I actually believe some of that is good....not in the way hobby breeders will be targeted, but I am in favor of seeing pics of property ofpeople who currently hold USDA liscences (commercial breeders) because it is clear from the photos, when people see them, that these are mills. Often, if you have an address, you can see it on google earth anyway, and that's how we've been able to identify some pretty awful mills who are trying to deny that they are mills.
I think that article above is sensationalist, for one, and it's super problematic, because it's suggesting that commerical breeders are the same as hobby breeders. While I understand the ways in which these new rules are doing that to a degree, what this article is doing is eliding hobby breeders (who certainly would not at this stage be on the website, because they don't have USDA licencense) and commerical breeders. I WANT to see the photos of commerical breeders, especially because USDA requirements are so lax that even places that have no violations may be horrible for dogs. I believe if people see what those places are like, they may not buy from them.
The stuff about people's emails being read? Where did he even get that? Unless he's "just" talking about the NSA?
I don't know how to work around these problems, but protecting commericial breeders, or making common cause with them, is NOT the way to go. And to me, it sounds like that is who he is trying to protect.
I don't see how anyone's civil rights are being violated either.
I'm fine with exposing puppy mills (corporations / business properties). I am NOT fine with any individual's name, photos, and private home address published on a site without their consent. Not only is it a violation of civil rights, but due to the nature of the website, it can and will lead to hate crimes. Vigilantes and PETA nutcases will use it to target people, the same way that already has happened with sex offender lists.
Just a quick reminder to everyone what a hate crime is before it's mentioned again.
"In both crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes, or race hate) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: racial group, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity or gender identity.[1]
Hate crime is a category used to describe bias-motivated violence: 'assault, injury, and murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, different nationality, different language, different religion.'[2]
"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives.
Just a simple definition from Wikipedia. The legal definition is #2. Breeders are not a protected class and can not legally be the victim of a hate crime.
Yeah I was going to post that last night but lost my power.
hate crimes= someone being targeted because of race/ethnicity/religion or sexual orientation. The person has to be a member of a minority group in one of these areas.
If a breeder is a member of a protected group, they could be a target of a hate crime IF the attack is based on race/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation whatever, but not simply for being a breeder. That's not going to change.
The same with civil rights violation. I'm not saying there might not be crimes against breeders--could happen--but it will not likely be "hate crimes" nor a violation of civil rights. These things have specific definitions and and refer to specific issues (often tied to the minority status of the person involved) and I'm always annoyed seeing these terms thrown around in a way that they do not actually apply.
The sex offender list is also a bad comparison, since the publication of such information in those cases is actually legal, and legally mandated.
anyway, while there is always a threat of fringe animal rights groups going after a reputable breeder, the ASPCA is not going to, nor any of the bigger groups. And if they target puppy mills that's fine with me. I'd love to see the mills shut down, and just wish this actually did something towards that.
@lindsayt I'm not saying that breeder's wouldn't be targeted (although I do think there is some hysteria in this thread), what I am saying is that it would not be defined as a "hate crime."
Being 1 of 5 cousins out of 50 in the US that is actually all "white" I was raised to really understand my white privilege and be cognizant of it. I have seen, and first hand experienced, hate crimes which to me are the most disgusting crimes of all time. To me having people who are part of a privileged community use these terms to describe something that isn't a civil rights violation is undermining what thousands of people were injured and murdered to finally have defined. And let it be known that people had to die to have their class added to this group, ie the homosexual community today was only recently added after a young man gave his life. Let's keep the term to represent their plight and sacrifice.
Civil rights are basically just statutory rights (often based on constitutional rights) that are meant to protect people from governments and organizations. If there is a statute that such lists and pictures are in violation of, then yes, their civil rights are being violated. That said, this is also a free speech (constitutional rights) issue. You basically have the right to say whatever you want without the government interfering (for instance, by making a statute keeping you from saying it) unless what you're saying is somehow part of the classes of speech which are unprotected or the government isn't targeting the content of your speech (in which case the protection is less although not gone).
Hate crimes are defined statutorily and often derive from but are not beholden to protected classes (which are constitutionally defined via the Supreme Court). It is conceivable for breeders to be covered under a hate crimes statute simply for being breeders, but highly unlikely.
As far as posting this information goes, I'm not particularly okay with posting anything to do with someone's home if it's got nothing to do with a business (and by business I mean something someone's really trying to live on or heavily supplement their income with, not a hobby that someone actually loses money on). If it has nothing to do with the business you're trying to deter people from, then it really does feel like it's inviting people to attack these people. However, if you are, for instance, placing your puppy mill on the same property as your house and they share an address, then I have no problem with the address being out there. When you open a business, you open it up for public scrutiny. You don't want that scrutiny anywhere near your home? Keep them separate.
Thanks Notorious for the definitions. And I think that's my take on the addresses too. Should not be out there for hobby breeders, but for commericial breeders whose business is at the same place? That's a different thing.
I do not condone attacks on anyone, but I do like to be able to have the public see photos of what mills actually look like, so they understand what they're supporting when they buy a mill dog.
If you want to see hysteria, see any dog group on Facebook, lol.
Actually I think this thread is pretty reasonable. There aren't any wild accusations or assumptions, just people linking various resources and discussing interpretations and clarifications.
I've been looking at this thing backwards and forwards. If there is a silver lining to this turd it's the fact that we will now be producing show dogs and preserving lines rather than just cranking out pets. It's something that I've believed in for sometime and the changes to their regulations reenforce that belief. It's an easy argument for any of us breeding any of the japanese breeds in the US to make.
