What can we do about "puppy mills?" an anonymous reader has an idea that's a good one!
PLEASE CLICK ON THE HEADER TO BE DIRECTED TO THE REPORT FORM FROM THE HUMANE SOCIETY TO REPORT "PUPPY MILLS."
This came in today under the Thread "we need to change the subject," But I thought it was more than worthy of a thread of it's own, I hope you agree.
" Anonymous said...
This is a change of subject that I would like to address to the animal control people in this city. The ones dedicated to animals and who have been so thoroughly discussed lately."
"A recent POST editorial discussed legislation related to laws affecting puppy mills. To me it is amazing anyone would be against them. But alas politics even visits this venue. I can't get my arms around this kind of business. Dogs kept in pens with grates to stand on, in hot an cold conditions with no love, only the constant breeding and its consequences so someone can make money. And the fact that there are too few laws and the ones there are cannot be enforced due to lack of personnel to enforce the rules. Then the euthanizing of the Mommy dogs when they are no longer useful. No way to make this sound decent. Have you ever looked into the eyes of mistreated dogs and cats? It is pathetic and you don't even have to be a pet lover. ANYWAY,letters to the editor have been coming in and I would like to suggest the many Crestwood Animal lovers who work with our shelter and adoption facility help take up this cause with the intention of getting lots of meat into this current legislation and assure the officials that profiting off this social disgrace is out of the question. And monitoring the breeders is going to happen big time and profit off of this kind of operation is going to be closely monitored. The greed involved in this kind of operation can be barbaric. So, hey, animal people, get your concerns together and spread the word and let those voting know they are being closely observed. Get the word out, get something going, put your strength and caring on the line. Please make some noise."
1:06 PM, August 16, 2010
Tom Ford
NO. 792
posted by Crestwood Independent at 13:43
21 Comments:
It is my understanding that most of the people who volunteer there are VERY active in the petitions and the attempts to get the laws passed. While I cannot speak directly for them, I think the issues are this: You are fighting lack of staffing, lack of funding, and the secretive nature of the business that allows it to continue. That, and many people simply don't care about animals one way or the other. I was told by a very reliable source that the Crestwood shelter deals with thrown away, abandoned animals and feral animals as well. Our ordinances are good, I thinnk, and are enforced. It would be wonderful if the whole state would follow that lead. I am very surprised to see this thread on here, given how badly Mr. Ford wants the Crestwood shelter shut down.
4:53 PM Blogger: " I am very surprised to see this thread on here, given how badly Mr. Ford wants the Crestwood shelter shut down."
Well my friend, "Mr. Ford" has never wanted the shelter "shut down," but rather it funded by other than TAX money! I have said this time and time again, yet you believe what you wish to and never mind what I said.
Now you have your chance to shine , will you do it? I really hope so as I am beginning to believe that the "Friends of Animals" are, as the Texas boys would say, "all hat and no cows!"
Tom Ford
I will comment too...what would you like them to do, exactly? The 4:53 poster said he knew they were involved in the work for the mills.
9:28 PM Blogger: It seemed to me that he / she wanted them to write letters, and contact the State Reps. Has that been done?
Also I haven't seen an "official" Position paper on the subject, so that's another thing they can be doing.
What is Ms. Sutton's position on this subject? Should she be contacting someone to stop this, or has she? The writer stated that "people who volunteer are very active," great, but I haven't seen or heard of anything on this before now.
If they are truly going to be involved, what are they prepared to do to halt this? Will we see "letters to the editor soon?"
Tom Ford
What I think of when you say "puppy mills" is greedy people trying to make as much as they can, and spend as little as possible on the welfare of the animals. The pictures I have seen are terrible, and disgusting. These people should be put out of business, and into jail.
Over the years, we have had several dogs for long periods of time, all of which we got from shelters. (Humane society, or County shelters.) We would never buy a pet from any place where they could have come from a puppy mill sort of business.
Our family would support stronger laws to prevent animals being abused in puppy mill type settings, or any kind of abuse.
We provide medical care for our pets, just like we do for the human members of our family.
I have opposed taxpayer funding of a separate city animal control department at the expense of cuts to other city departments, and their operations. This service is provided (by our taxes) by the county. I have no problem with it if it were funded by donations, fees for adopting, or other means. I would even make a small donation (I can't afford a large one).
Here is a question for our local animal control: why don't we see any dogs on the "adopt a pet" site? All I ever see is cats.
A little off topic, but I would like to post my disappointment in alderman Duchild's actions. After all the talk of "liabilities" and "Pandora box" what did he do? He abstains. I don't see a conflict of interest for what they where voting on. I appears as if Mr. Duchild feels that our voting process shouldn't apply to him
5:36 PM Blogger: Mr. Duchilds abstaining just saved you a bunch of taxpayer money. Had he voted it would be a tie and the Mayor would have voted with the rest to give the local what it wanted.
Tom Ford
I doubt it. He just wasted tax payer dollars by wasting the city attorneys time. It looks to me like he doesn't want our charter/civil service rules to be inline with the 1st amendment. Seems to me its going to cost the city a lot more in legal fees when you violate city employees/residents civil liberties. We each get to elect 2 aldermen and 1 mayor to vote on our behalf. If there is a tie then and only then the mayor has a vote. As it appears Mr. Duchild is not fulfilling his duty as alderman. I could see if both Mr. Duchild and Mr. Miguel abstained since neither are provide with fire service from Crestwood. However, that clearly wasn't the case as Mr. Miguel voted no. I hope that others notice this game that is being played with our city.
