I'm not interested. Seems to me we should have a hunting season for dogs and cats to control overpopulation.

12/1/2010 3:09:38 PM

I'm think taking a dog that is probably in extraordinary amounts of pain every day of its life, and probably costs thousands of dollars to keep alive, and not putting it to sleep is cruelty, and just plain wasteful. You could take care of like 1,000 other dogs with that time and money.

[Edited on December 1, 2010 at 5:33 PM. Reason : ]

12/1/2010 5:32:34 PM

^you know whats great about this country is that one can spend their money on whatever they want. If they want to "waste" it giving an tortured pup a chance they are allowed to do it. Amazing concept huh.

BTW, Susie has a ton of scars from the burns but has a TON of energy. Kinda a handful. haha

The crowd wasnt big at all, but I think most people who showed up did donate to help other abused animals.

12/2/2010 12:20:45 AM

I think Kris must be either high or drunk. His posts have far more errors (grammar/spelling-wise) than normal lately.

But eyedrb, I gotta say...even though Kris is a godless commie, he didn't say that we should force people to support healthy dogs, he just said it seemed kind of dumb to spend tons of money on a fucked up dog when the same amount of money would save many more healthy dogs. Which, while I don't necessarily agree with it, I understand...and which does not really lend itself to the response you gave.

12/2/2010 2:14:03 AM

Well, even with a utilitarian approach to this, saving Susie may have done more good for more dogs as a result of the awareness she's raised than using the money in other ways.

12/2/2010 2:24:06 AM

grumpy, I understand what he is getting at. I simply disagree. I can state a ton of ways money could be "better spent", but if people want to give their money to help these tortured animals then so be it. It isnt anyones business really.

And as Supplanter stated, saving susie and hearing her story outraged enough people to act and get this law passed as well as raised money to help other abused animals. I wrote a check myself bc of Susie.

12/2/2010 9:15:07 AM

Quote :

"I think Kris must be either high or drunk. His posts have far more errors (grammar/spelling-wise) than normal lately."

The sentence might have been hard to follow as I originally wrote it as a negative, unfortunately my life as a working stiff doesn't allow me to enjoy the pleasures of marijuana and alcohol frequently, so it's not that. Any spelling errors I make while at work, and not able to use spellchecker.

As for the Susie thing, you want to waste your money on dogs that should just be put down, fine. I think it's quite cruel not to put them down and end the suffering after such abuse and I think it's out of vanity that you keep these things alive. As for me, I don't give a shit because it's a dog, I'll cry for it as much as I cry for any other animal out there that has a shitty life, which is most of them.

[Edited on December 2, 2010 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2010 4:42:26 PM

I've been wondering how the NC GOP will deal with the idea of a puppy meal ban. Its difficult to know with a lot of new people. And as I've said before I'm sure they've built up a massive to-do list over the years which probably means a puppy mill ban has no chance. But I've been looking for signs on where republicans might stand on this. Here's story form another state:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/republican-state-senator-files-repeal-puppy-mill-cruelty-prevention-act/

"Republican state senator files for repeal of Missouri’s ‘Puppy Mill Act’"
By Eric W. Dolan
Tuesday, December 7th

Quote :

"Republican State Senator Bill Stouffer filed legislation to repeal a bill aimed at curbing cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs by breeders last week. The Missouri Dog Breeding Regulation Initiative, Proposition B, known as the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act," requires large-scale dog-breeders to provide basic food and water, adequate shelter, necessary veterinary care, adequate space, regular exercise, and adequate rest between breeding cycles to dogs under their care. The bill also prevents breeders from owning more than 50 breeding dogs."

Quote :

"Missouri is considered the "puppy mill capital" of the nation. The US Humane Society estimates that nearly one million puppies a year are produced by the 200,000 breeding dogs in the state. Data from Missouri's Department of Agriculture, released by Freedom of Information Act request, showed that the nation's largest commercial dog-breeder, Hunte Corporation, disposed of 50 to 100 dead dogs a month."

Quote :

""Proposition B is one more step to making us a communist, socialist society," Andrews added."

Hopefully its just unique dynamics being the puppy mill capital of the nation though.

12/8/2010 5:41:16 PM

Well we require certain standards for our food supply and other areas of production....why not puppy mills?

12/8/2010 6:33:57 PM

Because DON'T TREAD ON ME, that's why!

12/8/2010 8:18:16 PM

Another animal welfare improvement effort that could be voted on soon:

http://ncvaw.org/chamberlins-law/

Quote :

"Chamberlin’s Law addresses many of the specifics to his case -reckless abandonment and inadequate shelter. And some other insufficiencies in the current N.C. animal welfare statues. Chamberlin’s Law has 4 important parts: 1. Changes language in animal welfare statue from “maliciously” or “intentionally” harm an animal which is harder to prove in court. To “recklessly” harm an animal which is easier to prove in court. This change will mean more convictions of animal abusers. 2. It would set minimum standards for shelter (i.e. dog houses) that dogs must have if they are kept outside. This is important because many counties in North Carolina have NO requirements for dog houses. 3. Gives judges the ability to prohibit the person convicted from having custody of animals for any period of time. 4. Allows judges to order convicted animal abuser to receive a psychiatric or psychological evaluation and/or counseling at the animal abuser’s expense. "

Crazies usually start with animal abuse first, so point 4 there might help catch the violent psychos early.

2/2/2011 9:41:24 PM

http://ncvaw.org/elimination-of-shelter-oversight/

NC Voters for Animal Welfare just put out this action alert to send an e-mail in opposition to ending the only oversight for shelters & other pet housing facilities. You can click the link above if you want to send the e-mail. Some more info from their website about it is below:

Quote :

"The Animal Welfare Section: * Inspects shelters, boarding kennels, pet stores and large rescue groups to ensure the safety of the animals and workers within them * Provides on line inspection reports of above listed facilities available to the general public for review at their leisure * Inspects euthanasia processes and euthanasia technicians each year to ensure that they meet the requirements of the AWA * Provides shelters and county officials with options for correcting deficiencies that fit within the county budget and assists in finding resources for repairs and training * Handles hundreds of animal welfare complaints from the general public annually regarding shelters, pet stores and animal rescues * Acts as resource for shelters and animal control agencies throughout North Carolina and provides valuable information sharing between agencies * Has found countless deficiencies in shelter structures across the state resulting is shelter renovations that have drastically improved the lives of NC shelter animals * Provides oversight of euthanasia procedures * Inspectors promote Spay/Neuter through education of both the public and local governments * Provides community outreach to remove the stigma associated with animals shelters * Has been responsible for uncovering puppy mills, animal cruelty cases and unscrupulous “rescues” Why should you oppose this proposal? If the Animal Welfare Section is eliminated there will be no oversight of animal shelters, boarding facilities, pet stores or large rescue groups. Over 320,000 animals enter NC shelters annually. Our shelters are in crisis due to pet overpopulation and budget cuts. Elimination of this section would be a devastating blow to the animals and the men and women who are caring for them. Who would be impacted by this proposal? The elimination of the Animal Welfare Section cuts less than $400,000 from the Department’s $61 million budget. The Animal Welfare Section has been under funded since the inception of the program in 2005. Even grossly underfunded, the Section positively impacts over 320,000 shelter animals annually, hundreds of animal welfare workers across the state, and animal facilities in 100 counties."

3/30/2011 9:54:26 PM

These women are the MADD of our generation...well-meaning soccer moms that will eventually fuck everything up.

3/30/2011 11:30:30 PM

^

3/31/2011 7:25:39 AM