Wednesday, October 27, 2010

"Pet" Redefined in Prop B--Why?

We're pets!? Since when?

According to pet is defined as followed:

pet--noun, adjective, verb, pet·ted, pet·ting.
1. any domesticated or tamed animal that is kept as a companion and cared for affectionately.

Note: "...kept as a companion and cared for affectionately."

According to Prop B:
(9) ”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.

Why would HSUS and ASPCA (the two major groups pushing this onto the ballot) feel the need to alter the definition of the word "Pet"? Note too, why would they omit the section of the definition they claim to care most about? Why would they omit the "companion" and "cared for affectionately" part? Why would they change the meaning of "Pet" to such a vague definition?

Why? I'll tell you why, lines 3 and 4.

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog:
(1) Sufficient food and clean water; The way this proposition defines clean water means that we would be in violation because the water and the feed get mixed in the bottom of the feeder pan and farmers that use a lake, pond, or stream to water their cows would be in violation too. 

(2) Necessary veterinary care; Again we would be in violation. Prop B states that a licenced vet must administer meds, treat the sick, and euthanize the lame; however, we work with licenced vets but we, the farmers, administer the meds, treat the sick, and euthanize the lame. We are trained to do these things by licenced vets and certified but certification is not a medical licence. Imagine how much it would cost for a vet or team of vets to come and do these things daily. We'd go out of business and so would every other farmer, not to mention there aren't enough vets to go around. 

(3) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements; Some cows have barns, some don't. Therefore, those farmers, whether they have a barn or not, are in violation because of the temperature limitations and many barns are open at one end which would violate the "protection from the elements." According to this definition a roof is not enough. The temperature limitations would also kill our piglets because they must be kept warmer than 85 degrees. Furthermore, waste must be removed daily. We have a deep pit for hog waste--which isn't waste at all, it is a priceless commodity called manure--and it would have to be cleaned daily while the hogs are outside. Not possible. 

(4) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs; This would increase the amount of space every farm animal across the board would need; forcing farmers to buy more land or use valuable crop land as pasture ground. 

(5) Regular exercise; and This would require farmers to have an outside area twice as large as the inside area!? Not realistic.

(6) Adequate rest between breeding cycles. Again, Prop B's standards are unrealistic. Farmers could only breed their livestock twice in an 18 month period. That alone would kill animal ag and destroy the nation's economy. 

4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may have custody of more than fifty covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet. Here's a doozy. Farmers would only be allowed to breed 50 sows, 50 cows, only 50 chickens could lay eggs, etc. Again, this would mean death to animal ag. But, then again, isn't that what HSUS wants.
I know, I know. Before you go typing hate mail and claiming I'm an idiot because Prop B is clearly meant for dogs only and has nothing to do with farm animals, consider this. If, according to Prop B, a pet is in fact a "domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner" that would mean that cows grazing in a pasture a few yards from their owners' house are "pets," the pigs that live behind my in-law's house only yards away are "pets," sheep, goats, chickens that live in a pasture on the same property which the owner resides are all "pets."
By redefining "pet" and creating an incredibly vague description, which in a court of law can be interpreted in the manner I have just described, it creates what is called in the legal profession a "loophole." By creating this "loophole" HSUS has also created an "in." All they would need to do if Prop B passes is file an amendment to change the breed of animal and good bye animal ag, good bye farmers, good bye meat, and hello imported expensive food and the socialist way of life, where big government rules and the little man drools (because he's so hungry).
Vote NO on Prop B.
Because this is not a pet.  


  1. You said it, Why must they redefine the meaning of pet's? So that it will appeal to the bleeding hearts that live in suburban USA and cast judgment on the farmers as they eat the red meat from Wal-mart! Why is it that all must be punished for the few? With this way of thinking (only my thoughts) all residents living outside the city limits must move to the city limits because of all the meth labs are in the country!

  2. sorry I do not think all meth labs are outside city limits. Do you know any farmers? All this is about money and control. There are laws on the books to watch the dog breeders. Now if they are not following the laws now why would they start after Prop B gets passed? Jo has hit the nail on the head if this passes then HSUS has a foot hold in Missouri.
    Thank you for your time,
    Elaine Walker