Tuesday, August 26, 2014

A Fox in The Henhouse - PIJAC hires Ed Sayres

When I wrote my last post on August 8, I had no idea just how prophetic it was. In that post, I pointed out how the animal rights philosophy is seemingly pervading and perverting the essence of PIJAC, a group that is supposed to represent the pet industry. PIJAC was glorifying an "adoption" event in a park. The title of the post, "PIJAC HIJACKED?" asked the question, and now we have a definitive answer....YES! This week comes the news that PIJAC recently hired Ed Sayres, former CEO of the ASPCA to lead their organization.

You probably remember this guy Sayres. He's rabidly anti-breeder, rabidly anti-pet store. 

Mr. Sayres, in his tenure as leader of the ASPCA, also blocked "Oreo's Law" for years until it finally died. Oreo's Law would have required shelters to turn over animals to rescues who were willing to accept them. This makes sense, because we have observed for a long time how most "shelters" would prefer to kill animals than find them homes. "Oreo's Law" would have changed that and saved many lives. But, Sayres made sure it didn't pass, making him directly responsible for the deaths of an estimated 100,000 shelter animals.


But let's back up first, back to August 8. There was a message on my home answering service that day from someone who identified himself as a Vice President of PIJAC. He was calling in regard to my blog post, and said he couldn't understand my objections to their advertising this park event, because NOBODY was going home with a pet. It was NOT sales being conducted in public, he claimed.

So absurd! This guy had completely MISSED THE POINT that PIJAC is supposed to be representing the industry and lobbying for the right to participate in the pet trade. Why would they be involved at all with "adoptions?" Bigger question, why do they have a problem with sales being conducted in public? I didn't bother to return the call because this guy was oblivious.

Next we get another sucker punch, financed by PIJAC, in the way of an upcoming Purdue study that is meant to push even MORE regulations on dog breeders. Candace Croney, an associate professor of comparative patholobiology and animal science who focuses on the behavior AND WELFARE of animals says: 
The public is becoming increasingly concerned that existing state laws, typically written as minimum standards, do not fully address important elements of dog care and well-being, such as health, genetics, reproductive soundness and behavioral wellness. The ethical issues involved, including lifelong obligations to the animals, must also be addressed.
Oh dear. PIJAC and Purdue think that we need more regulations involving health, genetics, reproductive soundness, "LIFELONG OBLIGATIONS" and other animal rights drivel.  USDA's APHIS is also an integral partner in producing this study. 

Surprise surprise! Government bureaucrats love nothing better than more rules and regulations to make their worthless jobs secure. 

And then came the news a few days ago that Ed Sayres was being hired by PIJAC. Not just hired, but will be their President and CEO!!

Holy Apoplexy, Batman! Dogs and cats.....living together! Gobsmacked, I say!

Now Mr. Sayres writes a self-defense piece after the public outcry for this new appointment, claiming that he just didn't realize at the time that most breeders were good! Dang! He's finally Come to Jesus.

Here is an excerpt:
I know I have the skills necessary to reduce the polarized dynamics
between animal welfare organizations and the industry. I know, after 40
years in animal welfare, that regulations that are well thought out
protect animals and facilitate commerce. I also have a core belief that,
when managed responsibly, companion animal ownership provides mutual
benefits. The benefits, given and received, which are best described in
studies about the human-animal bond, obviously depend on owners who are
well educated on the medical and behavioral needs of their animals.
These are two priorities of the PIJAC mission, and I believe that my
deep experience in the field would add reasoned input to this vital

I am especially interested in the challenge of breeding pure-bred dogs
on a large scale with humane care standards that prioritize the care and
conditions that matter most to the well being and lifetime care of the
dog. I may be the only person in the animal welfare field that believes
this is feasible. After spending two days visiting the Hunte
Corporation, I now know it is possible. Importantly, the Purdue
University study comes at the right time, and will provide us with the
data we need to accelerate the process of defining standards so we can
begin to meet the demand for dogs with a humane, transparent system.

If this message from Sayres doesn't blatantly scream ANIMAL RIGHTS, nothing does. 


The "medical and behavioral need of animals"? 

"Humane care standards that prioritize the care and conditions that matter most to the well being and lifetime care of the dog." 

Why are we expecting breeders to to be responsible for the lifetime care of the dog? That is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE. 

And what the devil is a "humane, transparent system"? 

I'll tell you what it is, it is total government control over every aspect of breeding and selling animals. 

That's great if you are one of those MORONS who believe that more government regulations are good. That's BAD if you believe in the individual's right to pursue their business or hobby unimpeded by government numbskulls. 

Andrew Hunte apparently hosted Sayres for a tour of his facility and the two are now fast friends. Mr. Hunte wrote a plea for unity, one for all, and all for one, and whoever PIJAC hires is just dandy with him apparently, because, well, they are PIJAC!


And we also hear from other bastions of the pet industry, including a representative from the Pet Expo, who seems to feel that there is no harm, no foul, and that more regulations are helpful to society. He would like us to "wait and see" how the study goes.  

NAIA also weighed in recently regarding more regulations for imported animals, health certificates and so forth. Seems like a no-brainer to require animals be healthy in order to enter the country, and that's great, but why the embargo on importing animals for resale if they are under the age of six months? What will follow? 

Just like all other government claptrap, regulations expand like The Blob and engulf us all until we are eliminated by them. Some "progressives" think the new rules are great because they exempt hobby breeders. How many times do these people have to be shafted before they realize that NO regulations exempt anyone for very long, and that any rule that contains "exemptions" should not be in force in the first place. What's good for one is good for all. And rules for one group will eventually be rules for all. 

I may not be a smart person, but I know what love is. And this ain't it.

Friday, August 8, 2014


Today I read a post from PIJAC on Facebook in support of going out to a park in Washington DC where "rescue" pet adoption was being offered. That's rather odd, coming from PIJAC, the "Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council;" a group that is supposed to be an advocate for the pet industry. I would assume "industry" might include commercial breeders, licensed private breeders, and the like. Supporting "industry" would seem to be at odds with "rescue" unless, of course, pet "rescue" with their commandeering of the pet store niche, importing animals for retail sales in the US and the like, is finally being recognized as part of the "pet industry."

