Oscar's Law

[Steve]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the OL people actually want to stop ALL breeding for the pet market... they quite simply don't want ANY pet bred from.

They won't say it openly because it's not a very popular stance to put to the general public as a whole.

OL would probably get a lot further with their campaign if they actually put some workable solutions forward as to how their goals can be achieved - until then, it's all fluff and shock tactics without much meat. Seems more an attention seeking exercise than anything else... "look at ME, I am appalled at the fact puppy farms exist!"... *sigh*

T.

Divide and conquer.

[minimax]

This is on the OL website.

OSCAR'S LAW:

.Abolish the factory farming of companion animals.

.Ban the sale of companion animals from pets shops/online trading sites.

.Promote adoption through rescue groups/pounds/shelters.

Yes, but what are they doing towards this. How are they going about it. What is their mission statement. They are large scale goals, supporting those goals is good, but not realistic unless it's broken down.

So how are they going about abolishing the factory farming of companion animals? By protesting in the streets? By having celebrities saying "we want oscar's law"? That's not going to achieve the goal. By selling merchandise? What are the funds going towards? The mech is getting their name out there, but for what purpose? What is their name achieving?

Oscar's Law is confusion. It's broad global statements that mean very little action in the real world. Is Oscar's Law a law? Legislation?

[Steve]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the OL people actually want to stop ALL breeding for the pet market... they quite simply don't want ANY pet bred from.

They won't say it openly because it's not a very popular stance to put to the general public as a whole.

OL would probably get a lot further with their campaign if they actually put some workable solutions forward as to how their goals can be achieved - until then, it's all fluff and shock tactics without much meat. Seems more an attention seeking exercise than anything else... "look at ME, I am appalled at the fact puppy farms exist!"... *sigh*

T.

But i thought it was created by Debra Tranter? I don't believe she is against dogs being bred all together? Has someone hijacked e message perhaps?

She was a member and very active member of animal Liberation - which would appear to give fair doubt.

http://www.alv.org.au/about.php

[Crisovar]

When rabid extremists start screaming..don't buy while pound dogs die..and I hate dog Breeders and the sheep like followers all start doing the same all the while not knowing EXACTLY what they are supporting or HOW this cleansing of puppy farms (define that for me too)is going to be achieved, you just have to wonder.

So people here support Oscar Law ...well tell us what OSCARS LAW IS?

Starting to sound more and more like the apologists for PETAs acts of terrorism every day.

[mita]

This is on the OL website.

OSCAR'S LAW:

.Abolish the factory farming of companion animals.

.Ban the sale of companion animals from pets shops/online trading sites.

.Promote adoption through rescue groups/pounds/shelters.

Yes, but what are they doing towards this. How are they going about it. What is their mission statement. They are large scale goals, supporting those goals is good, but not realistic unless it's broken down.

So how are they going about abolishing the factory farming of companion animals? By protesting in the streets? By having celebrities saying "we want oscar's law"? That's not going to achieve the goal. By selling merchandise? What are the funds going towards? The mech is getting their name out there, but for what purpose? What is their name achieving

Oscar's Law is confusion. It's broad global statements that mean very little action in the real world. Is Oscar's Law a law? Legislation?

Please do not take a section of my post out of my context. If you want to discuss the present aims of Oscar's Law.... then find those aims yourself & do so.

My post highlighted the additions I'd ask for. And, in an earlier post, I've already indicated that my idea of a useful campaign would not to be Oscar's Law.... but Oscar's Needs, Meet Them!

Edited April 30, 2013 by mita

[minimax]

This is on the OL website.

OSCAR'S LAW:

.Abolish the factory farming of companion animals.

.Ban the sale of companion animals from pets shops/online trading sites.

.Promote adoption through rescue groups/pounds/shelters.

Yes, but what are they doing towards this. How are they going about it. What is their mission statement. They are large scale goals, supporting those goals is good, but not realistic unless it's broken down.

So how are they going about abolishing the factory farming of companion animals? By protesting in the streets? By having celebrities saying "we want oscar's law"? That's not going to achieve the goal. By selling merchandise? What are the funds going towards? The mech is getting their name out there, but for what purpose? What is their name achieving

Oscar's Law is confusion. It's broad global statements that mean very little action in the real world. Is Oscar's Law a law? Legislation?

Please do not take a section of my post out of my context. If you want to discuss the present aims of Oscar's Law.... then find those aims yourself & do so.

My post highlighted the additions I'd ask for. And, in an earlier post, I've already indicated that my idea of a useful campaign would not to be Oscar's Law.... but Oscar's Needs, Meet Them!

