Truthiness: “The quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts.” They left out the part about paranoid teabagger conspiracy theories.
Slick literature opposed to the November ballot initiative regulating puppy mills has been hitting the streets.
Who is paying for this stuff? The Alliance for Truth [pdf], the group with the laughably Orwellian name opposing restrictions on puppy mills in Missouri, filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission on October 1, 2010 – hand delivering the paper work. The committee, according to the Statement of Committee Organization, was organized to work on Proposition B and states the subject as “Dog Breeding Restrictions”.
In addition to attacking the Humane Society, the flyer states that the organization has darker motives:
…To abolish all hunting and fishing…
…To cripple and/or destroy all animal industries…
…To make it impossible for anyone to own pets…
…To become the “enforcement” arm of the Federal Government…
But, but, the “Alliance” said on their committee organization paper work that this was about “Dog Breeding Restrictions”.
The front side of the flyer.
So, who has been dropping money in the last week to help this committee put out right wingnut talking points?:
CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION
C101546 ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH [pdf] 10/7/2010
Alliance For Truth PAC
Chesterfield, MO
10/6/2010
$7,849.60Missouri Farm Bureau Federation
Jefferson City, MO
10/6/2010
$5,000.00MFA Inc.
Columbia, MO
10/7/2010
$5,000.00Missourians For Animal Care Campaign
Committee
jefferson City, MO
10/7/2010
$27,000.00
[emphasis added]
CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION
C101546 ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH [pdf] 10/7/2010
MOFED Corporation
Eldon, MO
10/7/2010
$5,387.93
[emphasis added]
Ah, the usual right wingnut and corporate agriculture interests. Though, with the amount of money they’re spending you can just tell that their hearts aren’t really into it.
The “B” side of the flyer.
Another palm card/walk piece printed by the Alliance for Truth states:
….Prop B is pushed the the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS): a radical animal rights organization….
Run for the hills, the Humane Society is gonna take away everyone’s pets…
Previously:
Have you kicked a puppy today? (September 24, 2010)
Three excellent reasons to support Prop. B and regulate “puppy mills” (October 5, 2010)
Home foreclosures in California are due to the fall of the Egg Industry?
Who knew that the egg industry was the foundation of those beachfront estates?
Surprised they didn’t find something that the Humane Society did in Michigan to claim that’s the reason for unemployment in that state. Or say that the Humane Society made Oklahoma ban cockfighting and now Oklahoma is swamped with crystal meth or something.
Please compare current law vs. Proposition B before casting your vote. There are links to the actual current law and Proposition B at the top.
http://www.showmedaily.org/201…
I am not a commercial breeder, I simply believe voters should read the genuine article they are voting on rather than base their decision solely on blogs, no matter who’s blog it is.
As a former veterinary technician, shelter volunteer, rescuer, and canine behaviorist I’d like to share of few of my own observations and experiences.
One is, that dogs are not universal, what is necessary for the well being of a litter of Chihuahuas might not be beneficial to a litter of Alaskan Malamutes, such as temperature setting.
Two, if dogs are to be given constant and unfettered access to the outdoors breeders will lose the option of allowing the mother dog to deliver and raise her puppies inside the breeders home. While I realize this is probably not done with large scale breeders most of the very small hobby and show breeders I have known often raise their puppies this way as it is preferred by both the breeder and the good homes some of the puppies will be going to.
And I have seen the wonderful result of home raised puppies first hand in the puppies brought into the veterinary clinic/hospital I worked in. I don’t believe outlawing it’s practice is a step in the right direction. Do you?
Three, Proposition B states:
2) “Sufficient food and clean water” means access to appropriate nutritious food at least once a day sufficient to maintain good health; and continuous access to potable water that is not frozen, and is free of debris, feces, algae, and other contaminants.
Initially, that seems like good common sense. But what if you are potty training a dog and need to take up the water bowl at night to prevent accidents, like I did with my kids when they were young? Why would that be criminalized under Proposition B. I fail to see the logic or decency behind it.
Four, what qualifies as debris in a water bowl? Grass clippings from that mornings lawn mowing? With constant and unfettered outside access you can bet they’ll be tracking in grass on their paws and if any are like my dog they’ll stick their front paws in their water bowl. It isn’t right to criminalize a citizen for caring for a dog in a usual normal manner. The average rational person wouldn’t bat an eye at letting their own dog out as they see fit, or a couple of grass clippings in a water bowl that can end up in there in an instant. How would you like to be told you are too stupid to let your own dog out?
Please think of the quality breeders who raise their dogs like pets yet have ten or more, some could be fosters waiting to be spayed/neutered. With Proposition B requests to foster an intact dog would have to be denied, even temporarily in an emergency situation, if fostering put the breeder at or over the 10 dog limit.
I wouldn’t purchase a puppy from a large scale commercial breeder, but I know ten dogs is not large scale. I know four out of those ten could be older puppies there for training purposes or showing before going on to another quality breeder and/or show home, or most likely pet home. WIthout keeping a minimal number of dogs easily higher than ten breeders risk bottlenecking the gene pool, nobody wants that right?
Please read and think before voting. Thank you for your time.