Animal Cruelty Laws. Many puppies are born in Oklahoma each year in substandard conditions, lacking veterinary care and proper nutrition. Oklahoma has no regulation of the dog breeding industry. Rep. Lee Denney veterinarian from Cushing, hopes to change that next year with legislation that would put in place local regulations and licensing requirements for dog breeders in Oklahoma. The state is the second-largest producer in the country of commercial pets, only behind Missouri.
The legislation, known as the Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection Act, would put in place state-mandated regulations for Oklahoma dog breeders. Under the proposed bill, breeders who sell or give away 25 or more animals annually would have to be licensed through the state, likely through the Agriculture, Food and Forestry Department. Pet stores, animal dealers and rescue shelters also would have to be licensed if the bill becomes law. Kennel inspections would be a part of the licensing process and the bill sets up hefty fines for violations.
Though the legislation is still a work in progress, the draft would require all breeders in Oklahoma of 25 or more animals to get a license with the state at a minimum cost of $175 to a maximum of $625. Penalties for violating the minimum standards laid out in the law could be as high as $10,000 per offense. The legislation also would put in place a sort of puppy lemon law, where breeders would be held liable for costs associated with diagnosing and treating diseases animals acquired at the breeding premises. Only diseases of which the breeder should have had a reasonable knowledge would qualify, and the bill sets a one-year statute of limitations.
What are current rules?
Oklahoma does not regulate dog breeders. Wholesale breeders, or those selling to pet stores and other breeders, are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under federal guidelines laid out in the federal Animal Welfare Act. But countless breeders who sell directly to the public through the Internet or newspaper ads remain unwatched. Some breeders also can register with the American Kennel Club which also has its own regulations and inspections. Under current USDA regulations, breeders must give dogs adequate housing, food and veterinary care. But because the USDA regulates only wholesale breeders, many others are not licensed, allowing them to skirt rules.
Dr. Billy Clay, chairman of the Task Force for Pet Quality and Assurance in Oklahoma, said about 650 breeders in Oklahoma are registered and licensed through the USDA, but there are at least three times as many breeders who are not licensed at all. The issue is one of animal welfare, but also public safety, he said, noting there are at least 20 diseases that are transmittable from dogs to humans. Like most of those who attended an interim study meeting Tuesday to discuss the possible legislation, Steinberger said the bill is needed not to punish breeders who treat their animal’s right, but to weed out those who aren’t. More than 100 people attended the meeting.
Animal rescues, shelters and pet adoption agencies also would be regulated under the proposed legislation. While breeders say they want to see those mistreating animals punished and closed down, several said they worry any new regulations would unduly hurt their businesses. Animal cruelty laws are in place, and if enforced, would go a long way in putting puppy mills out of business, according to breeder Steve Wilson. “Increased regulation is not the answer,” he said.
This proposed law would include pets that at ‘given away”? Those pets ‘given away’ are not a business? This sounds like a making of Lousiville, KY total animal control of the people, under the ‘guise’ of doing the right thing. How many ‘animal rights” perverted thinkers are making this law? See information on 10 sites of http://AnimalsClubFreedom.us/
Morality dictates
By: NICOLE L. BROWNER
I will address specific instances from national and international arts news in which art has carried out or interpreted in an unconventional way.
There is no stronger but questionably artistic message than death. But where does morality come into play?
Last August at a Costa Rican art reception, one exhibition roused more attention than expected. In one corner of the salon-turned-gallery, an emaciated dog was tied to a wall. Its involuntary mission was to be on display as an artistic message, and was accompanied by a statement on the wall created with dog food reading “You are what you read.”
The guilty artist, Guillermo “Habacuc” Vargas, had paid two children to capture the dog from the street to use for the exhibit. Already in poor condition, the dog was refused any care by Vargas’ orders, and within a day of being on display it passed away.
And for those crying by the thought of a dog left to die in a white corner of an art gallery, now for Vargas’ artist’s statement. This display, he claimed, was a response to the death of Natividad Canada, who was killed in Costa Rica by two rottweilers guarding a place Canada intended to rob. Vargas meant to show that no concern was given to the individual until after his death, much like the starving orphaned dog.
“The importance to me is the hypocrisy of the people where an animal is the focus of attention where people come to see art but not when it’s in the street starving to death,” Vargas was quoted on a variety of Costa Rican blogs.
The center of attention, in this case the canine, suffered due to Vargas’ artistic desire – and this makes the installation a cruel act inflicted on a helpless victim. Vargas was definitely not referencing Kafka’s “A Hunger Artist.” The dog did not voluntarily starve or sacrifice its own life in the name of art.
It is true that every person has a different interpretation of art, and many overlook things that others render significant. Some paint street corners because they seem interesting when others view these scenes as ordinary. Others go so far as to capture suffering specifically as a focus of their art. But is it ever justified to create suffering in the way that Vargas did and call it art? Can art be fulfilled at the expense of another’s anguish?
Continued…
A utilitarian would say definitely not. A person’s actions should be based upon a moral duty to minimize suffering and maximize happiness. This does not necessarily mean that Vargas should have seen this dog on the street and felt morally obligated to take it as his own, and to feed and nurture it. But it also did not mean that he should contribute to its suffering in a selfishly artistic indulgence.
The discipline of artistic expression, like many other forms of expression, has its dark side. An artist is one often motivated to create in the name of pain or use art as an outlet to release his or her own pain. It should be considered a privilege to have the talent to translate pain into aesthetic pleasure.
But like any motive to act, inflicting pain because of feeling pain is not justified. My grandma would tell Vargas “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
This is also not about the fact that the dog could have probably starved on the street, as much as Vargas might use this argument to his benefit. And the issue does not generalize entirely to that of animal cruelty either (though the animal advocacy groups of Costa Rica are already on this guy’s ass). It doesn’t take a dog lover or a vegan activist to see Vargas’ actions as immoral.
I don’t see why the state should involve themselves in giving away dogs. At least they are getting better homes and not living out of trash cans. Is it a money thing for the state or what?? Hobby breeders should be able to breed and sell their dogs without having to pay more costs to the state. Kennels are the ones that need to be watched, not hobby breeders. Kennels are in it for the money they make and hobby breeders are in it for the love of the breed, not the money. You are out more on the breeding and care of the animal than you make when you sell. Just my thought.
Hi Penny
I appreciate your thoughts and think the states are trying to help but at this point there is no perfect solution that works for everyone. Writing to your local state officials is one way to try to promote proper legislation and regulation for this matter.
Thank you
Dr Carol