by Matt Miner
On Friday afternoon I had the incredible opportunity to appear on HLN’s Issues With Jane Velez-Mitchell to speak out against the proposed pit bull ban in Texas.
You may or may not be aware, but Jane Velez-Mitchell is a passionate animal advocate and has done countless segments speaking up for the voiceless. She’s a strong voice for the animals and we are very lucky she’s on our side with these issues because she is a force to be reckoned with.
Please check out the video, then send Jane and CNN a thank you note for covering such an important topic as this proposed Texas pit bull ban. Keep in mind it’s not easy or comfortable for a celebrity to take a stand on such a hot and controversial topic, and she advocated 100% for the dogs.
I know we’re all very appreciative of the positive national attention Jane just brought our beloved bullies, but how will she ever know just how truly valued and wonderful she is if you don’t speak up and tell her?
I guarantee you that the pro-BSL lunatics are already flooding her inbox with their lies, fear and hate, so, again, let’s even the score: please let her know just how great it is when a person in the national spotlight sticks up for the underdog so valiantly.
Remember, we are talking about two proposals that could mean death to an estimated 328,000 dogs.
The first proposal aims to ban pit bulls ENTIRELY from the state of Texas: DOG HOLOCAUST
The second proposal makes it so expensive to have a pit bull that most families would have no choice but to give up their dogs: DOG HOLOCAUST
With either of the proposed pieces of legislation, failure to comply would result in felony charges and enforcement of the new laws would cost the taxpayers an estimated $31 million dollars a year.
For more information on both Texas proposals, and for ways you can help stop this abomination, see our post HERE.
Thank you, Jane. From me, from Sloane, and from all the dogs you just stood up for.
Thank you, Jane, for having this articulate and obviously passionate young man on re: the Pitty laws proposed in Texas. You couldn’t have had a better spokesperson. He obviously had a lot more to say and I hope he gets the chance.
Chihuahuas nip and yap should we ban them as well? Will these crazies not be happy til all dogs are banned and they zero in on cats. And after cats, then what? It sounds like an excuse to move in on our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. I have loved Pit Bulls since I was a wee child and watched the Little Rascals. But I love other dogs and my precious kitties as well. You can’t cuddle up to an ant farm. So THEY should be stopped before any laws against any pups are instituted.
Really good facts! I have been hunting for something similar to this for a little bit now. Appreciate it!
Pingback: NEGOTIATION IS OVER – Matt Miner Blasts Proposed Pit Bull Extermination on CNN
JVM is an animal rights extremist and PeTA supporter. She is no friend to animals or the people who breed them. The anti-BSL movement–a good movement to be sure–needs to find someone who actually cares about APBTs and their bully relatives (her good buddy Ingrid Newkirk hates such dogs and has been behind several BSL initiatives herself) and who won’t try to turn good and decent dog breeders into criminals due to the actions of a few irresponsible ones.
JVM is an animal extremist? Please! She’s a reporter, Kim – a REPORTER on CNN.
Responsible breeders? That’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one.
JVM is not an unbiased reporter. She has a definite slant and agenda to virtually all of her reports. If you have watched any of her interviews with Ingrid Newkirk, then you will have to admit that she is not objective in her treatment of Newkirk and definitely empathizes with PeTA, which is an extreme animal rights organization and which has advocated violence in the name of animal rights. If JVM is involved with any “anti-BSL” movement, watch for the bait and switch tactics–Newkirk and PeTA have both recommended that the APBT and other “pit bulls” be eradicated.
And yes, “responsible breeder.” There are many of them out there. Why do you feel it’s an oxymoron and what does it have to do with an anti-BSL movement? If you don’t feel that a breeder can be responsible then how can you oppose a movement against a breed?
Kim, having an opinion (her show is clearly editorial in nature) and broadcasting it does not make one an “extremist.”
PETA is not “extreme” – and they do not advocate violence. I think you’re confusing organizations and, further, I think you’re confusing property destruction with violence.
“Responsible Breeder” is an oxymoron because it’s irresponsible to breed animals when there is such an enormous overpopulation and thousands die in our shelters every single day. For every animal you decide to breed and sell, an animal dies in a shelter. That’s why it’s an oxymoron, and I’m not going to discuss this any further.
But if you want to go into who’s advocating for violence, breeders cause shelter deaths – and that is, in itself, violence against animals.
You might find it interesting that we agree in our dislike of PETA, for some different reasons perhaps, but we can at least agree that their support of breed bans is an issue that you and I can agree to dislike.
