There’s been a decent amount of attention focused on the legislature not passing a bill to fight puppy mills.
I had heard that the N.C. Pork Council opposed the bill, and while I may be late to the party on this issue, I just saw their arguments for opposing the bill. I haven’t formed any opinion on the bill, but the arguments made are worth commenting on.
From the cited article:
Angie Whitener, the pork council’s lobbyist, said her group does not
oppose puppies so much as the bill’s main backers, the Humane Society
of the United States.
They opposed the bill because they oppose the Humane Society. That’s not exactly a policy argument against the bill.
There’s got to me more, right?
But Whitener, the pork council’s lobbyist, said the bill was about
more than dogs. She said she believes the Humane Society’s end goal is
to eventually stop meat production for human consumption.
Whitener
noted that the Humane Society of the United States sponsored
Proposition 2, a ballot initiative passed two years ago in California.
Among other regulations, the law requires that calves, chickens and
pigs be kept in areas where they can freely lie down, stand up and
fully extend their limbs. It was intended to ban the use of tightly
confining crates for breeding sows and cages for hens. Californians
overwhelmingly approved the ballot measure.
Actually, the bill was just about dogs. It may be true that the bill could have been a slippery slope, but that argument is very weak when we can draw clear distinctions between how society views dogs and farm animals. And, if society wants to treat chickens more humanely, it is hard to see how the puppy mill bill would have been the impetus for such a change.
If the NC Pork Council’s arguments don’t extend beyond what has been reported, they should be embarrassed. Even worse, the legislature should be embarrassed if they didn’t take action because of these non-arguments.
BTW: What’s wrong with a pig being able to stretch its legs?
