On Battle forming in 43rd District

Posted on October 23 at 5:10 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

This HUGE campaign issue of JOBS is somewhat absurd because if there were a solution it would be implemented, no matter what the party affiliation. The idea of "I will create jobs" is so misleading. Politicians can TRY to create an environment that welcomes jobs, but can't create them. So in looking at the answers from both of these candidates on the issue of job creation, I applaud Kim Hixson for being honest in saying there isn't any "magic wand" for job creation and the rest of his answer spelled out specific instances of strategies being used to enhance jobs in Wisconsin.

Evan Wynn, on the other hand, didn't say anything that had any substance! I am scratching my head wondering what he is saying? How do you give certainty/stability and how do you LIFT UP employees/businesses? Who is demonizing businesses and calling them evil? Where are the facts here? He is absolutely saying nothing concrete or factual!

I feel integrity, honesty, fairness, intelligence, compassion, with an understanding of the issues to be important, then for the candidate to be able to communicate those to the voters/constituents. Kim Hixson has demonstrated all of these attributes and has been an exemplary assembly representative. He is also working on legislation to make it a felony to harm a companion animal with a lethal weapon, based on the incidence in Milton where the dog was shot with an arrow. He has worked to get broad band services in rural areas, which he serves. He introduced a bill to correct a $31 million dollar tax assessment error in Milton to save folks from increased property taxes.

It saddens me to hear people evaluate a candidate based on pictures and not to assess them on their knowledge of the issues and the concrete strategies they offer as solutions.

On Bicycling in state tops deer hunting

Posted on March 4 at 2:11 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

I see lots of people cycling in Rock Co, in fact I was surprised to see so many out already with snow still in sight. They don't have the fancy bikes, but they are the avid bikers that use it for general transportation. Keep healthy and help the economy! That's a win, win.

On People demonstrate against Petland, but store says it uses reputable breeders

Posted on August 11 at 1:22 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Mike1316 I agree with your philosophical views, but if I understand you correctly, you wouldn't support legislation that is aimed to stop puppy mills and set humane standards for those animals? You sound like a humanitarian, and although this legislation doesn't solve all of the problems, it is a beginning. I believe, the evolution of humankind has moved towards compassion and I have hopes we will continue to progress. I am hopeful that you will read the bill and support it, because if folks like you don't, how will these changes ever be realized?

On People demonstrate against Petland, but store says it uses reputable breeders

Posted on August 11 at 7:28 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

Whether you are a hunter, fisherman, meat eater, farmer, animal rights activist, or animal welfare advocate..............THE FOCUS should be on the PARENT DOGS WHO ARE KEPT IN CAGES ALL OF THEIR LIVES, FORCED TO BREED, AND PUPPIES WHO ARE BORN IN THESE CAGES THEN ARE SHIPPED BY THE TRUCKLOAD, LIKE PRODUCTS, TO PET SHOPS WHERE THEY ARE PUT INTO CAGES UNTIL PURCHASED! PET SHOP PUPPIES = PUPPY MILL PUPPIES. We need to join the 21st century and stop the abuse.

On People demonstrate against Petland, but store says it uses reputable breeders

Posted on August 11 at 7:19 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

As director of the Wisconsin Puppy Mill Project, I have talked to numerous state and local leaders in an effort to educate them about the horrors of pet profiteers. Many of them view our anti-puppymill advocacy as nothing more than the work of "a small bunch of animal rights activists."

Why is the term "animal rights activist" used in an attempt to belittle and marginalize humane-minded people? As children, we are taught in school, in church and in scouts to be actively "kind to animals." Scout troops give children merit badges for animal work...our whole culture tries to teach children kindness.

But when we, as adults who learned our childhood lessons well, speak out for animals and express the "humane-ness" that has become part of our personalities...we are labeled as crazy, "humaniacs," or tagged as "animal rights activists" as if our advocacy were a disease. This is a sad and tragic aspect of our culture...that humane people have to defend their very spirit of kindness...and to those who "represent" us, at that.

People who speak and work for animals are in the company of great scholars like Jane Goodall and Albert Schweitzer, great authors like Mathew Scully, and great statesmen like Mohandas Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln. I am far more comfortable in their company than that of any "leader" who would belittle our efforts with trite tags and insulting labels. I am satisfied knowing that we understand natural beauty, incredible loyalty and unconditional love from animals.

And I, for one, could do without "representation" from those who view compassion as a liability. Why would anyone want to follow leaders who would discredit us for being "humane?"
Eilene Ribbens

On People demonstrate against Petland, but store says it uses reputable breeders

Posted on August 10 at 7:23 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

JoeSchmo, the puppies at Mounds are from shelters and rescues. They are doing a good thing.

