REFUTING DEFINING PUPPY MILLS

Subject: RE: Guest Column-DEFINING PUPPY MILLS
To the Editors at the Dog Press - from Jenny Thrasher 

"I am writing to you in response to the recent publication of an article in your Guest Column- "Defining Puppy Mills". It is profoundly offensive and devisive of the show world at this time when we are being attacked from every conceivable angle by the HSUS, PETA, ASPCA, et al. I cannot begin to imagine how you could possibly think that promoting the Animal Rights agenda could have any place whatsoever in a publication that accepts money from dog breeders, whether Show breeders or otherwise, to advertise and hence support the website. Is your goal to put yourself out of business by helping the AR eradicate all breeding? To foster the beliefs of the author of this article is to shoot yourselves in the foot because it is people like this man who collaborate with the AR, and tell them inadvertantly how to destroy us all. Is it your aim to remove your reader base, one kind of breeder at a time?

"I know this man's argument, and I responded to this exact same individual on a list the very day this Guest Column was published here. I suppose he thinks he is cute to refer to himself as "Lotta Chien", but having a "Lotta DOGS" does NOT make a kennel automatically substandard, a point we tried desperately to get this man to understand.

"That being said, I did take great delight in his attempt to "prove" that there was in fact a legal definition of the word puppy mill. What he put forth was not a legal definition, but part of a legal transcript of a case. The word was defined in that particular context for that particular case- it did not set a precedent, nor did it enter into any State's Book of Statutes as a legal definition. To be perfectly clear- this man has insulted a great many show kennels both past and present with this article, and his ignorance, and I will make very sure that all my thousands of show friends all across the country become aware of your approval of his opinions by virtue of the fact that you published them on your site. The only comparison that could make my point more valid would be if one were to print a discussion of the different ethnic groups using the most common slang terms and then rate which ethnic group was more worthy than another in the newspaper. This is exactly what this man has written here, except that he has changed the groups he is deeming most worthy. It remains profoundly offensive.

"One must deduce from the lack of research this man produced and the completely erratic pseudo-logic he filled the article with that he is truly clueless about what is going on  not only in the Dog Show world, but the world in general. Is your publication so lacking in newsworthy information that it must resort to AR collaboration?

What a shame."
 

Jenny Thrasher
Pict O'the Highlands Scottish Terriers
 

Editor's condensed response, sent before we received multiple emails containing the MAN'S" exact same wording as that used in Jenny's letter:

Jenny, Denise forwarded this to me because of your obvious passion and sincerity.  I share your concern about in any way aiding the AR crowd.  Obviously you are a first-time or very casual reader.  To help clarify how you see us, I’ll drop in at the end, the top ten google links, which by their description alone, will let you know EXACTLY where we stand on the Animal Rights groups.  For more valid information with which to form an opinion of where I stand personally, go to this index of the oldest dog-site in the world.  http://www.thedogplace.org/PROJECTS/Index-Proj.asp

Let me also correct you on your assumption that she is a “he” because I have no idea what you are talking about unless Lotta can imitate a man’s voice over the phone J  Honey, I admire your concern and appreciate how enraged you may be in having related a guest column from someone I’ve known a long time, to someone you detest.  (Lotta) was utterly and I thought, definitively against animal rights.  That’s why we published her!

Re the sourcing on the definition of puppy mills, it is the only definition my researchers were able to come up with that makes any sense.  The accuracy of attribution is far less important than the accuracy of the definition.  What exactly do you object to in the definition?

I take serious exception to your allegation that The Dog Press is “so lacking in newsworthy information that it must resort to AR collaboration?”   No matter how you phrase it, it is derogatory and if published elsewhere, possibly actionable.  I treat your read of the guest column as indicative that I failed in my job.  You didn’t “get it” and that means others may not have either.  As editor, my job is getting the intended message across.  So I sincerely appreciate that you took time to help me see that the message here was not clear.

Jenny, you write well, and I’d like to use your thoughts as a letter to the editor, or, if we get enough feedback, as a separate discussion on this subject.  I have hounded AKC and refuted their logic in why we should support puppy mills.  That is what this article was about!  It is a ridiculous concept.  We align ourselves with other groups that fight the good fight for constitutional rights, such as the fur industry, the NRA, etc. all of them against the agenda of the animal rights groups.

If you want to do a little self-editing, now that you know there is no man, etc. I’d be happy to run it as LTE or as part of a discussion.  You do NOT have to agree, your opinion is valuable.

