Missouri Republicans are letting me down . Please let the puppy mill law stand as it is! (money, program)

[AuDiBelle]

Originally Posted by pghquest

But HOW DO YOU PAY TO ENFORCE THIS? no answer again...

Easy. You make the mill owners pay for the enforcement of the legislation via licensing fees. The fee could be tied to the number of animals they breed/sell. The more dogs, the higher the licensing and registration fees. There's no reason why anyone not profiting from the business should have to pay to enforce the law. Make those who profit pay.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by eevee

suppliers will stop buying from puppy mills if a demand isn't meet. pet stores aren't going to order more puppies if they have all their space taken up by the last shipment of puppies. pet stores can discount older puppies that haven't sold and/or surrender those puppies to a shelter and, in either case, they lose money. which means they won't be "restocking" any time soon. the puppy mills will find a way to unload the dogs, either through block auctions or other questionable means, but if their biggest buyers, the pet stores, aren't buying, they'll be forced to decrease supply

Thats simply not true.. What makes you think pet stores wont be able to unload their pets? There is nothing in this law to decrease the demand, only the supply.

Originally Posted by eevee

I also didn't realize that current laws had to be 100% enforceable before new ones can be considered

If you cant AFFORD to enforce current laws, then surely you would agree that the enforcement of additional laws also cant be enforced right?

Originally Posted by eevee

and I gave you my answer on how to pay for it. don't like it, tough. what some others ones??:

Didnt say I didnt like it.. I asked how CURRENT law is being funded.. its not.. nor is the new one passed.

Originally Posted by eevee

-add taxes to any animal sold in pet stores
-increase pet license fees and fines for those that don't get their pets licensed (as a pet owner, I will gladly pay an extra chunk per year if that money went towards cracking down on puppy mills)
-add extra fees for any pet store selling dogs or cats. they'll either pay up, stop selling puppies/kittens, or go out of business. simple as that

I love how everyone says they dont mind paying more for x, y, z.. I guess its easy to say you dont mind paying something you arent paying for. Maybe you should write a check to the shelters there..

[eevee]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Yeah.. county shelters are in the business of killing their dogs.. Do you really want to make this comparison?

lord have mercy, you must be seeing things I can't b/c no where in my reply do I say this.

it is FACT that county shelters aren't set up to carefor dogs long term. these are not no-kill rescues we're talking about here. in a state like Missouri, how quick is the overturn at a county shelter? they aren't keeping strays in there for 1+ year. states like that have HIGH kill shelters, the type of shelters that rescues routinely pull adoptable dogs from b/c of the short time they're given

Originally Posted by pghquest

But county shelters while their pets are alive, dont need to keep their dogs at 85 degrees.. your argument is these pets suffer from heat stroke.. Clearly if its unhealthy for them to be in 85 degrees, then this would be true FOR ALL PETS right? Not a selective class of society you disagree with..

NEWSFLASH!!!: if dogs at a shelter are routinely killed due to high heat, what do you think would happen to that shelter? no really, think about it....

shelters have standards to uphold, especially if they are run by the city. shelters must provide adequate shelter, food, water, and exercise to all its dogs. yes, some fail at this, but those are the shelters that end up on the 10pm news and investigated.

dogs routinely die from the elements at puppy mills, hence why such a rule was made w/in the legislation.

Originally Posted by pghquest

I've been to numerous shelters that had the same.. THEY WERE FUNDED BY DONATIONS..

But HOW DO YOU PAY TO ENFORCE THIS? no answer again...

don't know how many times you can ask the same question when answers have been provided, so I'm not even going to bother any more.

[AuDiBelle]

Originally Posted by pghquest

I love how everyone says they dont mind paying more for x, y, z.. I guess its easy to say you dont mind paying something you arent paying for. Maybe you should write a check to the shelters there..

I do. In the past month alone I've donated over $100 to various rescue organizations and shelters. This is one that is one of my all time favorites to donate to: Noahs Arks Main Page (http://www.noahs-arks.net/RESCUE/Noahs_Arks_Main_Page.html - broken link)

I also sponsor vetting costs for dogs and transport dogs. I'm also currently fostering a dog that came from a high kill shelter in GA. She was on her last day when I had her pulled through the Illinois Animal Rescue League.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by eevee

lord have mercy, you must be seeing things I can't b/c no where in my reply do I say this.

it is FACT that county shelters aren't set up to carefor dogs long term. these are not no-kill rescues we're talking about here. in a state like Missouri, how quick is the overturn at a county shelter? they aren't keeping strays in there for 1+ year. states like that have HIGH kill shelters, the type of shelters that rescues routinely pull adoptable dogs from b/c of the short time they're given

I dont know how quick of a turnover is at a county shelter, the ones I have visited here even has a sign on their wall telling you that if you donate a pet to them, they will be killed. ALL of them..