Actually, on second thought, PETA rewards violence in the fact that they have welfarist campaigns where they reward animal abusers – much like HSUS using Michael Vick as a spokesperson. PETA also kills healthy and adoptable animals, which is violence, so I take back what I said about PETA not advocating violence. They advocate violence against animals, to be sure.
Kim – The terms “ethical breeder” and “responsible breeder” are used a lot. But what exactly constitutes an ethical producer of dogs? An ethical breeder is supposed to be someone whose number one goal is to better the breed. Well to me it is CLEAR that in order to better the “breed” we first need to save the dogs of all breeds in our shelters, rescues and from abusive situations. Until we have found safe and loving homes for all these animals then we can talk about “ethically breeding” animals.
I encourage you Kim to go to your nearest shelter, local Animal Control or any animal rescue any day of the week. Please go and look into each and every sad, lonely face. Look deep into the eyes of those that have never known a gentle touch or a kind person. Then look back into those faces and tell them they are not good enough because they are not “pure bred”. Think long and hard before you advocate for adding to the already overflowing number of animals in our country.
A reporter is supposed to be objective. JVM is not a reporter; she is a personality commentator, just as her counterpart on the other side, Bill O’Reilly, is also a commentator. Neither of them are objective. In fact, JVM is close to histrionic on certain topics.
Many breeders also foster rescue dogs and many have mixed breeds from shelters, rescues, or private adoption. There is no need for an “us against them” attitude. Hobby/show breeders only produce about 3% of the puppy population annually and only a handful of puppies from truly ethical and responsible breeders show up in shelters. These breeders will take back any dog of their own breeding, usually no questions asked, at any age–there is no reason for their puppies to go into shelters and, if the pups do, it is usually without the breeder’s knowledge. Even if you say that purebred puppies make up 25% of the shelter population, why does that absolve anyone from the responsibility of claiming the other 75% as their own? What about the dogs abandoned on farms or on the street, which create feral puppies? What about the people who buy “designer” dogs–mutts that can be obtained from just about any shelter–and then abandon them because they weren’t as perfect as they thought they’d be? What about the producers of designer dogs, who *truly* are responsible for someone failing to adopt a dog of similar breeding? To say that breeders of purebred dogs prevent people from adopting dogs in shelters simply by producing puppies is simply wrong; sometimes people want particular animals to do particular jobs. Little Fluffy from the shelter might look terrierish, but if you want a Jack Russel or a Patterdale to take care of the armadillos on your farm, you don’t want “ish.”
For the record, I have purebred dogs and I also have fostered both pure and mixed breed dogs. I have one right now that I took as a private rescue, from people who were giving him away in a parking lot. A large, black, mixed breed teenager would have no chance in a shelter, especially right before Christmas, so I brought him home with me. I *think* he may have found his forever home and he will be neutered as soon as I am sure he’s stopped growing.
In any case, it’s dichotomous thinking of the worst sort to want to save a breed and yet demonize breeders. How can it be done?
Tell you what, Kim: Once our shelters are empty and the enormous problem of dog and cat overpopulation is a thing of the past I will come over to your way of thinking.
As it is right now I don’t think the APBT or any other bully breed (or, really, any breed at all) is in need of any more reproduction.
As long as dogs and cats exist, there will be unwanted dogs and cats in shelters. The only way to stop there being unwanted dogs and cats in shelters is to either: make them require very expensive permits to own, get rid of laws that protect them from neglect so people will not feel the need to surrender them for fear of punishment if caught (someone who neglects a dog or cat would get in much more trouble than if they let a ratm snake or fish die from neglect), or ban them from being owned. We cannot even stop people from abusing and abandoning their human children. Do you think we can stop it with animals without doing something extreme?
A responsible breeder has the buyer sign a contract stating they will take the dog back for any reason. They also micro chip their dogs in case the buyer violates it, so their dogs can be traced back to them and stay out of shelters. They also do not breed unless there is a demand for puppies from their dogs.
And if I needed a dog for a certain job (herding, hunting, ratting, protection, etc.) and not just as a pet, you’d bet I’d want to get one from a breeder who is known to produce sound, stable dogs that perform the task they were bred for well.
Stating that someone who breeds their dog is causing a dog in the shelter to die is false. The one causing the dog in the shetler to die is the one who put it there in the first place. According to your logic, if you donate to an animal charity, or even buy a luxury item like a candy bar, movie or CD, instead of donating that money to Feed the Children, you are responsible for a child dying of starvation because you *could* have donated to Feed the Children instead.
And what if the person wasn’t even contemplating getting a shelter dog in the first place?
Blaming responsible breeders for the bad ones is stupid. It’d be like wanting to ban all pit bulls because of the owners whose pit buils mauled or killed someone because they did not socialize them properly. Sound familiar?