Making meth is illegal. Buying or possessing meth is illegal.
Making kiddie porn is illegal. Buying or possessing kiddie porn is illegal.
Making puppies is illegal. Buying or possessing a puppy is illegal.
Sound outrageous? Maybe for now.... But increasingly, making puppies (breeding dogs) is illegal, and is following in the footsteps of other prohibitions, as if it was likewise some great social evil. The day may come when the other half of the prohibition equation is put into effect.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
A Nation of Pet Lovers Loses Its Way
This article originally appeared in the April 22, 2011 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.
A Nation of Pet Lovers Loses Its Way
Carlotta Cooper
I’ve been an anglophile most of my life. I grew up loving all thing British, or English, from the language to the history of the British Isles. I spent some time in the country when I was in school. Inevitably, I segued into animals that were developed in Britain. I enjoyed the time I spent in Britain and the people I met were universally pleasant, though I do recall a few cab drivers with some rather colorful language.
All that was a few years ago. Maybe things change. That was before I became aware of the animal rights movement and the RSPCA.
The RSPCA has a reputation in Great Britain similar to that of HSUS in this country and is known for seizing pets and other animals unreasonably, based on cases highlighted in the media. If you google “RSPCA seizes pets” you will find hundreds of such stories, including stories about the RSPCA seizing overweight pets from their owners. They are also on record in the infamous documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed with comments about purebred dogs such as then Chief Vet Mark Evans calling dog shows “a parade of mutants.” Evans is quoted extensively in the program.
In fact, the RSPCA received so much attention for their role in Pedigree Dogs Exposed that they had to set up Question & Answer pages for the public. On these pages you can find such comments about purebred dogs as these:
—The RSPCA is extremely concerned about the unacceptably high levels ofdisability, deformity and disease affecting pedigree dogs.— Hundreds of thousands of dogs are vulnerable to unnecessary illness, pain anddisability or behavioural problems because they’re bred primarily for how theylook rather than with health, welfare and temperament in mind...—We believe that both the selective breeding of dogs primarily for appearance andthe intensive breeding of closely related dogs for anything other thanscientifically proven welfare reasons is morally unjustifiable...—When choosing which animals to breed from, there’s often no merit attached toan animal’s health, welfare or temperament - and often the attributes rated mosthighly can result in disability or illness...— Pedigree dog owners that show their dogs obviously want their animals to dowell at shows and/or produce popular offspring. So the dogs with the most‘desirable’ attributes (i.e. those that most closely match the relevant breedstandard) are bred from most frequently. The selected features may easilybecome exaggerated, causing dogs to suffer more health and welfare problemsand a reduced quality of life...
I think the impression left on the reader is that people who breed and show dogs only care for a dog’s appearance and give little thought to the dog’s health or temperament. There is certainly the impression given, in my opinion, that massive numbers of purebred dogs (or “pedigree dogs,” as they are called in Britain) are sick and deformed.
The RSPCA also commissioned a 76-page study which denigrated The Kennel Club in Britain and the breeding practices of pedigree dog breeders. “The Kennel Club, breed societies, and the pedigree dog showing community have formally endorsed the inbreeding of dogs,” it said. This was stated despite the fact that it was estimated that less than 1 percent of dogs registered with The Kennel Club were the result of first degree matings. “Much of the suffering which some pedigree dogs endure is unnecessary and a substantial part could be avoided with revised practices.”
Some of the suggestions that came out of the report included:
— The banning of first degree and second degree matings (e.g., parent and offspring, siblings, grandparent and offspring or half-siblings).—Open studbooks.—Conducting a full ethical review of the health and welfare of current breeds. This could inform decisions, such as to enforce rapid out-crossing or (as suggested by some), in extreme cases even to phase out some breeds.—Make registration of pedigree dogs conditional upon both parents undergoing compulsory screening tests for prioritised disorders.—Training and accreditation of judges to prioritise health, welfare and behaviour in the show ring.—Development of schemes for calculating Estimated Breeding Values (EBVs) for disorders influenced by genetic factors. The EBV of an animal for any trait predicts the average performance of its offspring for that trait.
The RSPCA isn’t an organization concerned with helping sad puppies and kittens. It’s an animal rights group of exactly the same ilk as HSUS, with a similar agenda and the same attitude toward dog breeders and purebred dogs.
I think it’s hard to judge just how the British dog-owning public feels about pets and pedigree dogs these days. Pedigree Dogs Exposed seems to have certainly had a very negative effect on the perception of purebred dogs and dog breeders. A list member of the Pet-Law e-mail group looked up the following comments following stories about dog shows or dog breeding in the British popular press, but comments like these are easy to find on British web sites:
*Dog show-breeding stinks. The people who breed these dogs don't give a toss for their animals' welfare, no matter what they say.
*The people who breed those dysfunctional monstrosities ought to be jailed.
*There's only one breed: DOGS (read: cross-breeds, mongrels). Those which are given the label "breeds" are inbred mutants (sic).
*These kennel clubs are disgusting. The poor creatures are just status symbols for the owners and nothing else; owners who are usually loners - childless, anti-social, eccentric, vain, pompous creeps who are completely ignorant of biology.
-------
And this one:
*Those dog breeders should be ABSOLUTELY ashamed of themselves!!!!!!!
*Crufts breeders can be disgusted all they like, the reality is the rest of the rational thinking public is disgusted with them for breeding dogs with deformities and health problems!
*These people are beneath contempt
*Then quite simply these people are not dog lovers, if they would rather have a sick and deformed dog than a healthy dog. I used to want to go to crufts as a child, as a dog lover, now i wouldnt touch the place.
*What utter morons these dog breeders are, more concerned with "correctness" than the welfare of the dogs they breed as usual.
