linda040899
12-29-2007, 11:36 AM
Link to an ebay discussion:
http://cgi.ebay.com/CALIF-FORCES-OWNERS-TO-GIVE-AWAY-PUPPIES-FOR-FREE_W0QQitemZ130149864665QQihZ003QQcategoryZ1283Q QrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem?_trksid=p1638 .m118
I've quoted the text here, as it's questionable how long this will remain visible. I got the original notification via Bird_Breeder-Hobbyist and am cross posting with permission.
AR fanatics (ARFs) and AR-zombies are trying to get this discussion
pulled off eBay. Read it before they do. No matter what kind of animal
you have, this can ultimately snowball to eliminating ALL animal breeding
and ownership, which is the ultimate goal of the ARFs.
If you can't access the below URL , just put 'give away puppies for free' in
the eBay search box. It'll be in the eBay store for GoodDogsUSA.
*Keep reading to find out about the
law proposed to force owners to GIVE
away their puppies for free!
----------------------------------------------------------
"THE ONLY PERSON THAT UNDERSTANDS ME
IS MY DOG"
Great keychain or conversation starter!
What a great way to start a conversation for informing others of
the potential damage that such a proposed law would have as against
the pet industry, owners, and anyone involved with pets in a business.
The ramifications of such action is not our opinion but is
taken from the legislative analyst summaries and condensed
authoritative sources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Eliminating 98% of all Pets Really the "Answer?"
In California, there is actually a legislative attempt to pass a law which, if followed, would indeed do this. Incredible as it may seem, Assembly Bill (AB1634) is pushed by Lloyd Levine and other misled groups, claiming that forcing every single dog/cat (privately owned animals, which does NOT include FERAL cats or strays) in the state to be altered will "save money" and "save animals."
Of course, this is not the "real" agenda of this proposed law.
The real agenda is to start a "No Birth Nation" , which is advocated by PETA, so that all pets, if any are to be owned at all, must come from somewhere else, such as a third world country as opposed to responsible dog breeders. Currently, there are US shelters, rescues and groups
(such as the Helen Woodward Center, SD, CA; Best Friends, Utah,
which allegedly spent approx. $140,000 to bring over the stray dogs)
IMPORTING stray dogs from third world countries/or foreign countries such as
Puerto Rico ("Sato dogs"); Russia, Beruit, Lebanon; Thailand, and Mexico, etc.
If you figure there are shelter animals HERE being euthanized,
why on earth
would you purposely be IMPORTING STRAY DOGS???!!!
Shelters claim they can't find homes for the shelter dogs so they import
dogs that they "can" get out?? The shelters are not pet stores!
Another reason for pushing such a law is to stop anyone from engaging in the breeding of animals, or to profit from using a business which utilizes animals, including, but not limited to, ranching, farming, and food industry businesses such as KFC and any business which sells meat or uses animal products such as leather, wool, etc.
[The ISAR (International Society for Animal Rights)---who uses Bob Barker as their spokesperson---exists ONLY to advocate for the mandated altering of ALL animals/pets, and claims that the AKC (The American Kennel Club) is nothing but a perpetuator of poor breed standards and bad genetics and puppymillers]
The bigger question is, WHY have similar laws/efforts across the United States,
including San Mateo, CA, in 1991--- BEEN DISMAL FAILURES AND END UP
COSTING SO MUCH THE PROGRAMS WERE AXED???????
AND, even IF such a program was used, WHY would you want to end up
taking out all the breeding stock of well-tempered dogs????
AND, just how would anyone be able to ENFORCE such a law??
....AND------IF such a law were to start---and 98% of the animals were sterile-----
what IMPACT could/would this have ON THE PET INDUSTRY
--WHICH IS A 40 BILLION DOLLAR NATIONAL INDUSTRY ??????
