Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Pets > Dogs
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-18-2010, 11:43 AM
 
604 posts, read 751,311 times
Reputation: 274

Advertisements

Sure. its not the dog breeding that the law is being put in place for, it is to set up a precedent so that laws can be created without the consent of the people, you know?

By the people, for the people?

And I was just using $5 as an example. Prices won't go up for a year or so, but depending on the states they go after, after Missouri (and don't worry, if we all vote No, there'll be another law next year--see Illinois voted No, because they have a large rural population)

And you understand we ALREADY have a law regulating puppy mills??
Why are people putting up a fight against this, if all I say is untrue?

Whatever, just close your eyes and say yes.
I'm done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2010, 02:16 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
9,352 posts, read 20,041,951 times
Reputation: 11621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kings Ranger View Post
Sure. its not the dog breeding that the law is being put in place for, it is to set up a precedent so that laws can be created without the consent of the people, you know?

By the people, for the people?

And I was just using $5 as an example. Prices won't go up for a year or so, but depending on the states they go after, after Missouri (and don't worry, if we all vote No, there'll be another law next year--see Illinois voted No, because they have a large rural population)

And you understand we ALREADY have a law regulating puppy mills??
Why are people putting up a fight against this, if all I say is untrue?

Whatever, just close your eyes and say yes.
I'm done.
people are putting up a fight against prop b because they don't want to have to meet the minimally humane standards for dog breeding operations that prop b would mandate....... might cut into their profits some.....

and again.... PLEASE show me where in the Revised Statutes of Missouri puppy mills and abusive breeing practices are addressed

RSMO-Chapter 273

please also explain to me how a law regulating large scale dog breeding is going to make your big mac cost $5?? I just can't make that leap.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 09:57 AM
 
604 posts, read 751,311 times
Reputation: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by latetotheparty View Post
people are putting up a fight against prop b because they don't want to have to meet the minimally humane standards for dog breeding operations that prop b would mandate....... might cut into their profits some.....

and again.... PLEASE show me where in the Revised Statutes of Missouri puppy mills and abusive breeing practices are addressed

RSMO-Chapter 273

please also explain to me how a law regulating large scale dog breeding is going to make your big mac cost $5?? I just can't make that leap.......

Read, I dont feel like posting what I've posted twice, AGAIN

And I doubt McDonalds and Farm Bureau care about puppies
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 11:36 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
9,352 posts, read 20,041,951 times
Reputation: 11621
it is apparent that you have no facts and no proof for your claims...... and are just repeating what you have heard others with a more vested interest in seeing this bill fail have said.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 12:34 PM
 
410 posts, read 743,409 times
Reputation: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by latetotheparty View Post
please also explain to me how a law regulating large scale dog breeding is going to make your big mac cost $5?? I just can't make that leap.......
I'm as confused as you are on this one. I've read the proposal several times and just don't see it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Up in the air
19,112 posts, read 30,645,393 times
Reputation: 16395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kings Ranger View Post
And YOU must not have a very good Reading Comprehension ability.

IT IS THE WORDING and the available interpretation this Initiative would set up.
I too have read the Petition, a dozen times. 17 years old here, and not funded by HSUS, so I CANT sit around all day arguing for this.

McDonalds...you know, the friendly neighborhood mega-fastfood corporation that doesnt get into political debates and sides etc--

THEY'RE supporting the Vote NO people in the election, farmers across Missouri and agricultural organizations are banding together to educate the population of Missouri-- unless they're ALL wrong, and this has nothing to do with HSUS' admitted goal of an animal-free agriculture, then I doubt I'm spouting lies.

YES FREE-Range chickens in California.
YES 20 pigs in Florida (exlcuding piglets)

People that don't have much agricultural back-ground might not understand hamburger is beef and comes from a cow, and if the 2nd largest Beef producing state gets nailed by this law for puppies, that sets a precedent and allows a law for a regulation on the number/acreage of land/per animal can go straight to the governor (who was sponsored by HSUS) can sign it and allow it to pass.


Again, maybe ALL this is wrong, and McDonalds and every farmer in the Great State of Missouri are completely wrong...

I just don't want to pay $5 for a what was once a $1 hamburger
You're absolutely wrong about the 'free range' chickens in California. They were required to make MORE room in cages so the chickens can stand up fully and stretch their wings. That's it. Nobody was forced to go free range.

As for the $1 burger... don't you ever think about how many corners had to be cut to get you that burger for $1? I refuse to go to fast food chains because of that...their food is disgusting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 08:16 AM
 
119 posts, read 468,037 times
Reputation: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetJockey View Post
You're absolutely wrong about the 'free range' chickens in California. They were required to make MORE room in cages so the chickens can stand up fully and stretch their wings. That's it. Nobody was forced to go free range.

