Since the Bakersfield Californian chose to print a story in the Tehachapi News [July 4, 2007, page B2] that was poorly written and flawed, I am posting the letter I wrote to the Californian (which has not been printed) as a rebuttal.

From: Tehachapi Mountain Dog Fanciers

Sent: 6/24/2007 10:23:32 AM

Subject: Rebuttal to Story 6/20

 

Rebuttal to 6/20/2007 article by James Burger: Breeding rules off table for now

Mr. Burger’s essay would be more appropriate in Opinion than in News. He clearly shows his bias by tone and misinformation. It’s too bad that a "news reporter" with a personal agenda has to resort to name-calling when a meeting doesn't go his way. Mr. Burger, grow up!

The majority of those people who were slurred by the moniker "backyard breeders" are, according to David Price III in his status report presented to the KCACC,"[legitimate] ... breeders who are registered with recognized associations, clubs or registries that have ‘code of ethics’ and standards to which members must adhere ..." These people, these hobby-breeders, are not in the business of producing animals. A business does not operate with a chronic and increasing negative balance nor such a low volume of product. That is why neither the State of California nor the Federal Government consider them to be businesses.

It’s too bad that the Animal Rights faction ran out of the meeting for their interviews rather than stay and discuss the issues. It’s also too bad that the "reporter" decided to call Animal Rights people "animal lovers" as if those who belong to other clubs and associations are not. I think everyone in that meeting can easily be considered an animal lover and I think everyone there would like to see the true backyard breeders and puppy mills put out of business, permanently. Cheap shots under the guise of reporting news is not the way to do it. Shame on you, Mr. Burger!

 

tehmtdogfanciers@earthlink.net

http://home.earthlink.net/~...