Treats on the Internets

The Monthly National Legislation Report posted a list of “119 incriminating examples of excessive, prohibited and under-reported lobbying by The Humane Society of the United States…”


A pet advocate has filed a lawsuit against the Robeson Co Animal Shelter in NC in an effort to legally prevent the shelter from killing dogs when a rescue has placed a “hold” on the dog:

Health Director Bill Smith tells The Robesonian of Lumberton he worries rescue groups will call and ask for adoptions to begin on all dogs, even if they won’t follow through.

If rescues placed holds on dogs they didn’t actually pull, that would mean, in effect, that the shelter would have to delay killing dogs by a few days. *sniff* I haz a sad.  Want keel NAO!


Editorial in NC paper in support of HSUS’ puppy mill legislation in the state.  I am opposed to this bill for several reasons but mainly because it puts a number on how many intact bitches one can own before crossing the line into “puppy mill”.  I have never supported this idea.  If you and your staff can provide good care for 100 intact dogs, who am I to tell you you’re a puppy mill?  Likewise, if you can’t provide good care for two intact dogs, I don’t see why you should be exempt from legislation supposedly designed to protect dogs used for breeding.


In case you missed it:  I’m raffling a goggie cookbook.

and FYI:  I added a poll on shelter pet killing on the right side of the blog.

2 thoughts on “Treats on the Internets

  1. I am a devoted Yes Biscuit reader, but on puppy milling laws, I am in disagreement. I’m no fan of HSUS, but on puppy milling, I’m pretty much with them. Dogs are loving, wonderful creatures, every single one deserving to live as a loved family member. If it isn’t, I don’t believe it is living a decent life. There is almost no way anyone and their “staff” can care for 100 dogs, and be giving them a fulfilling life. I don’t care how clean or brightly lit, or how “acceptable” the flooring is, a high volume breeder is almost always a puppy-miller, and those dogs aren’t living the life they deserve. For the protection of those who need it, the US has, at least since the Civil War, protected the rights of some by curtailing the rights of others. That protection should extend to animals, especially those creatures who have thrown their lots in with ours. Yes, a scumbag can own one animal and abuse/neglect/torture it. But at least it is one, as opposed to dozens or hundreds that are abused/tortured at the worst, or at best used as puppy-making machines, albiet in a clean, brightly-lit warehouses, churning out thousands of offspring sold with no regard to their health or futures. They deserve better than that. High volume puppy breeders need to find their humanity and make their livings some other way. I have been volunteering at my local county pound for 6 1/2 years. It has a very low kill rate because of a tremendous amount of ass-busting by staff and volunteers, but it is still soul-destroying sometimes. God help me, sometimes I look at those dogs and cats (and in lesser amounts, other animals), the relentless numbers of them and the shape some of them come to us in, and I think, go right ahead, take some rights away from “citizens” and give them to the animals. They are helpless. We are not.

    1. Thank you for reading and for giving your opinion.
      So is 100 (a number I picked at random) the number you would use to define “puppy mill”? If so, that should be the number that appears in every piece of similar legislation in all the states that have them. Because otherwise, how is having 100 intact dogs equivalent to being a puppy mill in one state but not if you cross state lines?
      btw, the number in the NC bill is 15.

Leave a Reply