My point for the last however many pages of this thread is that their aims are nowhere to be found, and the secret society of supporters are unable to tell me even the aims of the organisation they support with all their heart

[minimax]

When rabid extremists start screaming..don't buy while pound dogs die..and I hate dog Breeders and the sheep like followers all start doing the same all the while not knowing EXACTLY what they are supporting or HOW this cleansing of puppy farms (define that for me too)is going to be achieved, you just have to wonder.

So people here support Oscar Law ...well tell us what OSCARS LAW IS?

Starting to sound more and more like the apologists for PETAs acts of terrorism every day.

Good luck. We're on 9 pages now and all the supporters can do it copy/paste the vague statements from their website which say nothing of what they actually do. Which leads me to think their supporters don't even know what they are supporting.

And I actually really want to know what this supposed law is, and would have thought it was easy to explain if you supported them so much

[Sheridan]

This is on the OL website.

OSCAR'S LAW:

.Abolish the factory farming of companion animals.

.Ban the sale of companion animals from pets shops/online trading sites.

.Promote adoption through rescue groups/pounds/shelters.

I'd add:

. Promote how companion dogs/cats should be bred/raised so their physical, behavioral & social needs are met.

. Support the breeders who do so.

. Advocate that codes & laws about the breeding/raising/sale of companion animals are based on this.

If the OL folk included the proactive, they'd have greater capacity to make a difference for the animals.

And it doesn't require being a rocket scientist. The Irish are able to summarize the additions in one paragraph of practical applications.

And, interestingly, CHOICE (Australian Consumers' Association) is onto this whole picture on their buying a puppy page. For a moment there, I thought the average !Q must be higher in Ireland. :)

Bolded is where they lose me.

[mita]

[

My point for the last however many pages of this thread is that their aims are nowhere to be found, and the secret society of supporters are unable to tell me even the aims of the organisation they support with all their heart

I'm going to regret this as there's a strand of highly emotional personal squabbling that I have no interest in.

The 3 OL aims are clearly available on their website. I found them & put them in my very first post in this thread. And repeated them again to show how inadequate they are.... on their own.... in ensuring a better life for dogs. And how what's left out, gives the pet buying public no directions for buying from ethical breeders, & gives law-makers nothing evidence-based to work from.

[mita]

This is on the OL website.

OSCAR'S LAW:

.Abolish the factory farming of companion animals.

.Ban the sale of companion animals from pets shops/online trading sites.

.Promote adoption through rescue groups/pounds/shelters.

I'd add:

. Promote how companion dogs/cats should be bred/raised so their physical, behavioral & social needs are met.

. Support the breeders who do so.

. Advocate that codes & laws about the breeding/raising/sale of companion animals are based on this.

If the OL folk included the proactive, they'd have greater capacity to make a difference for the animals.

And it doesn't require being a rocket scientist. The Irish are able to summarize the additions in one paragraph of practical applications.

And, interestingly, CHOICE (Australian Consumers' Association) is onto this whole picture on their buying a puppy page. For a moment there, I thought the average !Q must be higher in Ireland. :)

Bolded is where they lose me.

I should have been clearer in that my addition of Support breeders who breed/raise their dogs/cats so their needs are met .... means buy only from those breeders who do. I'll edit to make that clearer.

I have no problem about two options being advocated for acquiring pets.... rescue/shelters AND ethical breeders.

In fact, CHOICE points to both options.

ADDED: I've changed it to: Promote purchase of pets from breeders who do so.

(It was following spelling out how dogs' needs should be met).

The balance is better now with promoting rescue/shelter adoption.

So that was a fair point.

Edited April 30, 2013 by mita

[Steve]

About the only one of those goals that they can achieve is to promote the adoption of dogs through rescue and pounds.

None of them have any knowledge or experience of even living with a breeding dog let alone managing them but what is their solution ?

Is it that everyone has to stop breeding dogs altogether? Or perhaps all breeding dogs should be living and sleeping on satin pillows. each with their own human in attendance. We already know that if they are able to run on dirt in a drought affected area thats a bad thing, our kids can play on dirt but not our dogs, we know that if they dont have a bath every day to get the dirt out of them that's a bad thing.We know we should completely pretend we know nothing about what is best for the species and treat them like people - no not even like people - treat them like some made up species altogether. We know we should make sure the walls of their kennels are cleaned and painted daily to be sure there is no dirt stains, that they are not to dig up their beds overnight, or heaven forbid eat a bone off the ground! Male dogs have to have a 2 days rest after sex and they arent allowed to mate after 7 .

So what is it? How do they want breeding dogs to live? Because no breeder Ive ever met wants them living as they have to via current laws.

[Aphra]

I'm not a supporter of Oscar's Law because although it has achieved some good (a raised awareness of the problems with pet shop puppies), it's actually had an effect quite the opposite of what it was trying to achieve, at least in Victoria.