Funny that in 2011, PIJAC joined the HSUS to also publicly support California's SB 917, a measure that prohibits sales of animals in public places. If "rescue" is an industry like any other, why is PIJAC supporting "rescue" sales in the park, when they previously supported a law to prohibit sales in public places? Why is PIJAC colluding with the HSUS on measures that prevent pet sales, yet at the same time promoting sales in the park?

Has PIJAC been hijacked by the schizophrenic insanity of the animal rights movement?

So, here in California we have many cities which allow no pets for sale in pet stores, unless they are from unlicensed, unregulated "rescues." No public sales, unless they are from unlicensed, unregulated "rescues."

A very successful rescue in my area, "Priceless Pets" has been obtaining pets from the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA (IVHS) in Pomona, California, and selling them at retail. In fact, they are following the suggested business model here in California cities. They are selling these pets in a retail outlet pet store in Chino Hills, CA.

That's good, right? We are passing laws to outlaw public sales, to outlaw pets in pet stores unless they come from a "rescue." So, our local rescue is going with the trend, rescuing dogs and selling them in a retail pet store outlet.

Hold it right there! The IVHS now is prohibiting Priceless Pets from pulling animals from the shelter. They want to examine PP's "business model." They are afraid that Priceless Pets is operating as......hold on to your hat.....a PET STORE!!


But wait, we all thought that's what the public wants? Pet stores selling rescued animals for adoption? Our legislators are passing laws giving rescues monopolies on sales. And now, they don't want the rescues to operate as "pet stores?" It's a bit late to change your mind about that, now, isn't it?

Maybe the plain truth of the metter is that they simply don't want ANYONE to sell pets. Not pet stores, not breeders, not rescues, not anyone!

We want you to sell rescued pets in public places and pet stores....yes, we do....no, we don't.....yes, we do.....no, we don't.......yes, we do.....no, we don't....

In fact, this very same rescue group, Priceless Pets, has been persecuted unmercifully by the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA. In 2011, the owners of Priceless Pets WENT TO JAIL FOR FIVE DAYS, at the insistence of the IVHS, for zoning violations!

Yes, they really want to find homes for the animals, don't they? NOT! They'd much rather kill them. The animal rights faction really does live up to the motto:
"Animal Rights Means No Animals Left."

This entire "pet store vs rescue" fiasco coming to the forefront this week reminded me that I had never posted the article to this blog about California's SB 917. It went to "The Dog Press," but not here. So, here it is now, three years later. Thanks, PIJAC, for helping the HSUS push this one through!

California approves ban on public sales of animals – SB 917


Sale of an animal in public will now be a criminal offense



Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary,California Federation of Dog Clubs

July 27, 2011


SB 917 was signed into law yesterday by Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. The criminal animal cruelty statute now will include public sales of animals, making sales a misdemeanor offense right up there in the same league with beating, torturing and cruelly killing an animal. The law will go into effect in 2012.

The notorious CA SB 917 has been promoted by supporters as a ban on "roadside sales" of animals. In actuality, this bill prohibits any public animal sales activities unless specifically exempted….roadside or not. No animal sales may transpire in any public place. Offenders would face a fine on a first offense, and misdemeanor criminal charges thereafter. SB 917 adds to the current criminal animal cruelty statue. Current law describes animal cruelty offenses (such as torturing, tormenting, cruelly beating, mutilating, or cruelly killing an animal) and specifies that such activities can be charged as either misdemeanors or felonies, with possible jail time. SB 917 doubles the maximum allowed penalties for these offenses.

Equating heinous, abusive actions with animal sales sets the bar for animal cruelty at a very low threshold. Under the language of this bill, selling puppies will become as unfavorably regarded by the public as selling such contraband items as illegal drugs or stolen merchandise. This bill also establishes a worrisome precedent by criminalizing the very act of sales itself. The act of selling is not inherently abusive by any stretch of the imagination. Where will this lead in the future? It is frightening to contemplate.
Dog club meeting at a coffee shop? Transferring ownership of animals in the parking lot is now a criminal offense. Do you live 200 miles from your buyer? Be careful! Meeting midway to sell a puppy in any public place could now earn you a rap sheet. Giving kittens away at the local supermarket could be considered a misdemeanor offense under the provisions of this bill, as that could be construed by overzealous officers as “giving away as part of a commercial transaction”. Hey, the kid has change in his pocket? He must have been selling those kittens!
In a practical sense, what does this mean for animals? Sadly, it means that many people will be afraid to place animals at all, and instead of animals finding good homes, more dogs and cats will become homeless, to starve or be hit by a car; or, they might end up in the local shelter where they will add to the death toll. The Good Samaritan who attempts to find homes for the litter of kittens under his porch would end up with a criminal record. 
SB 917 was crafted with some specific exemptions. Shelters, nonprofit rescues, SPCAs, and pet stores are exempt, as are events held by 4-H Clubs, and Junior or Future Farmers Clubs. Agricultural/county fairs are exempt. Stockyards, public livestock sales, and live animal markets are exempt. Dog shows, cat shows and bird shows are exempt.

The fact that certain groups can be exempt from the “crime” of selling, or that the “crime” is OK in some locations but not others, demonstrates that the act of selling itself is not inherently undesirable or criminal.

But beyond that, what does the exemption for "dog shows" mean for us as dog hobbyists?

 Not much. In order to comply with this law, the dog sale must occur on the confines of the showground. As we all are aware, AKC has a strict policy of no dog sales at dog shows. Further, in order for the sale to occur legally, the show must ensure that all exhibitors comply with all applicable federal, state, and local animal laws. This requirement would be a practical impossibility. Exhibitors travel from different cities, counties and even different states to the showgrounds. Different areas have different animal control regulations. In addition, the exhibitors must carry proof of their paid entry fee. This last requirement seems to indicate that animal control personnel intend to police showgrounds. 

And there is good reason to believe that animal control personnel intend to police this new law, determining administration of violations and penalties. The bill states: "A notice describing the charge and the penalty for a violation of this section may be issued by any peace officer, animal control officer......or humane officer". Many animal control officers have an adversarial attitude toward dog breeders, and will now have the power to serve them with criminal charges and penalties simply for conducting an honest and honorable business transaction. Criminal records adversely affects an individual's employment eligibility and credibility in general and should not be imposed lightly by an animal control officer with an ax to grind and little education in constitutional law.