We then received copies of another attack on The Dog Press, which may have explained Jenny Thrasher's letter because the wording was identical.  Although Jenny and I have exchanged numerous emails, she has refused to answer whether the "letter to the editor" was hers or a copy of the one below.

So we ask, will the real MAN please stand up?  Perhaps he would like to come forward and explain his ignorance regarding copyrighted material?  He might even like to defend his reasons for cleverly and deliberately breaking all links leading to www.TheDogPlace.org and www.TheDogPress.com 

Subject: [StLouisCanine] Puppy Mills....Long, but very interesting reading Reply-To: StLouisCanine@yahoogroups.com  Mills Defined: OptEd

Posted by: "MAN" MAN   metroanimalinc   Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:49 am (PST)

I would like to call your attention to one of the articles published in the Dog Press recently, and I am including the letter I wrote to the editors in response. Anybody else care to respond to this article, and the bridge troll who wrote it? I would also like to translate, for anyone not speaking French that the pseudonym he used for this thing, "Lotta Chien" means "Lotta Dog". He was even too dumb to have used the plural of chien (chiens) to even make his pseudonym make sense.

<http://www.thedogpl ace.org/PROJECTS /BBR/Index. asp> Puppy Mills Defined Is it your neighbor Your co-owner? Maybe it's you? Finally! A legal definition and a rationale dissertation for hobby breeders.

He then goes on with a word-for-word duplicate of the letter we received from Jenny, including the same misspelled words.  This MAN wasn't brave enough to send it to us even though he begins his diatribe with:

To the Editors at the Dog Press:

and without permission, but certainly with our gratitude, he includes the following article we carried from an attorney:
************ ********* ********* ********* *******

ANIMAL RIGHTS ABUSE!
And How AR Groups Use Animal Abuse Laws

Animal Rightists write laws using the term "abuse" to further their agenda. As an attorney, I'll explain how any dog owner could be found guilty of animal abuse.

Here's a current example of how AR groups twist words. PetPac was attacked by Judie Mancuso. PetPac was instrumental in defeating California's worst anti-pet, anti-animal legislation (AB 1634) and now California animal owners are fighting SB 250, an even greater threat.

Christopher Cardozo, Esq. © TheDogPlace. org / Sept. 2009 - Therefore, Judi Mancuso, representing Animal Rights, broadcasts information that a key member of PetPAC was named in one of the many suits filed by the state. Yet PetPAC was neither named nor is it involved in any legal suits. Rather, the lawsuit involves the alleged use of telemarketing by other groups that are named if you read the whole thing. Most will only glance at it and be left thinking it is PetPAC so it is a clever smear by the Animal Rightists to diminish successful opposition to Animal Rights laws.

Animal Rights activists use the "shotgun" method of defense because they have little factual ammunition behind their lamentable bills. California has (6) bills pending, all of which trigger other bills. At least 3 such bills are opposed by CA Department of Finance. One bill actually allows private animal groups like HSUS to earn the forfeiture proceeds by killing the animals. The law does not state they must save them.

Example: AB1122 allows a rescue to "sell" a dog but limits private breeders. If a breeder displays a dog, they could be guilty of attempting to sell it. If they are in a parking lot, when that dog jumps into another person's car, it becomes a prohibited action. There is much more on AB1122 at PetDefense, first story listed on the right.

Most of these bills are premised on "alleged abuse" but in most cases, there is no actual abuse. The Animal Rights groups draft these laws so the term "abuse" is written into the law itself. For example, murder would be inherently wrong, and that is termed `malum in se' [a wrong in itself.] But a law which makes something prohibited that is not necessarily wrong, is called `malum prohibitum' [wrong because government prohibits it as wrong.] That huge difference is exactly what the Animal Rights faction uses. Groups like HSUS say that tail docking, ear cropping, having more than X number of dogs, owning X breed, selling an animal, showing a dog in public = "ABUSE" and if the law is worded that way, people who engage in any of the enumerated activities are guilty of abuse. That's all it takes.

We may wonder how these things happen but it's very simple, based on how words are used or written into the law. When HSUS and their cadre of supporters decided to end pet ownership, their number one reason is built on only one foundation - that animals are NOT property in the law. The AR laws are all premised upon animals not being legal property, so they can insert the term "abuse" because they liken animals to the same status [in the law] as your children!

For example: Animal Law Cases and Materials, Third Edition (by Sonia Waisman, Pamela Frasch, and Bruce Wagman) queries If indeed the property status of animals were to be abolished, what would be the legal and practical effects on the commercial use of animals; What would happen to the animals themselves-- should they be put in sanctuaries, sterilized, or permitted to move toward extinction?

