Breed Specific Legislation, or BSL, is a law or ordinance passed by a legislative body pertaining to a specific breed or breeds of domesticated animals. BSL is known to those who oppose it as “Bull Shit Legislation.” In practice, BSL generally refers to laws or ordinances pertaining to a specific dog breed or breeds. BSL is a set of public policy laws designed to reduce the amount of dog bite-related injury and death. Lawmakers attempt to face this problem by examining the statistics surrounding dog bites and legislating against certain breeds. By far, the most common breeds focused upon are the pit bull type breeds.
The problems that may face Show Circuit are going to be overcoming objections to frozen dog foods, lack of appeal of frozen dog food and pricing. The will have to try and get it into all the major franchises, they are also going to have to change their marketing plans from show dogs and kennel owners to the average consumer. Even though Show Circuit has a successful history, they are still a new brand of food to the average consumer. The market is limited to the types of dog food that currently exist today. The market consists of three segments, Dry Dog Food that has a 65% share of the market, canned dog Food has a 15% share of the market and then dog treats contain a 20% of the market share.
Not, only is it an infringement on peoples Second Amendment rights, it will also punish hunters and sportsman whom us firearms to hunt for enjoyment. It would also limit the ways individuals protect themselves and their families. Gun control is not the answer. Guns to some people are evil, because of the violence and death the can create. However, other people see them in a completely different light.
[animal-testing.procon.org] Researchers in Aston University have made it known that it is not worth taking the lives of these animals for testing, because the things we’re trying to make happen with human bodies is very different from the animal body. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. There is a big percentage from the 1950’s up till now that animal testing is flawed by not being correct when it is given to the people it is for. So why not just stop the animal experiments that are not just killing, but also torturing the animals.
Those who against animal experiments insist that those painful experimentation on animals should be halted. The pain is not moral whether it is experienced by a child, an adult, or an animal. If it is wrong to impose pain on a human being, it is also wrong on an animal. But many people argue that halting animal experiments would end the progress of science and actually human are taking gain from those experiments. Animal experiments should be acceptable if the pain is minimized in all experiments.
According to Joyce Tischler of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, she says “there is nothing good for them in entertainment”. This is absolutely correct; why do the animals that are wild have to be playing roles in movies and not being free? This is only one fact which proves that animals shouldn’t be having roles in films/movies. Another reason that animals shouldn’t be working in films is that, according to “Beasts of Burden”, many animal-rights advocates believe that pushing a wild animal to behave in a certain way at a certain time is unnatural, stressful, and potentially dangerous for the animal. This means an animal can be stressed out and because of this have health problems, or even die!
Nature is also a common cause of animal cruelty. Some examples could be weather conditions or predator habits. This article suggest overall that while considering animal rights, we should consider natures harm to them. Should we consider nature or write it off as natural selection? Maybe it is okay for natural selection but it definitely isn't okay for people to try and determine
Disagree argument with Chu Hsien-jer After reading “Film Addresses Taiwan’s Lack of Respect for Animals,” I find that I disagree with what Chu has said. First of all, Chu claims that “[w]e have animal protection laws, but Taiwan's law enforcement is far from satisfactory.” Chu brings out the issue only, but he doesn’t tell us how to solve this problem. On the other hand, Chu talks about the impairing animal in the interview throughout his life experience, whereas his father’s friend abandoned several pet dogs and some of which suffered from a skin disease to show us we overlook the right of animals, but be curious how one man’s experience can represent public. Furthermore, Chu tries to use terms such as “always” and “anything” in the following sentence, “Consider conversations [held between people who live in Taiwan] are always about real estate prices and the stock market. Because people don't care about anything but economic development, they overlook animal rights[,]” to emphasize his own theory by this form of hyperbole.
Risks involved The risk factors that comes along with keeping such animals are so high compared to the little advantages that people may claim to be getting from them. These animals are wild and keeping them might lead to some accidents which the owner would have to bear with. Because the owner cannot basically meet their needs, these animals may attack unexpectedly and cause great harm. They can also make the owner or anyone who access the premises contract some diseases such as TB, Herpes and even Rabies since taking care of them cannot be compared to taking care of the normal pets such as the dogs. The behaviors of the exotic animals cannot be predicted, one may not order and command their steps each minute and therefore can kill or maim within few seconds.
Also the way that the animals react to the stress of the experiments can severely affect the end results, rendering the experiments meaningless. Although it is true that we need animals to test our medical drugs on because if we didn’t, with modern day technology we wouldn’t be able to find cures for major diseases. But that doesn’t mean we should treat them so