Bills to improve conditions in puppy mills to be introduced today

A western Pennsylvania legislator today will introduce long-awaited revisions to Pennsylvania's dog law pushed by Gov.

[Dennis]

Mandate clean water for dogs in Pennsylvania. Taxpayers dont even have clean water. Dep told me to get a filter because of farmers overfertilizing and causing high nitrates in wells. They told me to sign off of non-community water supply and poison my customers in which I refused and after a ten year fight they forced my liquor license to be revoked along with my health license. Gov. Rendell left us for dead along with the other two gov. Today wells here are high in nitrates andin Schuylkill County like everything else the coverup continues and all political cronies here turn there heads to the health problems. So if everyone wants clean water for there dogs maybe Agriculture shouldnot be allowed a dollor or two on the sale of dog licenses.. Remember not to drink the water at restaurants or bars in Schuylkill County because they could signed of of non-community water supply and leave the farmers pollute the groundwater andkill the babies. What a discrase Pennsylvania has become. Like my new republican supervisors told me to burn my home down or move while they have an ordinance agaist flying saucers in East Union Twp.

[horse owner]

The proposed regulations are over burdensome (and sometimes stupid) on legitimate breeders and kennels. Meeting the demands of the new rules would only satisfy the animal rights activists who want to end pet ownership by regulating breeders and kennels to death. See the position of the American Sporting Dog Alliance at this link:

http://www.acslpa.org/Dog%20Law%20Jan%2008/pa...

[AFru]

That's not the best scenario

[HSUS Member]

horse owner wrote:

The proposed regulations are over burdensome (and sometimes stupid) on legitimate breeders and kennels. Meeting the demands of the new rules would only satisfy the animal rights activists who want to end pet ownership by regulating breeders and kennels to death. See the position of the American Sporting Dog Alliance at this link:
http://www.acslpa.org/Dog%20Law%20Jan%2008/pa...

No they're not.

Reputable breeders value their dogs, and already treat them well with sanitary conditions, good veterinary care, interaction, exercise, and humane treatment.

It's the ones that USE these poor dogs full of filth and disease and interbreeding with genetic defects for no other reason than to push out sickly puppies for the almighty buck that these regulations are intended for.

Anyone considered a good and reputable breeder should already be doing good practices on their own, and shouldn't be affected at all. And I've known a bunch of them that breed excellent dogs, healthy and disease-free.

There's a HUGE difference here.

[AFru]

HSUS Member wrote:

<quoted text>
No they're not.
Reputable breeders value their dogs, and already treat them well with sanitary conditions, good veterinary care, interaction, exercise, and humane treatment.
It's the ones that USE these poor dogs full of filth and disease and interbreeding with genetic defects for no other reason than to push out sickly puppies for the almighty buck that these regulations are intended for.

Yes, they are.

The existing law covers all that issues, and the breeder is already responsible for the health of the dogs he breeds, or sells.

The new law aims to add extra stress for all breeders, as well as for their dogs the law intends to protect.

The almighty dollar aims to go directly to the lawmakers supported by animal rightists, not to the breeders of poor quality dogs, neither to the breeders of good quality dogs. They are the ones who make money on dogs here; now when they push a law that is a healthy and well bred puppy , that's one thing. When they looking to adapt a law that is a puppy-mill-bred lame puppy with fleas, ticks, and worms at a time, customers pay to treat that sick animal. Why bother ?

[HSUS Member]

AFru wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, they are.
The existing law covers all that issues, and the breeder is already responsible for the health of the dogs he breeds, or sells.
The new law aims to add extra stress for all breeders, as well as for their dogs the law intends to protect.
The almighty dollar aims to go directly to the lawmakers supported by animal rightists, not to the breeders of poor quality dogs, neither to the breeders of good quality dogs. They are the ones who make money on dogs here; now when they push a law that is a healthy and well bred puppy , that's one thing. When they looking to adapt a law that is a puppy-mill-bred lame puppy with fleas, ticks, and worms at a time, customers pay to treat that sick animal. Why bother ?

I think you misunderstood me and we agree...

No customer purchasing a pup should receive a sick dog and pay the price for problems created by money-hungry breeders with ramshackle kennels and puppy mills. My point, is that, besides the pain and suffering these poor animals have to endure.2990

[horse owner]

HSUS is an animal RIGHTS organization masquerading as an animal WELFARE org.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_over...

Of course, you will defend the new legislation, as will many concerned people who don't see the potential damage this can cause. There are already laws protecting animals from abuse, but without enforcement they are meaningless. New laws will give no extra protection to the animals that need it. It just creates added layers of bureacracy that will give more grief to legitimate breeders and kennel owners.