The state of Nevada is the latest victim in the Humane Society of the United States' all out anti-dog breeder legislative campaign. SB241 seeks to, among other things:- Impose $500 breeder permit (wow! That's expensive considering there is also a bill being proposed there that would levy ONLY $5 tax on "human sex acts")
- Make microchipping of dogs mandatory
- Limit the LIFETIME litters of any dog to 2 litters
- AND "Breeders Must Posess "Good Moral Character"
But considering that the H$U$ is pushing these cookie cutter ANTI breeding bills across the country, I guess even a prostitute is of higher moral character than the ever-so-cleverly-deceptive H$US and company...At least you "know" right up front what a prostitute is all about. The H$U$, however, continues to mislead millions of hardworking folks with good intentions into "donating" to what the majority still believe will benefit their local shelter or will help the H$U$ on their "war on puppymills". When in fact, all those hard earned dollars will go to their already HUGE warchest to end the production of meat, fur, fishing, and to put "ever-so-greedy dog breeders" out of existence.
Give Wayne-O and company the boot, Nevada. Ya'll have got a lot more to worry about than the "good moral character" of dog breeders.
Posts
"What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" doesn't apply to dog breeders, I guess.
ReplyDeleteSo, are they fighting to limit the number of times a horse can be bred? Cows? Chicken? Geese? Cats? Goats?? No?? Then why, oh why, dogs? What is it about dog breeding that brings out the moral indignation in people? As long as the dog is healthy, why limit it to 2 litters? Is there a dog "overpopulation" problem? Possibly (although the habit of shelters importing dogs from other area in North America or other countries makes that claim a bit suspect, at least in certain areas). But limiting the number of litters won't fix that, as that law will only affect those that choose to follow it. Ugh.
ReplyDeleteSB241 sounds like a lot of the breed clubs who
ReplyDeletealso require their members to be of "good
moral character". It's remarkable what can be
induced to come under the heading of "good
moral character", but definitely, minding everyone else's business is at the top of that
list. Does HSUS want to spend its money enforcing these almost entirely unenforceable
laws? Is the state of Nevada so rich, unlike
all the other 49 states, that it can afford to
go looking for breeders of third litters?
HSUS did not support this legislation. It supported three animal bills before the Nevada Legislature this year, but not this one.
ReplyDelete"Good moral character" means that you haven't been convicted of animal cruelty.
@Anonymous from Reno, NV: Yeah, well, ya' know the saying, "If it walks, talks and acts like a duck..."
ReplyDeleteI don't like legislation. I don't think it ever has the same impact as the grass-roots changes to the public's hearts and minds. It can augment social change. But it rarely initiates and almost never successfully accomplishes it. People have to want to do "the right" thing more than they have to fear being punished for not doing the right thing.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, agree, in principle, that there is some need to protect animals (dogs, in this case) from greedy, irresponsible, malicious-even humans. In the case of breeding animals, I think people should be licensed, if only to be able to take that license away, should they fail to behave responsibly and ethically...oh...and legally, of course.
But this moral turpitude clause is quite troubling. Sure, like any "profession" (or other endeavor), actually being convicted of a crime or whatnot, might preclude someone from participation/membership. Emphasis on the conviction part. In many careers, being a part-time, but legal, prostitude would violate the moral turpitude clause. But why would this apply to dog breeding? Why would morals (rather than ethics, legal standards, breed club regulations and breeders code of ethics) come into play? Dogs aren't going to pick-up unsavory, immoral habits from their owners. Dogs don't have morals. So who are we really protecting with such a law? Buyers? Well, caveat emptor, buyer. If you think because a dog breeder has a sideline as a stripper, it means her dogs automatically can't be of good quality, you're wrong. By the same token, we all know that many seemingly upstanding citizens harbour some horrible secrets that go way beyond being immoral. They're downright criminal.
What’s next? Are we slowly going to put laws on the amount of children a couple can have! Are we going to be requiring humans to have permits in order to breed? This is how legislation works! Ten years from now, if this passes some lawyer will be able to work a case to the point of putting limitations on whatever you can imagine. This does not correct the problem, in a city that is so transit.
ReplyDeleteMandatory micro chipping would help to correct the problem, so that owners can be fined or charged with a misdemeanor. Average cost to an owner for the first set of shots, micro chipping, and fixing a pet amount to $375 per pet, not including registration. With that I mind the price of a pet any breed would amount to $500. Purchasing a pet should cost around $900 by a response individual. With a breed's permit costing $500 with no follow-up by the state to see if the breeder is of "Good Moral Character." The state seems to be trying to put a band-aid on a problem. Will Nevada be following up for the care of the animals by the breeder, future owner, and who is to judge the moral fiber?
However, I do like the stating of good moral character. I have breed my dogs in the past and have refused to sale individuals their offspring because I felt the prospective owner was not of good moral character. Which is hard, when you must make these decisions while a child is present knowing far to well, that you care for your pets better than they do their own child. In a state where prostitution, public drunkenness, and 24 hour drinking and gambling are legal... we find this a concern. Limiting the right for animal that is highly trained to help individuals with medical disabilities or just provide love to a much dissevered companion, due to the irresponsible actions of a group of individuals that should of never been giving the right to such a beautiful gift in the first place. I will continue regardless to act in moral character seeing that the offspring is placed in a caring loving home.
More importantly in the end, what will the money go to fund? In a STATE WITH ONE OF THE LOWEST RANKED EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN THE COUNTRY, it is my personal believes that our elect officials are not addressing the issues that truly will plague our future. How funny, we will know April 1st. When will we begin holding parents responsible for holding back the future of a classroom filled of bright lights due to Nevada inability to being passing laws that gave parents the ability to raise an individual that will one day stamp out my child’s first license plate. Then again, Nevada isn’t concern with being the educational fiber behind solving economic problems, making medical advancements, but rather breeding more union employees to keep Sin City going. The global misdirection of education at it best! Who wasn’t taught did stay in Vegas!
As a new local, when people ask me if I plan to stay, I always state that it depends on what Nevada decides to do about improving the educational system. I am always asked how many children I have and their ages in excitement. Simple put I am a mother who has not conceived yet!