Last year, alongside our draconian BSL legislation, the government, under the influence of public support for Oscars Law, introduced legislation which allowed for much more punitive measures against "illegal" commercial dog breeders. That was all very well, and we're probably all happy that those organisations are coming under fire.

The problem is that the legal puppy farms, those commercial dog breeders which operate as domestic animal businesses and fulfill all the requirements of local planning and DAB Code of Practice are now in a good position to control the market in farmed pets.

The new legislation released for review in Victoria is aimed at legislating the ways in which animals are kept by animal breeders (and that's a pretty broad definition), again, in response to public outrage. Apart from the fact that the legislation has no evidence-base at all (quite clearly pointed out in the RIS) and in fact states that the DPI doesn't even know how many commercial pet breeders there are in Victoria, what people have failed to notice is that it broadens the definition of animal cruelty to include things like having worms and fleas or being ungroomed. The point made is that the RSPCA can't act against puppy farms because their legislative powers don't go far enough. I think most of us would see a big difference between a dog which is matted to the skin and covered in flea nests and a dog who has missed a clip, but legislation doesn't differentiate.

Legislative creep would suggest that at some stage, in the not too-far-distant future, the RSPCA will lobby for such things to be included in all of the animal welfare legislation, at which point they will have a big hammer to use.

I don't think I'm being at all paranoid to suggest that in the current climate where some state RSPCAs are getting into bed with the PIAA and endorsing commercial pet breeders, at the same time as their own practices are coming under scrutiny and being challenged by the rescue movement, the RSPCA will act against rescue and small breeders to preserve their own reputation and economic base. At the same time, the big commercial pet breeders will comply with the legislation because they can afford to, and keep churning out hundreds of puppies.

We missed a big opportunity to promote an Australian version of Oreo's Law, which would, I believe, have made a much bigger difference and been a whole lot more useful than the vague and incoherent Oscar's Law.

[raz]

We know we should make sure the walls of their kennels are cleaned and painted daily to be sure there is no dirt stains met wants them living as they have to via current laws.

I love the bit where they said they BE & stole and then rang the police, and while they were waiting they scrubbed the walls of the place. Wha??? They scrubbed the walls of a crime scene while waiting for the police to attend the crime scene???

These people seem super duper intelligent

[minimax]

I'm not a supporter of Oscar's Law because although it has achieved some good (a raised awareness of the problems with pet shop puppies), it's actually had an effect quite the opposite of what it was trying to achieve, at least in Victoria.

Last year, alongside our draconian BSL legislation, the government, under the influence of public support for Oscars Law, introduced legislation which allowed for much more punitive measures against "illegal" commercial dog breeders. That was all very well, and we're probably all happy that those organisations are coming under fire.

The problem is that the legal puppy farms, those commercial dog breeders which operate as domestic animal businesses and fulfill all the requirements of local planning and DAB Code of Practice are now in a good position to control the market in farmed pets.

The new legislation released for review in Victoria is aimed at legislating the ways in which animals are kept by animal breeders (and that's a pretty broad definition), again, in response to public outrage. Apart from the fact that the legislation has no evidence-base at all (quite clearly pointed out in the RIS) and in fact states that the DPI doesn't even know how many commercial pet breeders there are in Victoria, what people have failed to notice is that it broadens the definition of animal cruelty to include things like having worms and fleas or being ungroomed. The point made is that the RSPCA can't act against puppy farms because their legislative powers don't go far enough. I think most of us would see a big difference between a dog which is matted to the skin and covered in flea nests and a dog who has missed a clip, but legislation doesn't differentiate.

Legislative creep would suggest that at some stage, in the not too-far-distant future, the RSPCA will lobby for such things to be included in all of the animal welfare legislation, at which point they will have a big hammer to use.

I don't think I'm being at all paranoid to suggest that in the current climate where some state RSPCAs are getting into bed with the PIAA and endorsing commercial pet breeders, at the same time as their own practices are coming under scrutiny and being challenged by the rescue movement, the RSPCA will act against rescue and small breeders to preserve their own reputation and economic base. At the same time, the big commercial pet breeders will comply with the legislation because they can afford to, and keep churning out hundreds of puppies.

We missed a big opportunity to promote an Australian version of Oreo's Law, which would, I believe, have made a much bigger difference and been a whole lot more useful than the vague and incoherent Oscar's Law.

I'd not heard of Oreo's Law, but within 3 seconds of googling I got a clear explanation of what the were aiming to achieve, and how.

Still trying to find that about Oscar's Law.

[Aphra]

You can download documents with the proposed draft Oreo's Law, which is based on the Hayden Act, legislation which is already law in California. It's a mature piece of work.

