Obama's Dog

Originally Posted by Nirvana

There is nothing wrong with government oversight, my concern is the wording of most of this legislation and the underhanded way it is being bulldozed thru some state legislatures. In Indiana this supposed animal cruelty bill was sandwiched in with stiffer penalties for rapists and convicted felons. WTF!!
Part of it was written if you had 5 dogs that would make you a kennel even if you never bred any of the dogs. No more pets, this is the eventual plan of animal rights activists and if you are not aware then your rights are being taken away and apathy reigns.

I think you are "parroting" again.

Where is the evidence of the "underhanded way" these bills are being "bulldozed through state legislatures"....or the IN bill was "sandwiched in with stiffer penalties for rapists and convicted felons"?

Show me legislative reports, not propaganda from the breeding industry.

[Nirvana]

This is the bill in its amended form scroll down to see what else is involved in this bill. It is sandwiched in with sex offenders and parolee violators and all kinds of legislation. I don't write propaganda nor do I promote it. I do know what is happening in my state and a few others.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/.../HB1468.1.html

Originally Posted by Nirvana

This is the bill in its amended form scroll down to see what else is involved in this bill. It is sandwiched in with sex offenders and parolee violators and all kinds of legislation. I don't write propaganda nor do I promote it. I do know what is happening in my state and a few others.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/.../HB1468.1.html

It looks to me that the bill (the bold type) only refers to the animal provisions...and is incorporated into existing state code (not bold) that has other references.

SO its false to suggest the bill was "sandwiched in" with sex offenders and parolee violators, other than being in the same section of state code. Thats hardly the same as suggesting the bill was considered as part of some "underhanded" plan to have it considered with bills on sex offenders.

[Nirvana]

Are you with the HSUS?

Nope...and I'm not with ACORN either (for classic and merc).

I just dont like bullshit from either side of an issue.

If you can document the "underhanded way" these bills are being "bulldozed through state legislatures"....or the IN bill was "sandwiched in with stiffer penalties for rapists and convicted felons"...then I might have a different response.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Nope...and I'm not with ACORN either (for classic and merc).

You can't fool us. You are Bill Clinton aren't you.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You can't fool us. You are Bill Clinton aren't you.

Nope. I inhaled.

And I still dont eat bullshit sandwiches like that suggested by Nirvana in the case of the IN law.

But when have you ever let the facts get in the way of a discussion.

[Nirvana]

Well Redux what part of that new proposed legislation do you feel is fair to a hobby breeder? The part where the sale of 5 dogs makes them a pet dealer? Large breed dogs frequently have double digit litters so effectively if some hobby breeders have one litter they are automatically a pet dealer? Everyone will have to get their pets from pet mills in the future because they are the only ones that will be able to afford to pay to have animals. Your rights are being taken away and you are looking in another direction. That is so high on the bullshit meter its off the chart!

The whole point is the proposed legislation is BS but you would rather dwell on an aspect that I got wrong. You said you are for ending pet mills and this legislation puts all hobby breeders out of business so you will have no choice if you want a pet but to get it at commercial breeding operations. Duplicity is your friend.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Nirvana

Everyone will have to get their pets from pet mills in the future because they are the only ones that will be able to afford to pay to have animals.

Will the disparity in price be that much? I thought you said what the Why can't you pass the cost on to the consumer like every other business. Price was really not the issue when we were breeding, especially the Goldens. Isn't price in that market still a very low priority for the buyer?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Nirvana

Well Redux what part of that new proposed legislation do you feel is fair to a hobby breeder? The part where the sale of 5 dogs makes them a pet dealer? Large breed dogs frequently have double digit litters so effectively if some hobby breeders have one litter they are automatically a pet dealer? Everyone will have to get their pets from pet mills in the future because they are the only ones that will be able to afford to pay to have animals. Your rights are being taken away and you are looking in another direction. That is so high on the bullshit meter its off the chart!

The whole point is the proposed legislation is BS but you would rather dwell on an aspect that I got wrong. You said you are for ending pet mills and this legislation puts all hobby breeders out of business so you will have no choice if you want a pet but to get it at commercial breeding operations. Duplicity is your friend.

What the hell is a "hobby" breeder?

[Nirvana]

I can only find the amendments to this bill now not the bill in its original form.

The IN bill makes a distinction between "pet dealers" (sells or offers for sale more than five dogs in one year) and "commercial dog breeder" (a person who maintains adult female dogs that produce ten or more litters in one twelve month period).....and regulates them differently.

So its false and misleading to suggest that a person selling five dogs a year will be treated the same as a kennel or commercial breeder. Thats the kind of propaganda I'm talking about.

[Nirvana]

HOUSE BILL No. 1468


A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.

I am not sure you can read at this point Redux but anyone can go to that link and see the bill. I don't see my statement as false.

Read the preface please:

Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in this style type.
Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution.

The section on sex offenders or parolees was existing provisions of the code.

The actual bill (or amendment to the state code) was those sections in bold type.

Only one sentence of the bill refers to "parolees may be prohibited from owning or training pets..." and included in that section of the code.

The rest of the bill is in an entirely different section of the state code.

You see how easy it is to make it propaganda and falsely suggest that the bill was somehow "sandwiched in" with a bill on sex offenders or parolees when that was not the case?

That statement is just as false and misleading as the statement suggesting that pet dealers would be regulated as kennels or commercial breeders.

[Nirvana]

Ah so that was my mistake. Here let me amend it; they included this bill sandwiched in the existing state code that refers to parolees and sex offenders. BTW have the last word I am sure you want it....