On People demonstrate against Petland, but store says it uses reputable breeders

Posted on August 10 at 7:17 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Mespl, you asked, “What conditions would you require from the breeder so that you consider it a good practice?” Good question. Just Google “reputable (or good) breeder tips or criteria” and pick a source that you feel is credible. You will find they all say the same things. #1. Meet the puppy's parent/s – no excuses accepted, to check temperament, and how well socialized. Did the dog come from a home environment so it was used to the sights, and sounds of the home, max of 2 breeds for sale and puppies not always available. etc. Usually there are about 10-12 things you should check before buying. Remember Internet sites are not always what they seem, so be sure to apply good breeder tips when buying online or from ads.

On Should state regulate dog breeders?

Posted on July 18 at 10:12 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Why would there any doubt for the need to regulate dog breeders when there ARE animals being abused in breeding facilities?

There aren't any regulations for those selling dogs on the Internet, in newspapers, or from their homes. Many of those dogs ARE from breeding facilities that have DEPLORABLE conditions. Licensing is needed to find them, and inspections are needed to ensure humane treatment. Regulations are needed because dog breeding has grown into a multi-million dollar industry and animals are suffering.

The reason Gov. Doyle line item vetoed legislation in 2003 was because of budget constraints. The current Smith/Kreitlow Bill, in the WI legislature, has been written to be self-funded, the license fees are to be used to pay for the inspections.

PA passed breeder legislation in 2008 and their governor was very instrumental in helping the legislation pass, and now their Bureau of Dog Enforcement is able to successfully shut down some "puppy mills" because they have regulations and the laws necessary to enforce them. Look it up their press releases, annual reports, dog tip line, published inspection reports, etc. online at: http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/agric....

It is time for Wisconsin to pass legislation and put an end to suffering for profit.

On Advocates hope for breeding rules

Posted on July 16 at 5:55 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

I do not proclaim to be an expert on this subject, it just seems that the focus continues to bypass the issue which is inhumane treatment.
I do not find 60 pages of laws governing dog breeders by the Animal Welfare Act or APHIS. There are minimal standards without any definitions or guidelines. There isn't any enforcement of current laws and animals sold by pet stores or directly to the public (like over the Internet, from homes, or through newspaper ads) ARE NOT COVERED BY Animal Welfare Act. Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) as a means of regulating animals in science and research, not animal cruelty. Without more specific rules governing commercial kennels, these facilities are able to continuously operate legally, yet be inhumane for the dogs within the facility.
Inspections of commercial breeding facilities are of great importance to animal welfare because it is the regulatory agency that has the power to shut down facilities that do not follow the rules. Enforcement is currently lacking and requirements undefined.

Providing new laws that enable the public to be knowledgeable about legitimate breeders can provide clear expectations and allow legitimate breeders to prosper in the production of healthy puppies.

It is critical for WI to act immediately and effectively on puppies' welfare. Legitimate breeders are encouraged to follow the laws and regulations set forth and preserve the integrity of the business. Most importantly, the general public can help curb the disturbing business of puppy mills by decreasing the demand by purchasing puppies from legitimate breeders, performing self-inspection of facilities, and reporting violations, and avoiding buying puppies over the Internet. Both breeders and the public need to be held accountable for the rising problem of puppy mills in Wisconsin.

On Advocates hope for breeding rules

Posted on July 8 at 10:03 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Nonewtaxes, and pbvgmom: You are, obviously, breeders who are concerned about this bill. Why? If you are a hobby breeder that license fee is $5-$10 dollars per dog if you sell between 25-50 dogs/year, so up the price of your puppy by that amount, that shouldn't drive you out of business. What about the inspection component? Isn’t that important for ANYONE who sells dogs? If you are a reputable breeder you already invite prospective buyers to your house to see how the dog is socialized, meet the parents of the puppies to see their temperament, and let people see the conditions the dogs live in. What is there to hide from inspectors? Yet if you read the Dog Federation of WI, June 11 Orange alert: www.dfow.org/BreederAlert6-11-09.pdf they say, "If animal control or law enforcement come to your door, walk out of your door and shut it behind you. Do not allow them to enter your home." (read the rest on the site) Why wouldn’t an upstanding citizen, breeder, not want to be visited by enforcement officials, unless they had something to hide? You folks keep hyping the license and inspection components of the bill as the issue that will drive you out of business. The license is cheap, and inspection shouldn’t be an issue. You don’t belong in business if you can’t measure up. You need to pay taxes, be licensed, inspected and pay your dues like all business people. Lastly, the bill is self-funded so tax payers won’t have to pay, just those of you “in the business.” All of you, read the bill: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/A.... You seem to forget or don’t mention there ARE PROBLEM BREEDERS AND DOGS LIVING IN DEPLORABLE CONDITIONS. You are not focusing on the right issue, and if you are a breeder that doesn’t recognize this or are not interested in helping these animals, I feel, YOU may be part of the problem.