(Walmart is 41 billion)
Despite these obvious problems, Los Angeles has already passed such an ordinance in 2006, but had temporarily abstained from enforcing it after a federal lawsuit was filed by the American Canine Foundation in federal court. That case is not scheduled to move forward, despite a year having elapsed, because federal Judge Maxine Chesney of San Francisco Northern District Federal court has not ruled on the defendant's motion to dismiss, for the past year, so the case is just sitting there. (In Fed Court there is no time limit for ruling on such motions.) Unfortunately, if CA should pass such an absurd law for the entire STATE---it is just a matter of time before it moves on to all the other states!
As we can see, the movement to do just this has already started by calling for the mandatory altering of all pitbull type dogs, by HSUS----- regardless of if they are actually a pitbull dog or not (since there is no breed of dog known as pitbull anyway).....and since California already HAS SB861, which allows ANY county to mandate altering for ANY breed of dog it chooses to pick out, the movement is to forget the breed and just call for altering ALL dogs, with some very minor exceptions. And it is indeed minor.
********************
For example on June 27, 2007, the proposed law of AB1634 stated
that IF one was "allowed" to breed ONE litter, and only one---
the pups from that litter MUST be GIVEN AWAY for FREE!!!
So now they can force you to GIVE away YOUR own PROPERTY???!!!
***********************************************
Dog owners in particular need to be aware that such laws, if passed, can
easily spell d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r and are likely unconstitutional at best.
All pet owners spread the word that these types of laws, which are gaining momentum and being pushed by large groups such as PETA and HSUS---- infringe on the rights of ANYONE who owns or works for ANY pet related business AND it obviously affects ALL businesses which are animal related, since in the long run, this is just another step toward eliminating the use of animals for any purpose. That is not denied by groups such as PETA---who clearly advocate against ANY use of ANY animal at all---no matter what. If you have doubts, suggest you research it yourself.
It is a pathetic reality that groups which claim to "save"* animals
can/will get to the legislature and push for laws
that actually want to eliminate animals, NOT save them!
*Translation: "Save" animals "from" humans by not allowing
people to own animals, period.
http://cgi.ebay.com/CALIF-FORCES-OWNERS-TO-GIVE-AWAY-PUPPIES-FOR-FREE_W0QQitemZ130149864665QQihZ003QQcategoryZ1283Q QrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem?_trksid=p1638 .m118
I've quoted the text here, as it's questionable how long this will remain visible. I got the original notification via Bird_Breeder-Hobbyist and am cross posting with permission.
AR fanatics (ARFs) and AR-zombies are trying to get this discussion
pulled off eBay. Read it before they do. No matter what kind of animal
you have, this can ultimately snowball to eliminating ALL animal breeding
and ownership, which is the ultimate goal of the ARFs.
If you can't access the below URL , just put 'give away puppies for free' in
the eBay search box. It'll be in the eBay store for GoodDogsUSA.
*Keep reading to find out about the
law proposed to force owners to GIVE
away their puppies for free!
----------------------------------------------------------
"THE ONLY PERSON THAT UNDERSTANDS ME
IS MY DOG"
Great keychain or conversation starter!
What a great way to start a conversation for informing others of
the potential damage that such a proposed law would have as against
the pet industry, owners, and anyone involved with pets in a business.
The ramifications of such action is not our opinion but is
taken from the legislative analyst summaries and condensed
authoritative sources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Eliminating 98% of all Pets Really the "Answer?"
In California, there is actually a legislative attempt to pass a law which, if followed, would indeed do this. Incredible as it may seem, Assembly Bill (AB1634) is pushed by Lloyd Levine and other misled groups, claiming that forcing every single dog/cat (privately owned animals, which does NOT include FERAL cats or strays) in the state to be altered will "save money" and "save animals."
Of course, this is not the "real" agenda of this proposed law.