If the dog show exemption is completely meaningless for dog hobbyists (and it is), what venue for sales is left to California dog breeders? Sales in public is prohibited, and AKC dog shows do not permit on site sales. The only alternative is to conduct dog sales from private residences. The dangers of an individual selling anything from his home are well-known. Home invasion robberies, assaults and even murders have occurred during private party sales gone awry. There have been documented incidents where puppies were stolen at gunpoint from individuals conducting sales at their residences.
Putting aside the danger involved, dog breeding and selling is already laden with multiple onerous regulations and is rapidly becoming cost prohibitive in California. Many localities including Los Angeles City and County limit breeders to one litter per year, and an expensive breeding permit is required. In the city of Los Angeles, it costs $335 per year to license ONE intact dog; and this only IF you meet the requirements to qualify for the intact exemption! The very survival of dog breeding in California is tenuous at best.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the sponsor of SB 917. That fact alone should tell you that the bill is part of a larger agenda to stifle animal ownership. This same legislation was brought forward in previous sessions in 2009 and 2010, and did not pass. In 2009, then-governor Schwarzenegger returned the bill, AB 1122, writing: 

"I am returning Assembly Bill 1122 without my signature. I am concerned with the scope and unintended consequences of this bill and that it does not assure the humane and ethical treatment and welfare of animals. This bill has unknown costs associated with the enforcement and implementation of prohibiting the sale of live animals in specified venues and could drive the selling of animals underground or to private sites. For this reason I am unable to sign this bill."

A similar measure banning roadside sales was recently nixed by Texas Governor Perry, who wrote in his veto statement:

"House Bill 1768 would encroach upon the rights of private enterprise and property owners while fundamentally altering and expanding the role of county government....... As a state, we should not raise barriers of entry into the marketplace, stifle competition or hinder the entrepreneurial spirit."

 Those involved in breeding and raising animals heartily concur!

 The HSUS, the sponsor of SB 917, has an admitted agenda to make animal breeding incrementally more expensive and inconvenient. This bill is another weapon in the anti-dog breeder arsenal. Couple the ban on public sales with other bills presented this session that require sellers to report buyers information to animal control (AB 1121), that require microchipping of any dog that is impounded (SB 702), and that prohibit anyone convicted of an animal offense from residing with animals for a period of 5 to 10 years (AB 1117), and we can see the pieces of the puzzle fitting together. With HSUS sponsoring the bill, the intent is clear. Criminalize dog owners by any means possible, and then prohibit them from future animal ownership for a good long time.

The Animal Council and California Federation of Dog Clubs opposed SB 917 early on, and other groups in the state soon joined in the effort as well.

But sadly, the AKC chose to remain silent on this bill, citing lack of an official policy on public sales. Dwindling numbers of AKC registrations and declining sales by private parties does not seem to be sufficient motivation to spur AKC into active opposition of all anti-dog ownership proposals.  

The Farm Bureau also naively did not oppose SB 917, pointing to exemptions in the bill for public sales of livestock. Don’t farmers use herding, hunting and guard dogs? Do farmers realize that under SB 917, they could now be arrested for selling a puppy at a fair or livestock show? Creeping incrementalism in these animal rights-sponsored bills will hasten the day that working dogs cannot be obtained at any price.

PIJAC (Pet Industry Joint advisory Council) actively supported SB 917. It seems that PIJAC was delighted at the thought of eliminating any competition for pet stores and heavily-regulated commercial breeders. Unfortunately, the animal rights groups in California are also lobbying intensely to ban sales of purpose-bred pets in pet stores and replace them with unregulated “rescues”. Combine a pet store sales ban with a ban on public sales, and consumers in California will have limited options for obtaining the pet of their dreams.

On August 2, 1776, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin said "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately” – meaning that if they did not band together in the fight against the British, they would all be hanged separately. These words still ring true today, 235 years later. We need all the animal interest groups to work together to oppose anti-dog ownership legislation.

So be warned, Californians. Soon you can be a criminal just for selling a dog.



New crimes created by CA SB 917


 SEC. 2.  Section 597.4 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

   597.4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully do

either of the following:

   (1) Sell or give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live

animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot,

carnival, or boardwalk.

   (2) Display or offer for sale, or display or offer to give away as

part of a commercial transaction, a live animal, if the act of

selling or giving away the live animal is to occur on any street,

highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk.

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Best in Sanctimony

Bo Doubles Down on offensive anti-breeder rhetoric

The 2014 prize for Arrogant Fool of the Year goes to Best in Show Daily's Bo Bengtson. Yes, I am prepared to issue the reward already, even though we still have half of 2014 left. Mr. Bengtson wrote an article a few days ago containing so many bigoted fallacies about commercial dog breeders that it's impossible to ignore them in good conscience yet it is equally difficult to begin to address all his wrong-headed ideas. He even doubled down on his ignorant comments a few days later, despite attempts by enlightened readers to educate him.

To paraphrase Mr. Bengtson in his lengthy followup diatribe, "Upon reflection and despite a ton of negative feedback, I still believe in my stand and would not change anything I wrote. In fact, let me slur even more people. I declare that a PUPPY MILL IS SOMEONE WHO BREEDS A LOT OF PUPPIES. I know because I looked it up in a dictionary."

It's in there, Mr. Bengtson dutifully informs us.

I looked up "sanctimonious" in the dictionary. Guess what, that's in there too!
Seriously? What is wrong with breeding a lot of puppies? NOTHING! Someone who loves dogs and decides to make dog breeding a career should be heralded as a hero, not vilified. There is a shortage of pets in many areas, and rescue groups are importing dogs from unscrupulous, unregulated and invisible sources in other countries to fill the void. Why can't professional breeders fill the need for puppies in our country?

Sorry, Bo, but I believe that even poor kids should be able to own a dog. But then, I'm not a misanthropist like you. You, who believe that few people deserve to own a dog. Yes, you actually did say that! I'm still trying to pick my jaw up off the floor..

In one fell swoop Mr. Bengtson slurred honorable organizations like AKC, CKC, APRI, the Missouri Pet Breeders' Association, and pet stores everywhere. He tarred ALL dog breeders by invoking upon them the animal rightist slur “Puppy Mill”, with the accompanying ugly implications that label conjures up. “State breeder groups” as referred to by AKC are generalized by Mr. Bengtson as “Puppy mill groups.” How can one person spew so much ignorance and hatred? It is difficult to imagine. 
The worst part of all this, judging from the comments on his hit pieces, is that he has a fawning audience. After all, he's a JUDGE and an AUTHOR and consequently a legend. Well, in his own mind and that of his like-minded fan club, anyway.

