honest profile of what this was really about instead of taking the cheap shot approach?

"Scattershot"? So the NRA doesn't work on "solutions" right? So when they lobby congress or ask their members to contact their legislators about an issue that's not taking action? Of course when they do that you scream and rant about how they are unfairly pressuring the legislators or how they own congress. You really want it both ways.

Jeebus, you claiming that they work on an emotional level is definitely a "pot v. kettle" concept.

Blind, uninformed stereotyping, hatred and fear of a group (especially one that has D members and endorses D candidates including my congresswoman) may be a nice, admired Freeper value, but around here, not so much maybe.

on any issue, because that opens the door, just a crack, on the idea they might be "wrong" on something else.

And that, for an NRA defender, is intolerable.

Here's a video of a puppy mill, by the way:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x357739


This is what you're defending.

and I don't believe the NRA is either. But you already knew that or you're too stupid to draw breath without an instruction sheet and the lights on. You just saw this as another chance to take a cheap shot at a group you actually know little to nothing about and try once again to paint it with a broad brush just like some anti choice freeper.

The issue is whether a blanket regulation designed to stop Puppy Mills should be applied to all dog breeders regardless of size. Maybe we should apply it to your aunt Hilda if her Corgi has puppies. I guess that makes her a puppy mill too. Confiscate them and kill them all seems to be the approach you favor. You sound a lot more bloodthirsty than anything the NRA is proposing.

It's a stupid an idea as the Zero Tolerance policies have become in schools. One size does not fit all, no matter how far you try and stretch the rules.

There are more than few things I disagree with the NRA about, but that's not the issue here. They are still one of the most powerful lobbies in DC because of their membership. You let us all know wheny ou have more than 4 million gun control fans paying $35 a year to belong to "Villager Grab Guns Inc."

Only avid, "know nothing" gun grabbers seem to still insist on a black and white world.

Thankfully your day of gun control has passed, the RKBA is spreading and there really is nothing you can do about it. When Brady celebrates a 2 vote procedural victory (actually a delay - it will come up again and pass) on the Thune amendment as if it was a constitutional amendment, you know you have a problem.

from the text of the bill



Your uncle fit that definition?

Have you read the text of the bill?

Boy that one sentence sure does pack a powerful wallop. I'm sure the gungeon will empty out and attempt to force feed everyone the excuse-dujour for all that though.

...says it does.

Given their uncritical, well-trained fundraising base, it only makes sense they'd keep expanding its "meaning," to allow for more and more revenue enhancement and dollar hauls!

surely there is someone there whose personal ox is about to be gored.

bred her with another and all the puppies died except one. He let us keep it as a pet. The guy who's dog was bred with her told him that him "ruined" both dogs by letting them have "people contact". So I suppose if that is their mind set then that is why they find this upsetting. They care nothing for the animal only it's usefulness.

Forgot to add the other guy also thought the puppy should have been killed, because if all the others died there must have been something wrong.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5084

The NRA opposes this bill because it is a direct attack on dog breeders, with the ultimate intent on eliminating dog breeding, and in fact domestic pet ownership, all together.

Hunters of course rely heavily on specific dog breeds for hunting.

It is also interesting to note that even the American Kennel Club (AKC) opposes this bill.

HSUS is group pushing this bill:

"But for the best indication of what are the true goals of HSUS, one must simply read the words of its President, Wayne Pacelle. From the book Bloodties: Nature, Culture, and the Hunt, when asked if he can foresee a future with no pets, Pacelle stated, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.” "

"In the May 1993 edition of the publication Animal People, Pacelle is quoted as stating, “One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals.” "

"He has stated, “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States…. We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped….” "

"And while the true intent of HSUS is at the heart of NRA’s opposition to S 460, there remain numerous immediate concerns with the bill, in spite of efforts to water it down to misdirect the public and gain support. AKC points out the bill contains a vague definition of what constitutes a “commercial breeder,” as well as contradictory, unclear enforcement provisions. Furthermore, the standards for care at a “commercial breeder” facility are not specifically spelled out. They are left open to interpretation that could lead to standards that are designed not to ensure healthy, happy animals, but to ensure many (if not most) “commercial breeders” would not be able to meet the standards that are set.

And just for your information, I know plenty of people involved with herding dogs who despise what the AKC has done to some of the working breeds, and other breeds, in the "interest" of breeding for "show." What's happened to German Shepherds should be criminal, in my opinion.

Having read the bill, I don't see any big problem with it.

I think the NRA is wrong on this one.

The NRA is off the rails on this one.

Undoubtedly, the reason they've put their stinky fingers on this issue is because they've received a pile of cash to do so from Republican puppy mill owners.

As the article says, people who hunt with dogs generally want healthy well-trained dogs, so I would have thought that puppy mills would not be to their advantage at all.

If their membership is scared, the donations flow in.

That and appearing to be on the side of the mythical "everyman" and standing up to the durn smarty-pants libruls who wanna tell ya what ya can do with yer dogs. And then when ya ain't lookin' they'll snatch yer guns, steal yer bible, make yer son gay and force yer daughter to have an abortion. Oh, and Obama's not a US citisen dontcha know...

Or something like that.