As for the $1 burger... don't you ever think about how many corners had to be cut to get you that burger for $1? I refuse to go to fast food chains because of that...their food is disgusting.
State Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a new law that makes California a cage-free state for chickens by 2015. The bill, which was backed by the Humane Society of the United States, will mean that all shell (whole) eggs sold in California must come from hens that can stand up, lie down, turn around, and fully extend their limbs without touching one another or the sides of an enclosure. I dont know if you know anything about chickens but this pretty much forces people to go free range if the chickens cant touch each other with their wings extended??

If you read up on the HSUS you will see that they want to do away with agriculture and the way the proposition is now they could change the language to cattle without a vote.

I have never bred a dog or even know anyone who personally does and I have done a lot of research on this bill and talked to a lot of people and it is not just the BYB's(you guys say that like it is a dirty word) but it is Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missour Vet Association and many others that are concerned with this because of the HSUS's agenda.

I had to get some medicine for our calves last night and had to stop by two of the Vet's office both located in MO and both vets were very against this proposition.

I am an avid dog lover and of course want the most humane treatment for dogs and would love to see Puppy Mills shut down but with the agenda of the HSUS I think it would be very dangerous to vote Yes on this Prop B. I think the better solution would be to enhance and enforce the law on the books and go after the unlicensed breeders as well.

Last edited by cmarsh4; 10-20-2010 at 09:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 08:43 AM
 
29,981 posts, read 42,961,323 times
Reputation: 12828
This discussion is really educating me about the evil history of the HSUS and their agenda. Did anyone here know that the HSUS has actually faced federal racketeering charges?

Press release: “Racketeering Lawsuit Fingers Humane Society of the United States” | HumaneWatch

There is little doubt that the HSUS is driven less by concern about "puppy mills" and more for their agenda of ridding the US of animal based agriculture.Here are some of the radical views of the extremists employed by the HSUS (some are former ALF and members of other eco-terrorist organizations):
http://www.furcommission.com/debate/words2.htm (broken link)


The Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City has come out against Proposition B. Story here:

Missouri Ruralist - Prop B Opposed by Agricultural Business Council

I truly believe if the intent of the HSUS was to halt puppy mills this proposition would have more teeth where it belonged, making a felony of unlicensed breeders with large numbers of intact breeding dogs. The failure to address unlicensed breeders, few teeth for licensed breeders, and especially the specificity of the # of breeding capable dogs in possession being spelled out in the law makes me highly suspicious of the HSUS's intentions.

It is flat out false advertising that this measure will put a halt to Missouri puppy mills. When one takes the time to read the proposition it is obvious it will not and does not realistically even address the problem.

Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 10-20-2010 at 08:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Up in the air
19,112 posts, read 30,645,393 times
Reputation: 16395
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmarsh4 View Post
State Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a new law that makes California a cage-free state for chickens by 2015. The bill, which was backed by the Humane Society of the United States, will mean that all shell (whole) eggs sold in California must come from hens that can stand up, lie down, turn around, and fully extend their limbs without touching one another or the sides of an enclosure. I dont know if you know anything about chickens but this pretty much forces people to go free range if the chickens cant touch each other with their wings extended??

If you read up on the HSUS you will see that they want to do away with agriculture and the way the proposition is now they could change the language to cattle without a vote.

I have never bred a dog or even know anyone who personally does and I have done a lot of research on this bill and talked to a lot of people and it is not just the BYB's(you guys say that like it is a dirty word) but it is Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missour Vet Association and many others that are concerned with this because of the HSUS's agenda.

I had to get some medicine for our calves last night and had to stop by two of the Vet's office both located in MO and both vets were very against this proposition.

I am an avid dog lover and of course want the most humane treatment for dogs and would love to see Puppy Mills shut down but with the agenda of the HSUS I think it would be very dangerous to vote Yes on this Prop B. I think the better solution would be to enhance and enforce the law on the books and go after the unlicensed breeders as well.
I was raised on a ranch and at one point had a flock of 150+ chickens, including a group of champion Crele Old English Bantams and Porcelain Belgian Bearded D'uccles with multiple BIS wins, so yeah...I know a thing or two about poultry.

And yes, I do prefer that chickens should have the ability to stand, turn around full extend their wings while in captivity. I've been to poultry farms that would cram 6+ chickens into a 3x3ft cage and it's appalling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 04:07 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
9,352 posts, read 20,041,951 times
Reputation: 11621
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetJockey View Post
I was raised on a ranch and at one point had a flock of 150+ chickens, including a group of champion Crele Old English Bantams and Porcelain Belgian Bearded D'uccles with multiple BIS wins, so yeah...I know a thing or two about poultry.

And yes, I do prefer that chickens should have the ability to stand, turn around full extend their wings while in captivity. I've been to poultry farms that would cram 6+ chickens into a 3x3ft cage and it's appalling.
don't they become violent towards one another in such conditions??

pardon my ignorance of poultry farming practices.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Pets > Dogs

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top