I haven't actually seen it written anywhere that selling for pet or exhibition cancels out the working or preservation status. I've only seen it assumed as much. Unless I'm missing something.
@hondru It's in the doc, I will pull it up later. That said, "exhibition" does not include dog shows. By exhibition they mean like, zoo and circus type things.
If you sell all your dogs as show/breeding (not-for-pet) you're fine. If you sell a dog that is for both breeding and a pet... it's a grey area. I recommend not marketing any "dual purpose" animal as a pet just to be safe. [If you're shipping and have more than 4 intact females or reselling an animal not born on your property.]
Doubt puppy-mills will be shut down as the result of USDA's inspections. If anything, it just enshirned puppy-mills as corporations and makes it extraordinary difficult for hobbyists to compete in the pet-market.
Hunte Corporation backed the regulations, and was very involved in the decision-making process.
If you don't meet the requirements for the exemption you must be licensed and inspected by the usda, eg. turn your kennel into a sterile, commercial operation.
And don't get me started on how unpopular brindles are compared to reds. If the "working dog" loop hole doesn't work out, I don't think I'll breed brindles again. I'd never have enough people waiting for one and willing to travel that I'd be comfortable producing a litter. Placing four was difficult enough, and only one person flew out to pick up.
Comments
http://boxers101.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-new-usda-regulations-and-how-they.html#comment-form
http://www.thedogpress.com/SideEffects/ASPCA-Violates-Breeders_Losey137.asp
I think that article above is sensationalist, for one, and it's super problematic, because it's suggesting that commerical breeders are the same as hobby breeders. While I understand the ways in which these new rules are doing that to a degree, what this article is doing is eliding hobby breeders (who certainly would not at this stage be on the website, because they don't have USDA licencense) and commerical breeders. I WANT to see the photos of commerical breeders, especially because USDA requirements are so lax that even places that have no violations may be horrible for dogs. I believe if people see what those places are like, they may not buy from them.
The stuff about people's emails being read? Where did he even get that? Unless he's "just" talking about the NSA?
I don't know how to work around these problems, but protecting commericial breeders, or making common cause with them, is NOT the way to go. And to me, it sounds like that is who he is trying to protect.
I don't see how anyone's civil rights are being violated either.
"In both crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes, or race hate) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: racial group, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity or gender identity.[1]
Hate crime is a category used to describe bias-motivated violence: 'assault, injury, and murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, different nationality, different language, different religion.'[2]
"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives.
Just a simple definition from Wikipedia. The legal definition is #2. Breeders are not a protected class and can not legally be the victim of a hate crime.
Thank you
hate crimes= someone being targeted because of race/ethnicity/religion or sexual orientation. The person has to be a member of a minority group in one of these areas.
If a breeder is a member of a protected group, they could be a target of a hate crime IF the attack is based on race/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation whatever, but not simply for being a breeder. That's not going to change.
The same with civil rights violation. I'm not saying there might not be crimes against breeders--could happen--but it will not likely be "hate crimes" nor a violation of civil rights. These things have specific definitions and and refer to specific issues (often tied to the minority status of the person involved) and I'm always annoyed seeing these terms thrown around in a way that they do not actually apply.
The sex offender list is also a bad comparison, since the publication of such information in those cases is actually legal, and legally mandated.
anyway, while there is always a threat of fringe animal rights groups going after a reputable breeder, the ASPCA is not going to, nor any of the bigger groups. And if they target puppy mills that's fine with me. I'd love to see the mills shut down, and just wish this actually did something towards that.
Being 1 of 5 cousins out of 50 in the US that is actually all "white" I was raised to really understand my white privilege and be cognizant of it. I have seen, and first hand experienced, hate crimes which to me are the most disgusting crimes of all time. To me having people who are part of a privileged community use these terms to describe something that isn't a civil rights violation is undermining what thousands of people were injured and murdered to finally have defined. And let it be known that people had to die to have their class added to this group, ie the homosexual community today was only recently added after a young man gave his life. Let's keep the term to represent their plight and sacrifice.
Thank you
Hate crimes are defined statutorily and often derive from but are not beholden to protected classes (which are constitutionally defined via the Supreme Court). It is conceivable for breeders to be covered under a hate crimes statute simply for being breeders, but highly unlikely.
As far as posting this information goes, I'm not particularly okay with posting anything to do with someone's home if it's got nothing to do with a business (and by business I mean something someone's really trying to live on or heavily supplement their income with, not a hobby that someone actually loses money on). If it has nothing to do with the business you're trying to deter people from, then it really does feel like it's inviting people to attack these people. However, if you are, for instance, placing your puppy mill on the same property as your house and they share an address, then I have no problem with the address being out there. When you open a business, you open it up for public scrutiny. You don't want that scrutiny anywhere near your home? Keep them separate.
I do not condone attacks on anyone, but I do like to be able to have the public see photos of what mills actually look like, so they understand what they're supporting when they buy a mill dog.
Actually I think this thread is pretty reasonable. There aren't any wild accusations or assumptions, just people linking various resources and discussing interpretations and clarifications.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_917_bill_20110726_chaptered.pdf
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/repeal-new-aphis-regulatory-ruling-regarding-definition-retail-pet-stores-under-animal-welfare-act/GRYCMdY0
I sometimes forget where I would fall under if I would do this or that. It's a handy reference to have.
If you sell all your dogs as show/breeding (not-for-pet) you're fine. If you sell a dog that is for both breeding and a pet... it's a grey area. I recommend not marketing any "dual purpose" animal as a pet just to be safe. [If you're shipping and have more than 4 intact females or reselling an animal not born on your property.]
Hunte Corporation backed the regulations, and was very involved in the decision-making process.