“The US is the biggest Puppy Mill country in the world” pronounces Mr. Bengtson. The sheer stupidity of this statement boggles the mind. Dogs are more pampered, coddled, and well-cared for in the US than anyplace else on earth. We spend untold BILLIONS every year on our dogs. And judging by his definition, large quantities of puppies equals "puppy mill". Where are the facts and figures on the numbers of dogs produced in the US vs. other countries? 
A person who does no homework and provides no factual information doesn't deserve a soapbox to spew forth his uneducated opinion.

 This author with delusions of grandeur goes on to proclaim he is “Stating the Obvious”:
“Dogs should NEVER be bred as a commercial commodity.”
Such a sweeping generality based solely on unsupported personal opinion is only "obvious" to those operating on limited brainpower.
If I want to breed dogs commercially and it brings joy to my life, Mr. Bengtson, you can just get your pointy nose OUT of my business. You have NO RIGHT to denigrate anyone who breeds dogs for ANY REASON. I can and will fight to protect your ability to breed your dogs for ANY DAMN REASON YOU PLEASE because that is your right as a member in good standing of human society. Even if your reason is chasing ribbons and pumping up your ego, it's your right to pursue your happiness. But you do not have the right to remove happiness from others' lives. You don't have permission from God to steal my joy.
“No commercial kennel can afford to hire enough qualified individuals to properly socialize a large number of dogs and puppies”....“No commercial kennel can afford to perform the strict health testing required to maintain breeding stock that is certified clear of all hereditary defects.”
The fact that Mr. Bengtson believe that dogs can be "certified clear of all hereditary defects" demonstrates just how woefully ignorant he really is. He's never actually read any articles on canine genetics, or given any serious thought to the subject, that much is painfully obvious.

But disregarding that stupid statement, just how, pray tell, did Mr. Bengtson determine what any commercial kennel can or cannot afford to do? Has he examined their tax returns? Better question, how can a “hobby/show breeder” who LOSES money afford to hire enough help to properly socialize or provide medical care and ridiculously expensive “health testing" for any number of dogs and puppies?  If you're away from home at work all day and lose money on your breeding efforts, you can't do either.

Mr. Bengtson operates on severely warped logic. He believes someone breeding for profit can't afford to care properly for his dogs, but someone who loses money with each litter can? Please. And what rock has he been hiding under? Doesn't he realize that the USDA wants to classify anyone with a few females who ships dogs as a commercial entity? Why, Mr. Bengtson, that could very well be YOU.
“All commercial kennels will be tempted to cut corners (and costs) when it comes to the dogs’ living quarters and general well-being — as vividly demonstrated in their objections to the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act.”
Here's a news flash for you Bo, Missouri's misnomered cruelty act had only one objective....to shut down as many dog breeders as possible. It was not intended to ferret out "cruelty" unless you consider the act of having puppies a cruel crime. It was out of that "cruelty" act campaign led by the misanthropist HSUS that the both the Alliance for Truth and the Cavalry Group were born.

Missouri is a state where many professional dog breeders operate their licensed, inspected and heavily regulated kennels, and Missouris has therefore been under relentless attack from animal rights extremists who want all breeding stopped. There is a reason that Missouri has very strong groups such as MoFed and the Missouri Pet Breeders Association. These groups have been formed to protect the rights of individuals who operate lawful businesses and care for their dogs maintaining only the highest standards. Maybe Mr. Bengtson should speak with them before he decides to support a stupid act from several years in the past, that he obviously knows nothing at all about. But no, that would require some research, a concept that is completely foreign to him..

And more broad brush generalizations; Bengtson claims that EVERY commercial breeder will cut costs, but of course the sainted hobby show breeders would NEVER do such a thing; right, Bo? Oh wait, hobby breeders don't have any money to spend on their dogs. They can't spend money on their dogs' living quarters and general well being. They LOSE money on every litter. Hmm..How on earth will they be able to afford any course of action other than cutting costs? Quite a conundrum, wouldn't we say? But then logic is obviously NOT Bo's strong suit.
“No commercial kennel has the time and resources to weed out unsuitable puppy buyers. For the same reason, pet stores are obviously not a suitable avenue for puppy sales, and pet stores are a major outlet for commerical kennels.”
Again, how would Mr. Bengtson  know what anyone has the time and resources to do, other than himself? I'm betting a lot of people seek out their next pet from a pet store to escape the sanctimonious busybodies of the dog world of which Mr. Bengtson is a prime example. Some of us wish to determine our own destiny, not be stuck in co-ownership contracts or pet contracts that dictate what we can or can't do with our own animal. When you buy from a pet store, you don't have to put up with insults to the intelligence like a contract with more strings than mozarella cheese.

