CA “puppy mill” ban would give monopoly to rescue organizations, shelters

The animal rights movement and their proposals are a gift that keeps on giving in terms of demonstrating not only their hatred of humans but how they ultimately want to be the ones who benefit from their ideas. Nowhere is this revealed with crystal clarity than a recent so-called puppy mill ban (AB 485) passed by California’s legislature that awaits Governor Jerry Brown’s signature.

If enacted, the law will, essentially, give rescue organizations and shelters a monopoly on canine and feline supply delivery. This is not the author’s conclusion, but it is plainly pointed out in the beginning paragraph of a news story in The New York Times. It states:

California could become the first state to outlaw so-called puppy mills with legislation that bans pet stores from selling dogs, cats and rabbits that do not come from rescue organizations or shelters.

The two groups that stand to largely benefit from this ban are the California branch of the America Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Humane Society of California. These two groups are notoriously anti-human and run sizeable animal shelter and animal rescue operations. PETA may even benefit as well.

The truth is and as has been pointed out before, the puppy mills cause is one of many ways animal rights groups seek to outlaw domestic animal ownership. Groups, like PETA, allege the practice of selling animals bred in large-scale animal breeding facilities is cruel and inhumane. However, what the real goal of such efforts, like California’s ban, is to ultimately shut down breeders and their kennels condemned by animal rights groups regardless if they are in state or not.

This controversy came up in Maine a few years ago, and according to Central Maine News, only a small amount of the nearly 80 pet stores in the state sold dogs and cats while total sales averaged about less than 500 annually.

Opponents of so-called puppy mills claim that animals bred and sold from these facilities (mainly located in the mid-West) are of poor health due to overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. Yet almost all of the facilities in question are regulated and inspected by the US Department of Agriculture and state agencies too. The USDA also has a certification process where breeders and kennels agree to abide by regular inspections and standards to ensure their facilities are safe and cruelty free.

Furthermore, as one opponent of the Maine’s bill stressed in 2015, instead of a blanket ban on substandard breeders and kennels, target individual ones that have cruel or bad conditions for the animals they breed. Not all large-scale breeding operations treat and house their animals poorly.

Demonizing so-called puppy mills is a sinister manner to run pet shops out of business and lessen the means of which humans are able to purchase or adopt domesticated animals. So-called animal rights groups seek to outlaw such practices because they hate the idea of having animals bred for domesticated purposes. They use broad generalizations and outright lies in order to further their cause of not only preventing the usage of animals for ownership by humans but also to destroy our economy.

Puppy mills are really a smoke screen to hide the evil purpose of animal rights organizations. Their goal with efforts to close or enact more rules on them is to ultimately run pet stores out of business. This, in turn, throws hundreds of thousands of employees that directly and indirectly work in the pet industry out of work.

The animal rights movement is nothing not only a means of achieving the end of sacrificing mankind to the needs of nature but also to achieve the goal of subjecting mankind to the savagery of the animal kingdom. It is the barbarism of that world that animal rights groups revere, human life be damned.