On Pious baloney 2.0

Posted on January 12 at 10:44 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

"Romney’s rivals have seized the baloney and slathered it with holy hoo-hah."

For REAL?? Are you journalists having a competition to see how many innuendoes you can create? This is almost as bad as "Santorum Surges from Behind" (google Santorum if you don't why this is particularly ironic)

Is this the GOP race or the back of a p*rn movie box at Shockwave?

On Farmer in court in raw milk dispute

Posted on January 12 at 10:35 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

I agree 100% swisschick. You are right that the processed food is not any safer- it all comes down to the dumbest person on the food production line.
What it really comes down to is that a farmer that can sell his own product is all of a sudden freed from being forced to sell to the corporate dairies like Dean. And Dean and Monsanto are the ones who pay the lawmakers campaigns.

On Euthanasia to control shelter population unpopular

Posted on January 7 at 12:15 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

"Finally, your last comment, that it is "ignorant" not to try to financially benefit from contributing to animal overpopulation, demonstrates what is important in your view: money, not animals' well being; cash, not compassion."

Quick lesson in reading comprehension, "reader" I never made a comment that people should try to benefit financially from animal overpopulation. I DID say it is ignorant to insist that my favorite breeder charge less for his dogs.

Do you see what you did there? First you created a completely fallacious comment that I never made, then infer further personal qualities based on this non-existent comment . Here, try this on for size:

"jvillerdr, Since you say that responsible pet breeding is part of the problem, it is obvious what is important in your eyes: quantity of animals saved, not quality of homes found; ensuring unsound animals flourish, whilst wishing well-bred healthy animals to disappear from the population."

If we were on a non-anonymous forum, this would be potentially libelous. But since you're a lawyer, that rescues totally TONS of animals and gives work away for free, you already knew that.

Now remember, comprehension! Not inference!

On Euthanasia to control shelter population unpopular

Posted on January 6 at 11:57 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

If you do read, then read for comprehension. This is the same problem we had on the thread where I "pretend to be a lawyer" (snicker)
I do not contradict myself by saying some rescues are too restrictive and that some are poorly run fences for puppy brokers. Both exist. Both do animals no favors.
Where your ignorance shines is the golden halo you wear that bears the name "rescue." It gives you no pedestal- when I purchase a dog and humanely care for it, it is no less noble an act then when you"rescue" a flea bitten puppy mill reject. You seem to have this twisted view that rescues are the pinnacle source to obtain a pet, when it CAN (note the qualifier there, just as in my prior post I said "some") be one of the worst places. In the end, it is the same to the animal. Neither act creates or destroys a potential home for a dog, since I would not seek out a rescue animal for French Ring purposes anyway. It's clear you operate from an animal-rights perspective, not an animal welfare one. As far as you volunteering for "several" rescues and thus obtaining boundless knowledge of animal rescue, no offense, but this kind of makes you sound like an animal hoarder. There is enough work in one animal rescue or shelter that the fact that you just happen to volunteer with SEVERAL makes me think you might be operating on the insane end of things..
And no, I do not have a problem with any responsible breeder making a profit off of their animal. Why would I? It does not contribute to pet overpopulation- it is puppy mills and backyard mutt breeders who do that. You seem to hold dear this bizarre concept that if there were less well-bred animals in this world, things would be better off for the poorly bred unhealthy ones. I hold to the theory that if people only bred the good ones, then every animal would be healthy and wanted. Good breeders can afford to get every dog excellent veterinary care and a good diet. Most rescues cannot - they go for quantity over quality.

On Euthanasia to control shelter population unpopular

Posted on January 6 at 7:59 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

jvilledr- Sounds like you haven't worked with many dog 'rescues' around here. I can name three that call themselves 'rescues' but really will adopt dogs out to anyone with the cash. On the other hand, you have my favorite breeders that will only sell to screened people WITH cash. So really, by your definition, my dog's breeders are more ethical than a lot of 'rescues'.
It's very proper and righteous of you to demand that animal breeders should only breed with the goal of producing superior animals. If your username is indicative of your profession, may I assume that you also work for reduced or free rates for the betterment of society?
(hint: It is not ethical to dictate what people do for a living, and regardless of quality breeders, there will always be numbskulls breeding chiweenies and pookipoms. Telling my breeder to breed animals and to do it for free, when he can get $2500 a dog, is ignorant.)

On Euthanasia to control shelter population unpopular

Posted on January 5 at 9:30 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

truth1, you do know how to google something, yes?
My breed of choice is Belgian Tervuren. I do not breed. And I pay out the nose for quality.

On Euthanasia to control shelter population unpopular

Posted on January 5 at 7:09 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Labeler- Murder pertains to humans only. There are many, many fates worse than death- you just can't ask the animals that die of starvation and disease. I know I would rather die by a needle stick than by wasting away in a cage for months, or dying of anemia due to fleas so bad that they cover your skin.

On Euthanasia to control shelter population unpopular

Posted on January 5 at 7:06 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Madcitydad and truth1- No, responsible breeding works towards several goals. The first of which is to only pass on excellent to superior genetics, resulting in a thriving and healthy animal. What you are advocating for is to only let mutts, crossbreds, or problem dogs breed or to get adopted.
As far as "breed rescues", check your facts. A lot of 'rescues' are run by soft hearts that don;t know anything about training, they just don't want puppies to die. Rescues are not free- it takes money to rehabilitate, retrain, and foster the dog. Plus some of them have ridiculously stringent rules- as in they won;t adopt to people that will crate the dog or work full time.
End result- you end up paying more $$$ for a rescue that may have health or behavior issues. No thanks. I would rather find a breeder that has been breeding for years, has an excellent sire and dam. That way I have a pretty good guess about the temperament of my pup, and I can train him or her the right way.
Plus, those of us that do French Ring training invest a lot of time and traveling in a competition dog. We need to be sure of our dog's background and confirmation. I have done this long enough that I have seen 4-5 generations of animals, and it is amazing how a good sire or dam will pass on their best qualities. You will get 5 to 7 competition level dogs out of a letter of 9-10. There is no way, absolutely no way you can get that level of reliability from a mess of shelter/crossbred dogs.

On Euthanasia to control shelter population unpopular

Posted on January 5 at 1:17 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Madcitydad, I disagree. There are many responsible dog owners who want a pedigreed animal with an appearance and behavior they are familiar with.
You say people should not buy from breeders? Are you only advocating buying of mixed breeds or adopting homeless dogs?
I support responsible breeders- those that only breed superior and healthy animals and that screen the puppies new homes.

On Mom reunites with biological child 77 years later

Posted on January 3 at 9:17 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

She was forced to give birth. And most likely, not presented with the option to keep and raise the child either.
As far as Ruth Lee being happy- well, does forcing one person to endure a life of emotional pain and unimaginable stress justify taking the CHOICE away from women?
Please note- this is WHY I am pro-choice- because it leaves the power with the WOMAN or GIRL. This girl had no choice when she was raped. She had no choice to abort the pregnancy. Then, she was stuck in a home and the choice to raise the child was ripped from her.
Now, 77 years later, she finally, finally, gets the choice to determine what shape her life takes. It's not about abortion. It's about trusting women enough to treat them like human beings and trust them to give them the power of choice.