Old Foes Square Off Over Issue of Puppies
This article is about how Montana and Missouri is the biggest states for bredders for dogs. Some people were agruing over the fact that you should have a certain amount of puppies you can breed. These people have agrued before about farm animals and now there going at it again. Animal rights have been protected and the people that have livestock for a living are complaining that it's not fair. There is now a proposition, Proposition B, have limited the amount of breeders in one state. 2 million dollars have been put to supporting this proposition. One person said this is the first step to complelety destorying the industry in US. These groups of people are also trying to debate the hunting games and make sure there are enclosures where you can't hunt for the animals. It is said that breeding dogs without a license can cause problems. Dogs can get sick and could die without proper care. For people who breeding puppies is their lives work and profession will be in a battle over this time.
I think is a good article to debate about. I'm on the side of the non-breeders. Only people who have a license to breed should be able to or it could cause major problems. And even if you have a license there should be a limit of puppies one person can breed or all of them could get sick. It sounds like these two groups of people fight an awful lot about a lot of topics. I do feel bad though for the people who make money off of breeding puppies because they will lose a lot of money after they get cut back from the limit of puppies they can breed.
Question:
1. Who do you think will win the agruement? The people who want to non-breeders or people who want breeders?
2. Why is people breeding puppies without a license cause a problem?
3. Why do you think this is one step for destorying the industry?
Whoever said putting a limit on breeding puppies will destroy the industry is overreacting. I think that a limit on breeding puppies would be good because I am sure in today's economy that not as many dogs are being purchased anyways. That person may have been biased because they might have been a breeder themselves. If limiting the number of puppies that can be bred becomes a law, breeders will loose money. I definately think that there sould be a limit because breeding so many dogs cannot be a good idea. They take up space and cost money to care for and not as many people can afford them in the country's current state. Since there probably won't be an overwhelming need for puppies in the next few years, they should breed less. Puppies that do not get sold are probably sent to dog shelters like the SPCA. If dogs get too old in shops and nobody buys them, the shops can't hold them any longer and they have to go. My dog was very close to being sent out of the pet store because he was at the store for an unusal amount of time. I do not want to supply of dogs to exceed the demand just because breeders want to get more money. I have also been to the SPCA and there were many dogs there and places like the SPCA would become overcrowded if there were too many dogs bred. I agree with Anna that all dog breeders should have a license so the puppies do not get diseases and die.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americantowns.com/ny/attica/news/area-spca-overcrowded-and-under-funded-59310
This article is about cats instead of dogs. It tells us about the Wyoming County SPCA. It is having trouble with funds and it is becoming overcrowded. People are just dropping off animals every day, even after the place is closed. They are a "no kill" shelter too.
I think that people are arguing about pointless things. I dont think you should need a lisence to breed a dog the best of its abilites. i think that it is very stupid that people think you should have a lisence in order to help dogs become the best that they can possibly be. People should be more focused on the fact that we raise slaughter and eat animals. Not that we breed them to either hunt or heard. I hope people come to their senses about the stupid fights that will not make much of a difference either if they are won or lost.
ReplyDeleteAbout your question number one. I think that no one will win this argument. I think it is blown out of porportion and that this problem will just be overlooked in the future. I hope that people come to their senses sooner rather than later.
Although I don't think most people realize it, this can be a very big deal. A serious amount of animals can be injured or disease ridden if the non-licensed breeders aren't aware of the precautions that they need to take when breeding dogs. Although some people think that this isn't that big a deal, if the number of unlicensed breeders go up, then the number of dogs with injuries and sicknesses can also go up and this could even affect the different species of dogs thta are being bred.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that the breeders are going to win this argument. People don't think that this is a big enough deal and I don't think that rthere are going to be enough people backing up the nonbreeding movement to have it be destroyed.
I think the people should not breed animals because there are enough animals that suffer every day from living in the street without anyone who shows interest of raising them and taking care of them. The dogs that breed without the help of human are in danger because they are get trapped by agencies that their policy is : if no one would take the dog, the would execute them and kill them while they are young. I think this is a murder and humans that kill animal are murderers, we have to create more laws agaisnt human breeding, that for sure.
ReplyDeleteI found an article that describes how kansas would create laws to ban the breeding of dogs and by that helping the poor natural breed animals. they made a propsition and hopefully it will pass in congress.
the link is : http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/19/2330748/proposition-would-tighten-regulations.html