The central problem for Oscar's Law is that its basic proposition is untenable. Commercial dog breeders lawfully constructed as domestic animal businesses are quite legal. We might disapprove of them, but as long as they have fulfilled the planning permits and infrastructure requirements they are legal. It is unconstitutional for a government to seize a legal, private business, so the only way the government can impact on these breeders is through really punitive legislation. But of course the commercial breeders are financially able to fulfill the requirements because they have lots of resources, and are also realistic enough to know that most of the nit picking provisions of this kind of law are never going to be policed.

So closing down "illegal" puppy farms might, or might not happen, depending on what the RSPCA is interested in that day, but the big breeders will just get bigger.

On the interwebs I believe they call this epic fail.

And yeah, what Steve said.

I'd not heard of Oreo's Law, but within 3 seconds of googling I got a clear explanation of what the were aiming to achieve, and how.

Still trying to find that about Oscar's Law.

[Guest Maeby Fünke]

The problem with Animal Liberation is that there are factions of people within the organisation who believe that ALL pet breeding and ownership should be abolished... There are some people who believe that it is unethical to even own a pet. And it concerns me that these are the people behind Oscar's Law.

And I think it's because of the factious nature of the organisation that Oscar's Law has been so detrimental to promoting ethical breeding practices. They remind me of the Labour Party...

Basically, they have NFI what they're doing and there's no way that I'm supporting them.

[Guest Maeby Fünke]

By the way, my Pug "Oscar" was named after Oscar on Sesame Street, not Oscar's Law, which some people think.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Maeby Fünke

[Sares]

I'm not a supporter of Oscar's Law because although it has achieved some good (a raised awareness of the problems with pet shop puppies), it's actually had an effect quite the opposite of what it was trying to achieve, at least in Victoria.

Last year, alongside our draconian BSL legislation, the government, under the influence of public support for Oscars Law, introduced legislation which allowed for much more punitive measures against "illegal" commercial dog breeders. That was all very well, and we're probably all happy that those organisations are coming under fire.

The problem is that the legal puppy farms, those commercial dog breeders which operate as domestic animal businesses and fulfill all the requirements of local planning and DAB Code of Practice are now in a good position to control the market in farmed pets.

The new legislation released for review in Victoria is aimed at legislating the ways in which animals are kept by animal breeders (and that's a pretty broad definition), again, in response to public outrage. Apart from the fact that the legislation has no evidence-base at all (quite clearly pointed out in the RIS) and in fact states that the DPI doesn't even know how many commercial pet breeders there are in Victoria, what people have failed to notice is that it broadens the definition of animal cruelty to include things like having worms and fleas or being ungroomed. The point made is that the RSPCA can't act against puppy farms because their legislative powers don't go far enough. I think most of us would see a big difference between a dog which is matted to the skin and covered in flea nests and a dog who has missed a clip, but legislation doesn't differentiate.

Legislative creep would suggest that at some stage, in the not too-far-distant future, the RSPCA will lobby for such things to be included in all of the animal welfare legislation, at which point they will have a big hammer to use.

I don't think I'm being at all paranoid to suggest that in the current climate where some state RSPCAs are getting into bed with the PIAA and endorsing commercial pet breeders, at the same time as their own practices are coming under scrutiny and being challenged by the rescue movement, the RSPCA will act against rescue and small breeders to preserve their own reputation and economic base. At the same time, the big commercial pet breeders will comply with the legislation because they can afford to, and keep churning out hundreds of puppies.

We missed a big opportunity to promote an Australian version of Oreo's Law, which would, I believe, have made a much bigger difference and been a whole lot more useful than the vague and incoherent Oscar's Law.

Thank you for your explanation. I found that very interesting and informative. It very much answers my orginial question.

And thank you to the others who explained their reasons as well. It makes sense to me now.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Sares

[~Anne~]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the OL people actually want to stop ALL breeding for the pet market... they quite simply don't want ANY pet bred from.

They won't say it openly because it's not a very popular stance to put to the general public as a whole.

OL would probably get a lot further with their campaign if they actually put some workable solutions forward as to how their goals can be achieved - until then, it's all fluff and shock tactics without much meat. Seems more an attention seeking exercise than anything else... "look at ME, I am appalled at the fact puppy farms exist!"... *sigh*

T.

But i thought it was created by Debra Tranter? I don't believe she is against dogs being bred all together? Has someone hijacked e message perhaps?

She was a member and very active member of animal Liberation - which would appear to give fair doubt.

http://www.alv.org.au/about.php

I know who she represents but I wasn't aware that she wanted to stop all breeding which is what was stated. Hey, you know that I think Tranter is deceptive and manipulative with her pursuits of people she deems 'bad'.

Aphra - great posts as always.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Aphra has nailed it.