A recent
blog post on the St. Louis Tea Party site repeated their conspiracy theory that Proposition B, the
Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, is all a secret plot to "eliminate pet ownership:"
A select group of the "intellectual elite," who don't believe dogs showed be owned, are behind Prop. B.
This is a repetition of talking points handed down from the dog breeder defending group "Alliance for Truth," which said the following:
the Humane Society of the United States wants to eliminate animal ownership in America....They believe that animals are enslaved by humans,"
But, as
pointed out by journalist Terry Ganey, in a special to the Beacon, this talking point is nonsense:
But Proposition B doesn't eliminate animal ownership. In fact, hobby breeders and dog breeders with fewer than 10 breeding animals are exempt from its provisions. And Proposition B makes a point of saying that nothing in the law "shall be construed to limit hunting or the ability to breed, raise or sell hunting dogs."
A different tea party blog claimed that the new measure wouldn't actually provide any new protections, since there were some standards already existing. However, missed in this brilliant analysis is the fact that the new law creates a misdemeanor for violating the law where none previously existed. In other words, the current system does not provide any strong incentives to treat the dogs humanely: if you are caught breaking the rules enough times you might not get to keep your license, but you don't really lose anything. With the new law, people caught keeping the dogs in inhumane conditions can be fined and charged with a misdemeanor. You'd think the self-proclaimed economic geniuses of the tea party would be able to figure out how that would work.
Posts
At issue for me with this prop is that though it says it adds a penalty, what is it? It's not defined other that to call it a misdemeanor. What is the fine (if any)?, What is the Jail Time (if any)? What are the licensing implications (if any)?
ReplyDeleteHow could it be effective without specifically addressing licensing? IMHO there should be a "three strikes you're out" approach.
Busted once, you get a warning and a fine. Busted twice, your license to sell is suspended (90 days or more).
Busted three times, your license is lost permanently.
Why is it that we never seem to actually address issues with legislation / ballot measures created to address issues anymore?
And then there's Joe the Plumber's take on Proposition B:
ReplyDeletehttp://biggovernment.com/jwurzelbacher/2010/09/22/weve-been-sacked-by-the-humane-society/
Evidently wanting to ensure a quality of life for dogs is a whacko liberal agenda item.
John, it's defined as a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by 15 days in prison, and/or a fine of $300 or up twice the amount gained in the offense, here: http://sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp . And it is bumped up to Class A after repeat violations.
ReplyDeletepeople are so dumb... it amazes me to no end sometimes. apparently caring for anything besides rich white people is a shady librul agenda.
ReplyDeletedo these people not watch animal cops? seriously? (of course, i don't get to anymore thanks to stupid sarah palin and her stupid "reality show." will not watch programming on channels that support her. nope. won't do it.)
also, joe the plumber, no one FORCED our tech and manufacturing overseas. that's from your rich, white buddies who decided that paying Indonesian workers 2 cents a day was a lot more patriotic than paying American workers what we're worth. moron.