Here's something you might be interested to know. I have a friend who owned a pet store. She ALWAYS made sure the puppies she sold went to suitable homes. She used an application form for her puppies. But pet stores in our areas are all being forced out of business by the Rescue Retailers who are creating for themselves a legal monopoly for their pets and who import them from unknown, unregulated foreign breeders. Dogs with unknown ancestry and unknown health history are better than dogs from licensed, inspected professional breeders? I don't think so.
 “ No commercial kennel would willingly take back —and provide a refund for — a puppy whose owners tire of it or mistreat it.”
This is just a plain flat-out LIE.  States such as mine have a Puppy Lemon Law that REQUIRES a breeder or pet store to take back any unsatisfactory puppy, as well as pay veterinary costs in an amount up to twice the purchase price. How does Mr. Bengtson know what anyone else would or wouldn't do? Is he perhaps trained in the use of the crystal ball?
Do non-commercial breeders willingly take back and provide a refund for dogs they have bred? Because in my observation, that isn't always the case. In fact, that is seldom the case, nor should it necessarily BE the case. People who buy dogs are responsible to care for them and find them a new home if they are unable to keep them. That's NOT the job of the breeders who produced the dog originally; although many of them do so, it is surely above and beyond the call of duty.
“Excuse me, but NO commercial kennel breeds with “the dogs’ welfare” as the primary consideration. If you did you would immediately cease to be commercial!” claims Bengtson. Gee, Bo, don't you realize that anyone who ships a dog or owns more than a few females is now regarded as a “commercial” breeder in the eyes of the law? That means MOST show and hobby breeders, and using your logic they are now considered PUPPY MILLS!!!!.
 Perhaps Bo believes that dogs' welfare is the primary consideration of a dog show? No dog's welfare is promoted in the least by being promoted for the objective of selling its offspring for bigger bucks than one without a titled parent. NO dog gives a damn about winning a ribbon, I'd say that must be STATING THE OBVIOUS.
The entire basis for this rant about commercial breeders is a feigned ignorance on the part of Mr. Bengtson regarding AKC having a division devoted to High-Volume Breeders. Notice they don't call it "Commercial" breeders but use the term "high volume". The distinction is subtle and more blurred with each passing day, but I am here to inform the oblivious Mr. Bengtson that a goodly portion of these "high volume" breeders are....HOBBY SHOW BREEDERS. Yes, that's right. Any show breeder who registers six or more litters in a year is automatically included. And six litters a year can be less than a dozen puppies when a toy breed is involved.
So was Mr. Bengtson really uninformed about this program, or was there another precipitating factor that instigated his venomous attack on the AKC and dog breeders? Well funny you should ask. Just this past March, the AKC Board of Directors voted (unanimously) to remove Mr. Bengtson's eligibility as a judge and as an AKC delegate, "based on the fact that he became occupationally INELIGIBLE" for these pursuits when he purchased a dog magazine in December 2013. This information is contained within the minutes of the March 2014 meeting of the AKC Board of Directors.
Smells a bit fishy, rather like a vengeful vendetta, doesn't it? 
Jerks like Mr. Bengtson, who think they are better than everyone else, are the problem. They are the reason that animal rights nuts are winning the war on breeders. Fools like him are the reason that the US rescue market imports hundreds of thousands of dogs from third-world countries every year. Numbskulls who can't think logically are driving anti-breeding legislation and new USDA regulations based on phantom cases of animal abuse. People like Mr. Bengtson are the reason that “hobby breeders” are regarded by much of the public as people who don't care so much about dogs as about their own fame and prestige. People like Mr. Bengtson are the reason we are ALL losing our rights to breed and keep animals.

But you don't care about any of that, do you Mr. Bengtson?

There is one comforting thought. Long after the holier-than-thous of the world are gone, the pet owners and breeders will remain the last men standing in the war against the animal rights agenda. We are not going to give up our rights as easily as one who would sell them for 30 pieces of silver.

Friday, June 27, 2014

All the News That's Fit to Print...(and some that isn't)

Cringeworthy, but still we must be aware and vigilant. These institutions kill without reason, remorse or repercussions.

In this week's news:

Baltimore police hold down a family pet Shar Pei dog and SLIT HER THROAT. Officer was overheard by bystanders to remark he intended to “gut her”.


Then, police in a Salt Lake City, Utah neighborhood enter a gated, locked back yard in a search for a missing child, and shoot the Weimaraner dog that lived there. In the head. Twice. Oops, dead dog. Meanwhile, missing kid safe at home. False alarm.


Now today comes a story about a dog pound (I refuse to call them “shelters” because they aren't) in Lubbock, Texas, that kills a beautiful healthy friendly pet cat whose owner came in twice to reclaim her. Both times the owner was turned away. The cat was microchipped, but they never bothered to scan her. The owner found his pet on his own. Found her, but couldn't get her back from the killing bastards at the dog pound.


But what the heck, they are just animals with no value and it shouldn't be regarded any differently than, say, damage to your house, car or yard.

Right, AKC?

Friday, February 14, 2014

The Emperor's New Study

The Emperor's New Clothes Study

Hear ye, hear ye!

New study proves (beyond the shadow of a doubt) that:

Purebred Dogs are Just as Healthy as Mixed Breed Dogs!

Carry on with the mission! Inbreed; linebreed! It's not a problem! Breed to the most popular sire, so you too can have a chance to prevail supreme in the jousting tournament of dog superiority!

We are advocates for health testing, but we don't worry about the risks of narrowed gene pools! That would simpy be too upsetting to the apple cart!

Today I read an article about how AKC wants to "clarify misconceptions about purebred dogs." (a) For one of those "misconceptions" the author cites a recent study comparing the health of purebred vs. mixed breed dogs. The author claims that this study affirms that purebred dogs are just as healthy as mixed breed dogs. 

In actuality, the UC Davis study shows that for heritable health problems common to most dogs, mixed breeds are just as susceptible as purebred dogs, while for many more breed-specific health problems, purebred dogs are more susceptible than mixed breed dogs. This "news" should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the science of inheritance and genetics.

However, this same study is continually touted in social media sites and in news releases from the AKC, as some sort of ultimate proof of the undisputed superior health of purebred dogs. Similar to other "Big Lies", there's a belief that if something is shouted loudly enough, everyone will believe it!

Well, not quite EVERYONE. In fact, the American Veterinary Medical Association examined that same study and came to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion:


"The researchers concluded that modern purebred dogs or members of similar lineages appeared to be more susceptible to certain inherited disorders. Disorders occurring equally among purebreds and mixed-breeds suggested that the disorders represented more ancient mutations and were more widely disseminated throughout the canine population." (1)

And the conclusion itself on the published study on Pub Med states:

Recently derived breeds or those from similar lineages appeared to be more susceptible to certain disorders that affect all closely related purebred dogs, whereas disorders with equal prevalence in the 2 populations suggested that those disorders represented more ancient mutations that are widely spread through the dog population. Results provided insight on how breeding practices may reduce prevalence of a disorder. (2)

But, unfortunately, the results did NOT help the willfully ignorant to understand "how breeding practices may reduce the prevalence of a disorder."