As you can see, if animals were no longer considered as property, then you can't "own" them, just as you can't own a child but you can certainly go to jail for abusing a child.

It is simply an advertising campaign by animal rights groups to make us think we are bad if we disagree with them because they know we all want to be "good."

That explains why Animal Rights want the term guardian to be used. You could be roasting in a car with no air conditioner, or bask in 100 degree sun at the beach, but an animal cannot; you can have extensive cosmetic surgery, but an animal cannot have an ear crop. Animal Rights purposely characterize animals in the law as `children' rather than as "property" so they can enlarge the legal status of animals to that of humans.

They have ultra-humanized our property so they can trample the inherent rights that stem from property ownership by passing laws that denote perfectly legal acts as "abuse." Animal Rights activists have no limits, and they are very clever; that is why the "trigger" bills pending in California will set precedent for other states.

When legal conduct is outlawed as "abuse" [malum prohibitum'] all animal owners have a problem. When ordinary conduct [taking a dog out of a car and allowing it to jump into another person's vehicle in a parking lot] is illegal, we have a problem. When just offering a dog for sale is seen as some sort of abuse, or owning X number of intact (not surgically sterilized) animals triggers an "abuse" violation, dog breeders have a problem. If someone is acquitted of an "abuse" charge but another law triggers forfeiture or seizure, it's a ridiculous problem. Why have any Civil Rights at all if a District Attorney who supports Animal "Rights" can circumvent the Court? If the D.A. has been subverted by AR groups and fails to understand the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare, we have a problem.

If you live in California and own an animal, you should be very angry that Animal Rightist groups like HSUS, Mancuso's Social Compassion, Peta, ASPCA and others are proposing laws that take away your rights while making you think it's only about "pitbulls" or "puppy mill dogs" or "errant kennels" or some sort of "animal abuse."

Animal Rightists are able to get away with this nonsense because many of us are selfish, caring only about the one or two animals in OUR living room, letting other people worry and do the work. It is not, contrary to public opinion, specific breeds or bad kennels or anything of the sort that brings "bad" law. Animal Rights groups will use any angle they can, knowing that most owners will NOT CARE about any animals but their own! When concerned breeders rally against Petland, Hunte, or commercial kennels, we are dooming our own rights by giving the AR groups more ammunition!! !

Speaking from a legal viewpoint, all animal owners must realize that innocent owners have been snared by Animal Rights Tactics. No one will tolerate animal abuse but many breeds have bought into the Animal Rights propaganda by attacking commercial kennels, blaming pit bulls, "unethical" breeders, "backyard" breeders, etc. etc.

What this means is that YOU were ensnared by the nonsense promoted by the Animal Rights faction. That's right, nonsense. You don't have to be brilliant to understand the Animal Rights Strategy. It's called divide and conquer.

Animal Rights activists simply get pet owners, dog show fanciers, even business owners, to take opposing sides against themselves!! Many of us have unknowingly fallen into this trap because we think we are all good, and others are bad. That is just what the AR groups want. It is simply an advertising campaign by animal rights groups to make us think we are bad if we disagree with them because they know we all want to be "good." They are good at what they do. Animal Rights groups like HSUS and PETA can afford marketing specialists who trick us (and the public) into denigrating other kennels, breeders, or groups as "bad".

There are only two sides to the legal right to own, breed, and keep animals. One side stands up for ownership. The other side is Animal Rights Trickery, designed to take us apart via divisiveness. Animal Rightists count on the fact that we will ignore "animal rights" and "animal abuse" laws because they don't affect us. Guess what? They most certainly DO and WILL affect YOU:

* When they file forcible entry warrants allowing night time entry for barking

* When they seize your animals because you can't afford an attorney

* When you lose your civil or property rights over "environmental issues"

* When you must remodel your home to qualify as a home breeder

* When you are charged with "abuse" for owning a cropped/docked breed

* When you are cited under an obscure "abuse" law in the local code?

STOP. STOP. STOP. Stop thinking you are "good" and others are "guilty." We are all guilty of falling into the Animal Rights Trap–but you can save your right to own a pet of your choice by opposing every law proposed by HSUS or any Animal Rights group.

There are laws that can be used against them, including the Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. There are more than 60 million animal owners and we should not be whining, we should be fighting for our animals! If it `could affect' your dog or cat down the line, then it affects YOU right now!

Get smart. Out-think Animal Rights for what it is - evil masquerading as animal welfare. Support animal welfare and fight back against Animal Rights. There's a big difference.

http://www.thedogpl ace.org/PROJECTS /BBR/Animal- Rights-Abuse_ CardozoEsq- 09092.asp