Jeremy Jeremy Jeremy - how naive - Yes we don't approve of puppy miles or BYB or albino breeders - but you can't kill one without killing the other so along with Slimey Wayne's program he is out to get all breeders and pets period. You need to study his real purpose NOT what he presents to the public to mislead them.
We already have laws to accomplish these goals without more laws and punishing the good with the bad. We are smart enough to know that if they get some of the laws past then we ar next on his crooked agenda. WAKE UP!!
The AKC rakes in over 20 milion a year for registering puppy mill dogs and has a vested interest in seeing puppy mills thrive. So they tell the small breeders (through groups like NAIA) 'better not let those crazy extremists get a foot in the door, before you know it, the vegan boogey man will come and confiscate your pets and force tofu down your throat". I believe the AKC opposes all humane legislation in favor of industry interests (although I am not saying the AKC is all bad either, especially when it come to funding health research, and some dog clubs are doing amazing work in furthering the health of their breed, and standards are moving more to health than appearance - all these things are good
Please show me where to find proof of Wayne Pacelle's real purpose, and I will look into it, and get back to you. Lol, even if getting rid of pets was Pacelle's real agenda, do you think the public would ever allow that to happen? I wouldn't and none of the HSUS supporters I know would either, especially since most of them are meat eaters, and plenty also want to be able to purchase healthy purebred dogs.
When HSUS passed the recent wave of anti-puppy mill legislation, over a thousand mills closed in a relatively short period of time, and many more are continuing to close. To me, this shows these laws were both needed and effective in eliminating the worst of the puppy mills.
I must be naive, never in a million years would I imagine that the small responsible breeders in the pet fancy world would think it's ok to be a mouth piece for the puppy mill industry. When I realized that some (not all) contributors on this thread thought that it was ok, I did not think my contributions on here would help the animals. But here I am trying again...
I think it's reasonable to want HSUS to give more help to shelters, and reasonable for small breeders to be exempt from regulations that could potentially hurt them. I don't think it's reasonable to promote the lies of the animal exploiters as this only further hurts animals.
Here is one of the fear mongering tactics the exploiters use to scare breeders into believing that getting a foot in the door will lead to no meat or pets.
From Wikipedia
Slippery slope
In
debate or
rhetoric, a
slippery slope (also known as
thin end of the wedge - or sometimes "edge" in
US English - or the
camel's nose) is a classic form of argument, arguably an
informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.
[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the
warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with
continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.