Here is a list of a few of the most egregious examples of breed-specific health problems:
  • Purine metabolism dysfunction gene in all (except pointer backcross) Dalmatians
  • Protein malabsorption disorder in virtually all Norwegian Lundehunds ("Lundehund syndrome")
  • Syringomyelia and Mitral valve disease in the vast majority of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels
  • "Collie Eye Anomaly" in Collies and related breeds
  • Copper toxicosis in Bedlington Terriers
  • Fanconi Syndrome in Basenjis

Ah, but we can test and remove dogs with such bad genes from the genepool, right? Actually, that's how Fanconi syndrome became so prevalent in Basenjis. The Basenji breeders noticed a problem with hemolytic anemia. In attempting to eliminate hemolytic anemia, entire families of dogs were culled. Yes, the incidence of hemolytic anemia dropped, but they found many of their dogs were now afflicted with a fatal kidney disease, Fanconi syndrome. They had to return to Africa to add new stock to the decimated gene pool. 

And, according to geophysicist and canine genetics expert Sue Bowling:
“Unfortunately, we cannot breed animals based on a single gene – the genes come as a package. We may inbreed and rigorously remove pups with PRA or even their parents and littermates from the breeding pool. But remember inbreeding tends to make all genes more homozygous. In at least one breed, an effort to remove the PRA-causing gene resulted in the surfacing of a completely different and previously unsuspected health problem. It is easier and faster to lose genes (sometimes very desirable genes) from the breeding pool when inbreeding is practiced than when a more open breeding system is used. In other words, inbreeding will tend to produce more nearly homozygous animals, but generally some of the homozygous pairs will be "good" and others will be ‘bad’.....Furthermore, there may be genes where heterozygosity is an advantage……A more widespread case is the so-called major histocompatibility complex (MHC), a group of genes where heterozygosity seems to improve disease resistance.” (3)

Let's reduce it to something that even non-scientists can understand.

While health testing is admirable and a great beginning to a healthy future for dogs, no amount of health testing can substitute for outcrossing to produce robustly healthy dogs.

For the good of our breeds and all the dogs of the future, we need to change the current dog competition system. Conformation competition should be de-emphasized and standards need to be relaxed and more generalized. While today's dog shows do recognize and reward placid temperament, that is usually a secondary consideration to physical conformation characteristics.

If we want to improve the health of our breeds, the priority needs to be shifted to breeders who employ low levels of inbreeding; to those who breed first and foremost for excellence in temperament and ability as a worker or as a companion. Closed stud books need to be opened, and judicious crosses need to be allowed. Individual breed clubs need to invite outside genetics experts to help them develop policies to effectively manage their breed population.

The good work of AKC's Canine Health Foundation can and should be expanded. Beyond identifying genes that cause disease, the Foundation could employ geneticists for specific recommendations on how to better control genetic disease occurrence.

Our actions now will determine the ultimate fate of our dogs. Are you ready for the revolution?

(a) http://www.oregonlive.com/pets/index.ssf/2014/02/akc_hopes_to_clarify_common_mi.html
(1) http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/vet-breaking-news/2013/06/04/study-shows-mutts-genetically-healthier.aspx
(2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23683021
(3) http://bowlingsite.mcf.com/genetics/inbreeding.html

Friday, February 7, 2014

Broadway Joe vs. PETA the Pet Killers

Joe Namath drew a lot of attention last weekend with his appearance at the Superbowl wearing his coyote and fox fur coat.

Nice coat, Joe!

Hey, looks like Joe has gotten some good use out of that coat. Here he is in 1971 wearing the same or a very similar coat.

Naturally, the hypocrites at PETA were quick to squawk about Joe's fabulous coat. They called Joe a "Caveman" and asked him to donate his coat so that they could "give it a proper burial."

Pot, meet kettle.

Here's PETA's idea of how to conduct a proper animal burial rite. First, answer the phone when veterinarians call asking for help to find homes for a cute, adoptable litter puppies or kittens. Then, drive over and pick the youngsters up. Next, kill those animals in the van; and last but not least, dump the bodies/evidence in dumpsters around the city.

In fact, PETA kills thousands of animals each and every year. Since 1998, PETA has killed over 31,000 animals at their Virginia headquarters. Yep, that's THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND.


In this day and age of shortages of shelter animals in many areas, importation of pets from foreign lands,  and "No Kill" methods becoming the norm with progressive shelter management, we think that the sadistic killers at PETA are the real Neanderthals.

As Joe said in his interview with Hannity when asked about PETA:


Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Shelter Solutions

California’s “Hayden Law”, enacted in 1998, extended the mandatory holding period for shelter animals from 72 hours to four to six days…..and because this extended hold is a statewide mandate, the state must reimburse local shelters for their costs.

California is just plain flat broke, and for the past few years hasn’t had the money to reimburse shelters the $23 million dollars per year it owes them under Hayden. But besides just plain not having the money to fund this mandate, another problems is the fact that the state reimbursement is only paid to shelters for animals who are ultimately killed. Those animals sent to rescues or placed for adoption must be paid for by the agencies or individuals who take them from the shelter, and not by the state. Shelters may not be as proactive as necessary because they will, in theory at least, receive reimbursement for animals that are killed.

Laws with good intention often come with unintended consequences, and the Hayden law is no exception, as it has served as a disincentive for adoption. People concerned with our shelter animals, however, are howling about the proposal to repeal the reimbursement provisions of the Hayden law.

Most shelters hold dogs and cats much longer than the prescribed four to six days as it is now, and even if the Hayden law is repealed in whole or in part, shelters would most certainly not be REQUIRED to kill in three days. They can continue with their current best practices and techniques. Adoptions and pets sent out to rescues are at an all-time high. No one wants to kill, we hear from the shelters.

According to our shelter managers, Los Angeles County holds animals an average of 11 days, and the City of Los Angeles holds them for an average of nine days. Well beyond any state legal requirement. Since there has been no state reimbursement since 2009, there will be no real substantive change in conditions even if the reimbursement provision is repealed. The law will just be altered to reflect the reality of the state’s inability to fund local shelters.

Besides, there are plenty of other progressive actions that could be taken to reduce the burden on animal shelters. Here are just a few ideas that could help:

• Raise the limit number of dogs someone is allowed to own. Why is 3 a magic number – especially if they’re small?

• Stop raiding places where the dogs are fine. Stop confiscating dogs from kennels where the dogs aren’t sick, in danger, or dying. Then there wouldn’t BE so many in the shelters. OH – and if there’s NO ROOM at the shelter, then don’t confiscate what you can’t take care of!

• Start doing a better job of identifying what breed the animals in shelters belong to - THEN maybe they’ll be placed in appropriate rescue groups, or sold to people who will know what to expect when it comes to behavior – and the boomerang effect will be broken.