The real agenda is to start a "No Birth Nation" , which is advocated by PETA, so that all pets, if any are to be owned at all, must come from somewhere else, such as a third world country as opposed to responsible dog breeders. Currently, there are US shelters, rescues and groups
(such as the Helen Woodward Center, SD, CA; Best Friends, Utah,
which allegedly spent approx. $140,000 to bring over the stray dogs)
IMPORTING stray dogs from third world countries/or foreign countries such as
Puerto Rico ("Sato dogs"); Russia, Beruit, Lebanon; Thailand, and Mexico, etc.
If you figure there are shelter animals HERE being euthanized,
why on earth
would you purposely be IMPORTING STRAY DOGS???!!!
Shelters claim they can't find homes for the shelter dogs so they import
dogs that they "can" get out?? The shelters are not pet stores!
Another reason for pushing such a law is to stop anyone from engaging in the breeding of animals, or to profit from using a business which utilizes animals, including, but not limited to, ranching, farming, and food industry businesses such as KFC and any business which sells meat or uses animal products such as leather, wool, etc.
[The ISAR (International Society for Animal Rights)---who uses Bob Barker as their spokesperson---exists ONLY to advocate for the mandated altering of ALL animals/pets, and claims that the AKC (The American Kennel Club) is nothing but a perpetuator of poor breed standards and bad genetics and puppymillers]
The bigger question is, WHY have similar laws/efforts across the United States,
including San Mateo, CA, in 1991--- BEEN DISMAL FAILURES AND END UP
COSTING SO MUCH THE PROGRAMS WERE AXED???????
AND, even IF such a program was used, WHY would you want to end up
taking out all the breeding stock of well-tempered dogs????
AND, just how would anyone be able to ENFORCE such a law??
....AND------IF such a law were to start---and 98% of the animals were sterile-----
what IMPACT could/would this have ON THE PET INDUSTRY
--WHICH IS A 40 BILLION DOLLAR NATIONAL INDUSTRY ??????
(Walmart is 41 billion)
Despite these obvious problems, Los Angeles has already passed such an ordinance in 2006, but had temporarily abstained from enforcing it after a federal lawsuit was filed by the American Canine Foundation in federal court. That case is not scheduled to move forward, despite a year having elapsed, because federal Judge Maxine Chesney of San Francisco Northern District Federal court has not ruled on the defendant's motion to dismiss, for the past year, so the case is just sitting there. (In Fed Court there is no time limit for ruling on such motions.) Unfortunately, if CA should pass such an absurd law for the entire STATE---it is just a matter of time before it moves on to all the other states!
As we can see, the movement to do just this has already started by calling for the mandatory altering of all pitbull type dogs, by HSUS----- regardless of if they are actually a pitbull dog or not (since there is no breed of dog known as pitbull anyway).....and since California already HAS SB861, which allows ANY county to mandate altering for ANY breed of dog it chooses to pick out, the movement is to forget the breed and just call for altering ALL dogs, with some very minor exceptions. And it is indeed minor.
********************
For example on June 27, 2007, the proposed law of AB1634 stated
that IF one was "allowed" to breed ONE litter, and only one---
the pups from that litter MUST be GIVEN AWAY for FREE!!!
So now they can force you to GIVE away YOUR own PROPERTY???!!!
***********************************************
Dog owners in particular need to be aware that such laws, if passed, can
easily spell d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r and are likely unconstitutional at best.
All pet owners spread the word that these types of laws, which are gaining momentum and being pushed by large groups such as PETA and HSUS---- infringe on the rights of ANYONE who owns or works for ANY pet related business AND it obviously affects ALL businesses which are animal related, since in the long run, this is just another step toward eliminating the use of animals for any purpose. That is not denied by groups such as PETA---who clearly advocate against ANY use of ANY animal at all---no matter what. If you have doubts, suggest you research it yourself.
It is a pathetic reality that groups which claim to "save"* animals
can/will get to the legislature and push for laws
that actually want to eliminate animals, NOT save them!
*Translation: "Save" animals "from" humans by not allowing
people to own animals, period.