Today’s News.

A couple of things in the paper caught my eye today.

ANIMAL-WELFARE PLAN DRAWS FIRE

There is an addendum to the Farm Bill currently in the hands of the House that would regulate how all dog breeders operate. Currently, only breeders who sell puppies through pet stores are regulated, and legislation covering the infamous puppy mills is sorely needed. This legislation was intended to plug that hole, but it misses the mark it was aiming for. It attempts to restrict the number of times a dog may be bred within a period of time, and attempts to ensure that puppies are properly handled to be socialized before they are sold. Again, good ideas. The legislation does not take into account the facts that different dogs need different standards though, and it does not take into account that there are many different ways to appropriately handle puppies to obtain a well-socialized dog.

I’ve read the AKC’s stand against the legislation, and I have to question what motivates their opposition. I fear it could be a case of being right for the wrong reasons, at least for some AKC members. I have also read the American Veterinary Medical Association’s stand against this legistlation “Puppy Protection Act” Fact Sheet (Farm Bill amendment, S. 1731/H.R. 2646) and pretty much agree with what they have to say (and not just because it’s the AVMA’s stance; I have been known to disagree with them as well).

What bothers me is that the nearby Big City paper that I read has slanted their article in favor of the legislation. I’m not saying that they should have slanted the article against the legistlation. I am saying, however, that it is irresponsible reporting to slant an article at all, unless it’s on the editorial page. My paper has failed to provided information on both sides of the issue, which would allow people to make up their own minds.

SCIENCE JOURNAL SAYS CORN-GENE ARTICLE WAS FLAWED

Remember all the front page hoopla about how genetically modified corn genes had somehow escaped and were found in corn growing in Mexico? All the anti-gentically-modified people touted that as proof that genetic engineering was dangerous.

Turns out that “Nature”, the famous science journal, has made an editorial note that it should have never published the article that ignited that hoopla. They said that they’d “concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original article.” Well, when the original article hit the stands, my local newspaper had a report on it on the front page. Today, the recantation is buried on page 13. Am I the only one who sees anything wrong with this picture?