• How about lowering the price of the dogs and dog licenses – so people can AFFORD to own one.

• Stop the 2-tiered fee scam which requires a higher license fee for intact animals. Most of the owned dogs and cats in our state have already been castrated anyhow. But there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that intact owned animals are any more a burden on society than sterilized ones.

• Stray or feral animals are the ones who are problematic, but they don’t have OWNERS to sterilize them. Feral cats comprise the majority of intakes and deaths. Trap-neuter and release of feral cats is a proven solution that few animal control departments use. I guess it’s easier to continue to blame animal owners for all the animals out there who don’t have owners.

• Stop the exaggerations about the numbers of dogs that are pure-bred. Many shelter workers have personally told me, and I’ve seen it, that there are VERY few. The ads/promos make it sound like the shelter has ALL the breeds, just come and get one. People go looking for a pure-bred – and they’re not there. There are many excellent reasons for purebreds – including some idea of personality, size, and behavior – not to mention benefits of specific breeds for people with allergies.

• Provide incentives for apartment owners to allow pets.

• Picked up a stray with a license or a microchip? Give it a free ride home. Stop charging up the ying-yang with outrageous impound fees so high that people can’t afford to bail their pet out.

• Stop allowing the mass importation of stray dogs from Mexico, Taiwan, the Caribbean, Spain, Brazil, etc. Shelters and rescues import thousands every year.

• Make the shelters report legitimate numbers – and NOT count the dogs multiple times, NOT count the DOA, and NOT count the ones brought in at the end of their lives to have a humane end.

• Take the funds that encourage illegal aliens to take up residence and live in comfort and distribute them to the shelter system instead.

• Stop making it more profitable for the shelters to kill than to rescue. Hey – make them WORK with rescue groups.

• Stop the unionization of the shelter workers. No union will EVER agree to a reduction in their force or their job security.

• FINALLY – HSUS, PETA and other sham organizations could give some of their ill-gotten SCAM monies to our shelters.

• Just STOP making laws that make it more difficult and more expensive for people to own a pet.

Our legislators should be able to come up with many more ideas – that are NOT onerous to pet-owners, that encourage people to have pets, and that would shrink the shelter population. Let’s get to brainstorming!

(Thanks to Carol Hamilton for all her great suggestions)

Shelter Schizophrenia

If you had to describe the shelter/rescue movement in just one word, that word would be:


How does mental illness relate to the shelter and rescue mindset, you might ask?

The GLARING evidence for the disjointed, illogical mentality of "rescue" and "adoption" was right there in public view, in the commercials during the Superbowl football game a couple of days ago.

First, check out this ad from Audi featuring a "Doberhuahua".


Haha, very funny, eh? A young couple are stupid enough to breed their obviously mismatched dogs, and the result of their efforts is the "puppy from hell." He's snarling, aggressive, dangerously insane, and stupid to boot. He's a mixed breed dog, an intentionally bred dog. Yet, by some strange twist of fate, he is thrown into the mix with all the other intentionally-bred "purebred" dogs at a dog show. Maybe Audi's people read about how mixed breeds are competing at Westminster (even though just in performance events) and thought it would be clever to poke fun at that idea?

It seems to be "common knowledge" as promoted in this commercial, that if a dog is purposely bred (either a purebred, or heaven forbid! a mixed breed), then he is going to be defective. And both purebred and mixed breed dogs automatically qualify to participate in a dog show, according to this commercial. HUH?

Perhaps someone should educate the folks at Audi at how we arrived at the Doberman breed. We MIXED the shorthaired shepherd, Rottweiler, Black and Tan Terrier and the German Pinscher to get the breed today known as a Doberman Pinscher. And chihuahuas were MIXED with another breed to get the long coated variety.

The ad ends with the couple picking up a shelter pet. Naturally, the shelter dog is a well-behaved WONDERFUL dog; no one knows what breeds went into his makeup, so we can't make fun of his lineage.

How illogical and delusional is it to believe that a mixed breed dog is a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad dog.... UNLESS he comes out of an animal shelter? In which case, he's automatically a perfect little angel.

Did I mention that schizophrenia is characterized by withdrawal from reality?

More evidence? How about a commercial from people you would normally expect to "get it", Budweiser? Their annual Superbowl commercial is usually wonderful, and this year it is a commercial featuring purebred English Labrador Retriever puppies. Take a look!


Hmmm. In this commercial the intro features a sign for "puppy adoptions", and then shows a pen full of gorgeous Labrador Retriever puppies.

Are we supposed to believe that this is a "rescue" center, since they are using the politically correct term "puppy adoptions"? My first thought was that the only way a "rescue" gets their grubby paws on beautiful puppies like those is by stealing them from a breeder.

Then the rest of the video shows the antics of an escape artist pup and his horse friends who team up to prevent him from leaving for his new home. Sure, it could happen (rolls eyes). Wonder why the pup doesn't have a dam who was worriedly looking after him. We only see Little Miss Adoption Godmother tracking him down. This seems to give further credence to the idea that this is a "rescue" scenario.

After a bit of investigating, I found that the puppies in the Budweiser video were bred by Blackfork Labradors. They state on their website that they breed English-style Labradors in four different colors. No mention of AKC registration but mention of careful selection for health and fitness for work and companionship.

I found myself wondering if these particular breeders might soon become a target of the new APHIS rules, as it seems they ship dogs to buyers in what might be viewed as "large volume". I hope they were not consulted about the content of this commercial, as "adoption" centers aim to put breeders out of business....permanently!

The commercial itself was taped at Warms Springs Ranch, owned by Budweiser. The website of Warm Springs Ranch states that it is a breeding farm. NOT an adoption center or a rescue.

So why use a touchy-feely phrase like "adoption" if we are talking about a dog SALE? Sales of animals are NOT "adoptions". Ever. You "adopt" a child or a relative. You OWN your pet. Big difference. Animals are only referred to as being "adopted" lately because we as a society are falling into the trap of using the animal rights extremist propagandist lingo.

Anheuser-Busch should have refrained from such animal rightist jargon. If you breed and sell, say so! Don't insert "adoption" signs into the mix just to be politically correct.