Originally Posted by eevee

NEWSFLASH!!!: if dogs at a shelter are routinely killed due to high heat, what do you think would happen to that shelter? no really, think about it....

Nothing.. They get funded from the taxpayers..

Originally Posted by eevee

shelters have standards to uphold, especially if they are run by the city. shelters must provide adequate shelter, food, water, and exercise to all its dogs. yes, some fail at this, but those are the shelters that end up on the 10pm news and investigated.

And so do the "puppy mills".. I linked to a previous report which indicated this to be true. No one is exempt from adequate shelter, food, water requirements.. There are cruelty to animal laws in existance. This law goes far beyond them..

Originally Posted by eevee

dogs routinely die from the elements at puppy mills, hence why such a rule was made w/in the legislation.

Dogs routinely die from the elements in the mills because CURRENT laws are not being enforced.

Originally Posted by eevee

don't know how many times you can ask the same question when answers have been provided, so I'm not even going to bother any more.

Maybe you are missing the point.. Isnt it easy and great for you to write laws mandating someone else do something while you exempt yourself and others from doing the exact same thing?

If pets will get sick at 86 degrees, then clearly ALL pets should be protected right? Why would you write laws demanding one segement of society to offer "extra" care for animals and not the rest? Its easy to say your neighbors should all keep their yards looking like they belong at a golf course if you exempt yourself from doing so..

[eevee]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Thats simply not true.. What makes you think pet stores wont be able to unload their pets? There is nothing in this law to decrease the demand, only the supply.

ever worked in a pet store? stores are having trouble unloading their animals. it's one reason why many stores have gone out of business. when a puppy can't be sold, one of several things happen:

-it's heavily discounted
-it's surrendered to a shelter or breed rescue
-it's returned to the puppy mill

I never once said this law tackles demand (there you go seeing things that aren't written). there are already forces in play to tackle the demand end of this transaction. laws like this tackle the supply end

Originally Posted by pghquest

If you cant AFFORD to enforce current laws, then surely you would agree that the enforcement of additional laws also cant be enforced right?

who says the current laws aren't being enforced? are they being 100% enforced? of course not, but no law is. the current laws are inadequate, hence the need for more laws

Originally Posted by pghquest

Didnt say I didnt like it.. I asked how CURRENT law is being funded.. its not.. nor is the new one passed.

I love how everyone says they dont mind paying more for x, y, z.. I guess its easy to say you dont mind paying something you arent paying for. Maybe you should write a check to the shelters there..

I have ZERO issue paying more for a dog license. I already donate quite a bit of money to local animal shelters and donation drives for specific animals

we get it, GOD FORBID we spend an extra penny on animals. in fact, let's just remove funding from current programs to curtail animal abuse. will that make you happy?

to paraphrase a well known person, a society is judged by how it treats it weakest members. there's a reason why every single civilized country on this planet has laws regarding animal welfare, regardless of the costs to enforce those laws

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by eevee

ever worked in a pet store? stores are having trouble unloading their animals. it's one reason why many stores have gone out of business. when a puppy can't be sold, one of several things happen:

-it's heavily discounted
-it's surrendered to a shelter or breed rescue
-it's returned to the puppy mill

I never once said this law tackles demand (there you go seeing things that aren't written). there are already forces in play to tackle the demand end of this transaction. laws like this tackle the supply end

Does it tackle the supply end? Or is it just more feel good legislation? They license 1,000+ breeders, with reports indicating another 2-3000 of them could be running unlicense. Wouldnt it make MORE sense to crack down on the unlicensed facilities to limit supply?

Originally Posted by eevee

who says the current laws aren't being enforced? are they being 100% enforced? of course not, but no law is. the current laws are inadequate, hence the need for more laws

A Scathing Assessment of Missouri's Puppy Mill Inspection Program | Animal Law Coalition

Current laws are not inadequate. they are not being enforced.
The audit report noted the lack of training and criteria for state inspections
It was also apparent inspectors did not always conduct even annual inspections.
The training for inspectors was still non-existent or insufficient.
In the four years since the first audit, inspectors had fined six facilities only $3,800 and obtained voluntary surrender of animals at four facilities through settlement agreements. The audit reported noted reluctance by inspectors to use administrative hearings to penalize breeders or confiscate dogs in trouble. Only two hearings had been conducted since the last audit during 2003 and 2004, resulting in two fines totaling $1,500. These fines had not yet been collected as of the date of the report.