Perhaps he abstained due to the fact his wife served on Civil Service Board and was one of those who eveloped the Civil Service Codes. Perhas not. However, he was definitely working for the majority of his constituancy. Even if it prevented a coup from working. All is fair ...
Ask your neighbors how many of them want so much politics in the subject of Fire Dept unions and muncipal activity.
An official has to do what he has to do. In this case, I applaud the accused action. Too bad things at city hall are so divided. Why do you think when the mayor breaks a contentious tie, he is representing the majority? Too much politics going on here. I am paying the officials to do their job and the Firemen do theirs. And while we are at it, this city attorney is simply not well versed enough or unbiassed enough to lead us through all our various crisis.
I find it interesting that most of ward 3 doesn't want to be heard. Well according to 12:14pm that is. "Too much politics" is what was displayed. Say things are different at city hall. Let's say that one of the four (Wallach, Shclink, Miguel, or Duchild) become Mayor. And have an alderman replace them that vote inline with them. Should then one of the four (Duncan, Pickel, Beasley, Foote) abstain. Seems like a pretty sh***y way to run a city. As far as political activity with the fire department, webster, kirkwood, or glendale can have their off duty firefighters pass out fliers and stand at polls.
a little off topic, but I see our police chief gets his public speaking skills from roy. What an embarressment.
Maybe he should have abstained.
7:48 PM August 18
Before you comment on whose time/money is being wasted on the political activity issue, you may want to take a peek at the legal bills from the city attorney's law firm.
There is absolutely no issue with the First Amendment. Courts (from the State all the way to the Supreme Court) have consistently upheld cases where certain restrictions were placed on government employees' political activity. Such restrictions are put in place (and upheld by the courts) in part to protect government employees from political pressure and to prevent the creation of political machines. The current civil service language for Crestwood, as attested by the city attorney in 2007, is not in violation of the First Amendment.
The simple truth is that those who voted "no" to the proposed changes did so because they believed those changes were not good for city residents or city employees.
Martha Duchild
So why didn't your husband cast a vote either in favor or against? Besides your are alienating a small percentage of those who are both city employees and residents. If an officer, fire fighter, or any other employee that lives in Crestwood wants to put a sign in their yard its their first amendment right. Not to mention the spouses of those employees that you seem so eager to violate their constitutional rights. Perhaps Martha you shouldn't post on this blog since many topics are political and your husband is an alderman. After all your husband is employed by the city and therefore you can't have a public opinion. Well according to your civil service language.
11:59 AM August 20
Any Crestwood employee concerned with this issue had a chance to voice his opinion in December 2006 when the Civil Service Board held a public hearing. No one showed up.
If any Crestwood civil service employee who lives in Crestwood wants to put up a campaign sign in their yard for any election other than a Crestwood election, that person is free to do so. Obviously the employee's spouse is free to do whatever they want regardless of whether it is a local, county, state or federal ballot issue (as long as the spouse is not also a Crestwood civil service employee).
Just recently, Florissant adopted political activity restrictions for its department heads, who asked for the restrictions to be imposed. To quote from the article: "In essence, the bill applies the same rules to the city's 10 department heads, who serve at Lowry's (the mayor) pleasure, that have applied to all other employees, who for years have been banned from working on city political campaigns on and off the clock. Such rules are commonplace in municipalities throughout the area." I would add that, your protests to the contrary, such rules have been consistently upheld in the courts.
You may want to read the civil service rules a little more closely. They neither apply to elected officials nor to the spouses of elected officials.
Martha Duchild
Interesting, I start a post about dogs, cats and animal control, and "poof" it changes to an Alderman's meeting post, in very short order.
Can it be I was right all along? are the animal control people just an expensive hobby club? Are they really "all hat and no cows?
One would think we would have had many a post on that subject telling us what they were / are doing, but nope, so.......?
Tom Ford
As a taxpaying citizen of Crestwood, I do not appreciate being lectured to by a union representing city employees whose salary and livlihood is dependent upon me. Normally "discretion is the better part of valor." AS things would have it, most of us do not find fault consistently with our bosses, CEO's, etc. on an open blog or elsewhere. If our Charter and our Civil Service Codes,our way of doing business here, is bisected by a Union, then one has to wonder why. I vote for officials to handle our city finances and business and rules, and duke it out when there is a difference of opinion. I sure as heck don't wish to have a 3rd party, i.e union, start interefering with gov't. This is not in their job description. As it is we are dealing with 2 Fire Districts in our city of 4 sq miles. Expensive! Because of unions, irrerversible.
Not long ago we had a city administrator who was also a department "chief" and the strings that were attached, the friends who were hired, the new city hall we almost got, the books which are now being revealed as a mess from that time, and the kingdomitis which was going on, and the BMW and 850/Mo car allowance; the manacles of politics should have taught us a lesson. There should be rules as to how and who run our city. As a matter of fact, we do, a charter. Maybe we should go back to being a 3rd class city or the wild wild west. This city is too small for Mayors and Aldermen, Dept heads and a Union plus an attorney who is inadequate all with a different slant on things.
i really doubt they read your blog, Tom.
I would post that "I don't care". But, instead I'll just abstain. lol
7:01 PM Blogger: All evidence to the contrary my friend.
7:23 PM Blogger: Nice to know you can entertain yourself.
Tom Ford
Well, I do a lot of fishing. And am very good at baiting hooks. One may even say I'm a master ......
Post a Comment
<< Home