Similarly, a friend of mine recently took back a puppy she bred. When she found him another home, she actually told the buyer to consider that puppy a "rescue"!! When I asked her Why on Earth would she want anyone to think that her beautiful puppy was a "rescue", she replied, "Well, the concept of 'rescue' is important to my buyer and she wants to feel like she is doing something good by 'rescuing' a dog."

How schizophrenic are we, that we feel guilty about buying or selling a nice dog? We have become browbeaten into surrender under the brunt of propaganda by misanthropist humaniacs who foist phoney terms on us like "rescue" and "adoption" and "puppy mill" and "backyard breeder"....and all the rest of their trashy rhetoric.

The Budweiser Clydesdales are carefully selected to look, act, and perform as top notch draft horses. Why produce a commercial that tacitly promotes animal "rescue" and "adoption"? As if breeding wonderful dogs for sale is something of which to be ashamed.

Let's refrain from promoting this unrealistic, martyr/savior complex when it comes to our animals. Please.

Yes, this commercial is "cute" and "heartwarming" and all the other trite cliches, but when you consider that damaging attitudes are reinforced with widely-distributed videos like this one, it is easy to see where all the intrusive and draconian nationwide anti-animal ownership legislation is coming from. Animals endowed with Disney-esque human qualities in the popular media have spawned the disjointed and illogical, SCHIZOPHRENIC animal rights philosophy.

You'd think Anheuser-Busch might consider the part their highly popular commercials play in forming public perceptions. After all, they are horse owners. Are they unaware that there is a highly successful campaign right now in New York City to ban carriage horses from Central Park? Don't they realize that their Clydesdales could be the next target of an animal rights attack campaign?

It seems to me that this failure to "get" the big picture is simply a manifestation of our own schizophrenic denialism when it comes to the threats from animal extremists.

Animal rights nuts often ascribe human thoughts and feelings to animals in order to make us want to treat animals more like humans. I don't find that "cute" at all. For that reason, I could not enjoy this year's Budweiser commercial.

We should strive to reject pathologic altruism as a philosophy counter to our well-being and that of our animals.

***SCHIZOPHRENIC: "Of, relating to, or characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements."


"Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances."

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Dr Karen Becker on Spay/Neuter

Veterinarian Dr. Karen Becker formerly worked as a euthanasia technician in an animal shelter before she began her private practice. Dr. Becker was adamant about spaying and neutering all pets, preferably before their first heat cycle. Until she saw first-hand the damage that was causing to the health and welfare of her patients.

This is a video that you MUST watch. Grab a cuppa, silence your phone and settle in for a presentation filled with compelling facts and figures.

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Puff the Magic Hund Dog

Puff the Magic Hund Dog, lived by the sea
And frolicked in an autumn mist, in a land called Vaeroy!

Once upon a time, in land far away, lived a magical dog named "Puff."  He was born with six toes on each foot. Real, functional toes, not like the vestigial toes known as "dewclaws."

As he grew, his owner noticed that he was also quite magically double-jointed!

He had extra vertebrae in his neck.

Due to his unusual anatomy, Puff was able to climb steep cliffs and navigate rocky crags.

 He could flatten his ears completely, either backward and forward, which helped to keep out water or dirt.

His special talents came in handy for his job.....flushing puffin birds out from between the rocks, as well as retrieving puffin eggs from the nests. His flexible body and small size was perfect for maneuvering through caves, while his extra toes helped him to maintain a sure footing for climbing on rocks and scrambling along steep cliffs.

Puff and his relatives, who were all magically unique, flourished in Norway for hundreds of years. But, unfortunately for our Puffin Dog, known in Norway as the "Lunde Hund", it eventually became illegal to hunt puffins in Norway. He and his other family members no longer had a job, and soon, there were not many of them left. Then, distemper came along and wiped out almost all of the remaining dogs. There were less than a handful of Lundehunds left, and they were all closely related to each other.

Also unfortunate for the Lundehund is that, due to their lack of genetic variability, they are prone to a condition known as "Lundehund Syndrome." This syndrome is characterized by difficulty in digesting and absorbing protein. All Lundehunds suffer from this problem in varying degrees of severity. It can progress to cancer of the intestines or stomach or lymphoma.


Is this genetic predisposition related to their strangely agile anatomy? We know in humans that being double-jointed is often a result of a genetic defect of collagen formation. I actually know someone with a protein malabsorption problem known as celiac disease, who cannot tolerate gluten in her diet, and she is also double-jointed. Some cases of celiac sprue are associated with abnormal collagen deposits in the intestines. It's interesting to speculate about the possible connection.

The Lundehund is closely related to the Icelandic Sheepdog and the Norwegian Buhund. "Lundies" are an attractive, moderate natural and somewhat primitive type of spitz dog, with the appearance of a cross between a wolf and a coyote.

I was lucky enough to see some of these unusual dogs up close and personal at the Eukanuba dog show a few years ago.

 At one time, I toyed with the idea of obtaining a "Lundie".  I thought it might be a good project to try to crossbreed with Buhunds in an attempt to reduce or eliminate the incidence of Lundehund syndrome. It's a serious problem that can result in significant pain and suffering, as well as a shortened lifespan. Whether caused by specific genes, or the result of lack of variability in the MHC (the genes that provide us with a healthy immune system), crossbreeding is the best way to introduce new genes that would help improve the overall health and vigor of the breed.

But now that AKC has "recognized" the Lundehund as a separate breed, it would be nearly impossible to undertake a crossbreeding program under the current closed registry system. "Purebred" being such an important attribute and all. Heaven forbid that we should MIX breeds, even though all through history people have done exactly that in order to produce healthy and functional dogs.

Incredibly, the genetic testing recommended for the Norwegian Lundehund  in AKC's CHIC program includes only OFA patella and CERF eye certification. 

Rather than admit there's a serious problem and look to fixing that problem, the Lundehund breeders justify their "pure" breeding by claiming that all breeds of dogs have different health problems. This is just their probem, they say, and that's just the way it is! No mention of crossing to similar breeds in an effort to produce healthier dogs.

I hope in the future that an adventurous breeder out there somewhere will undertake the important task of crossbreeding to truly IMPROVE the Norwegian Lundehund breed. The dogs of the future would thank us for that favor, and indeed, crossbreeding may be the only hope of for a bright future for these wonderful Lundies!