Originally Posted by eevee

I have ZERO issue paying more for a dog license. I already donate quite a bit of money to local animal shelters and donation drives for specific animals

Neither do I

Originally Posted by eevee

we get it, GOD FORBID we spend an extra penny on animals. in fact, let's just remove funding from current programs to curtail animal abuse. will that make you happy?

Dont be ridiculous.. CURRENT LAWS ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED.. And I find it hypocritical to support others complying with laws that you arent forced to comply with yourself.. Require others to provide AC for their dogs.. then you should be required to do so yourself..

Originally Posted by eevee

to paraphrase a well known person, a society is judged by how it treats it weakest members. there's a reason why every single civilized country on this planet has laws regarding animal welfare, regardless of the costs to enforce those laws

Isnt it great when you can just ignore costs and say things that sound great!!

[eevee]

Originally Posted by pghquest

I dont know how quick of a turnover is at a county shelter, the ones I have visited here even has a sign on their wall telling you that if you donate a pet to them, they will be killed. ALL of them..

you must have missed my point a long time ago, but your post here just emphasizes what I said ages ago.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Nothing.. They get funded from the taxpayers..

yes, so that gives shelters carte blanche to mistreat their animals?

Originally Posted by pghquest

And so do the "puppy mills".. I linked to a previous report which indicated this to be true. No one is exempt from adequate shelter, food, water requirements.. There are cruelty to animal laws in existance. This law goes far beyond them..

"adequate" is the key word here. what puppy mills are providing are far from adequate. having access to urine/feces contaminated, standing water that hasn't been replenished in god-knows- how long isn't adequate, though by current laws, it is. measuring a dog's exercise space in the smallest of inches isn't adequate. the quality of care at the majority of puppy mills are horrific, to say the least.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Dogs routinely die from the elements in the mills because CURRENT laws are not being enforced.

true, but current laws only go so far. even under current laws, the care given to puppy mill dogs isn't enough to ensure quality of care.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Maybe you are missing the point.. Isnt it easy and great for you to write laws mandating someone else do something while you exempt yourself and others from doing the exact same thing?

Originally Posted by pghquest

If pets will get sick at 86 degrees, then clearly ALL pets should be protected right? Why would you write laws demanding one segement of society to offer "extra" care for animals and not the rest? Its easy to say your neighbors should all keep their yards looking like they belong at a golf course if you exempt yourself from doing so..

we're not talking about how people care for their own personal pets (though neglect can be argued if a dog is kept in very high temps), we're talking about large scale business. as such, they are obviously held to stricter regulations, especially if they are providing a "product" to the public.

I'm very curious why you're so against such a law. are you a puppy miller? or just a scrooge worrying about where each and every penny ends up?

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by pghquest

There is nothing in this law to decrease the demand, only the supply.

Oh, for f.ck's sake. Better condition in puppy mills mean more expensive puppies. What happens to demand when prices go up? Incidentally, weren't you arguing, about 5 posts ago, that the mill owners were going to be breeding more dogs? Must be one hell of a flexible law, it both increases and decreases supply as it best fits your narrative.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by eevee

"adequate" is the key word here. what puppy mills are providing are far from adequate. having access to urine/feces contaminated, standing water that hasn't been replenished in god-knows- how long isn't adequate, though by current laws, it is. measuring a dog's exercise space in the smallest of inches isn't adequate. the quality of care at the majority of puppy mills are horrific, to say the least.

I agree.. they are horrible.. but so are the conditions at my local county shelter.. And current laws ON THE BOOKS, which would improve their conditions are NOT BEING ENFORCED..

Dont you think you should bring standards up to what the laws force before you increase their standards to AC?

Originally Posted by eevee

true, but current laws only go so far. even under current laws, the care given to puppy mill dogs isn't enough to ensure quality of care.

Current laws are not being enforced.. So writing hundreds of new laws WONT DO ANYTHING...

Originally Posted by eevee

we're not talking about how people care for their own personal pets (though neglect can be argued if a dog is kept in very high temps), we're talking about large scale business. as such, they are obviously held to stricter regulations, especially if they are providing a "product" to the public.

incorrect.. If puppies get sick at 86 degrees, then this would be true if those puppies are in an individuals home, a puppy mill, or a county shelter.. But yet no such demand on any of these other groups..

Originally Posted by eevee

I'm very curious why you're so against such a law. are you a puppy miller? or just a scrooge worrying about where each and every penny ends up?

Ahh no.. not a puppy miller.. I'm against the hypocracy of demanding someone else take better treatment of animals than you are demanding of yourself. I'm against demanding better treatment on animals, than you do of humans.. I'm against expanding regulations when current regulations arent being enforced because the new regulations will also be ignored. Bring the current standards up by enforcing the current laws, and then we can talk. If there isnt money to train the enforcers now, then there will be no money for additional laws...