*Some of these dog breeders really sound like a bunch of Nazis !!! Try to imagine if the same practices were applied to creating genetically pure breeds of humans . . . oh wait, that did happen, in WW2 by . . . the Nazis !!!
As mentioned, comments like these are by no means rare following stories about dog shows or dog breeders or breeding in Britain. There are virulent attacks online about pedigree dogs now, since the film Pedigree Dogs Exposed. Just how common this feeling was prior to the documentary, I don’t know, but Britain does not seem to be a friendly place for dog breeding these days. It’s possible this is a very vocal minority, but there are few people writing in defense of dog breeders or pedigree dogs, at least online.
As if this kind of bashing weren’t enough, it’s not unusual to see headlines like this one in the popular British press: “Nation of animal lovers? Study shows 10m pets suffer mental or physical stress.” Is that really possible, you may ask? Out of a nation with approximately eight million dogs, and eight million cats according to the Pet Food Manufacturers Association in Britain, this study claims that 10 million of these pets are suffering mental or physical stress? Of course, this study, conducted by the PDSA (Never heard of it? Apparently it stands for pets in need of vets, but I can’t figure out the acronym), claims far higher numbers for cats, and includes rabbits in the study. They also sell pet insurance. I’m not quite sure how they are a charity. They take people to task if they don’t feed a commercial dog food; and they are very unhappy if animals are left alone for more than four (yes 4) hours per day. I’m not sure how people are supposed to leave the home and work to buy pet food. They claim that rabbits are “neglected” and forced to live on their own, which leads to boredom and stress. In short, they have their ideas about how pets should be treated, and they want to bash millions of pet owners who have different ideas.
This sort of sensational report is common in Britain and it makes front page news. All too often it seems to lead to changes in the way people actually think about animals and treat them. It can even lead to legislative changes — all based on ideas that are pulled out of the air, with absolutely no science or experience to back them up. There can even be misstatements of facts in these reports, such as the disagreement about the pet population numbers above.
Could it possibly be that the RSPCA, groups like PDSA, and others are following in the footsteps of Jemima Harrison and Pedigree Dogs Exposed? They have seen that the more they can rile the British public about animals, the more they may be able to cash in on the public’s concern for animals? I think it’s true that the British are great animal lovers. It’s just a shame that they have been led so far astray that so many of them no longer recognize when they are being taken for a ride. They think dog breeders are their enemy, and pedigree dogs are mutants. They take advice about caring for pets from organizations like the RSPCA which seizes pets, and the PDSA which has very suspect ideas about how animals should be treated. Whatever happened to British common sense?
Monday, April 25, 2011
The Three Wise Monkeys
I've been posting dog legislation updates on my facebook page. Most of my 500 plus "friends" do not comment or click "like". The precious few who do are the same crowd who are already aware, savvy and heavily involved in the fight. Just post a cute puppy picture, however, and you'll soon have 40 or 50 people clicking that "like " button.
There's always a rationalization for sticking one's head in the sand. That's the easy way out, pretending that you will be unaffected by the current aggressive campaigns by the animal rights groups. But this particular rationalization makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Whenever there is a campaign launched to eliminate the rights of one segment of society, it will always filter down to affect everyone else, eventually.
The result of such apathy is a truly frightening prospect.
It's open season on animal breeders, and that affects everyone! If the current legislative trend continues, we'll soon live in a world in which animal ownership is so cost-prohibitive and so heavily regulated that 99% of us will not be able to own animals! Someone looking for a pet puppy might begin to notice when there are no more purebred dogs available five or ten years down the road. Heck, it won't just be purebred puppies who will be unobtainable, but ANY puppies!
Yes, the trends in legislation will affect every single person in our nation! Do you EAT? Costs of agriculture will rise dramatically, meaning FOOD prices will explode.
Closing your eyes won't make these issues disappear. The animal rights groups are welll-funded and highly motivated to advancing their agenda. While your eyes are closed, they will be hard at work chipping away at your animal ownership rights. When the day arrives where you have to pay hundreds of dollars for a "rescued" dog, bred in a third world country expressly for export to the US market, think maybe THEN it might affect you?
But by then, it will be TOO LATE to reverse the tide.
Will people be able to breed or obtain a puppy in the very near future if the present onslaught of anti-dog legislation continues? Most importantly, DO YOU CARE?
Will people be able to breed or obtain a puppy in the very near future if the present onslaught of anti-dog legislation continues? Most importantly, DO YOU CARE?
If you do care, please speak up! Speak up on comment sections of news articles. Write notes to your legislators. Speak to others about the threats to our rights. Support others who are active. Contact your state dog federation and volunteer your services to help raise awareness.
Or don't. The choice is yours.
The future is in your hands.
The future is in your hands.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Dalmatians, Boxers, and Labs...oh my!
More risks coming to light regarding spay and neuter. Oh my! Read on.
Influence of castration on Dalmatian stone-forming:
Dalmatians are prone to urinary stone formation. Stones lodged in the urethra can obstruct urine and result in pain, and even death.
The size of the os penis in the male Dalmatian is under the influence of testosterone in the body. If castrated before maturity, the male Dalmatian stands a greater chance of an abnormally developed os penis due to lack of testosterone. This then results in greater risk for urinary tract obstruction from the stones that all Dalmatians are predisposed to form.
The Dalmatian Club of America recommends delaying neutering of Dalmatians until AFTER the age of 50 weeks (that's nearly one year old).
More details here:
http://www.savethedals.org/earlyneuter.htm
But it's not just Dalmatians who are at risk for health problems related to sterilization.
Spayed females are predisposed to Mast Cell Tumors. Here's the study, just recently published.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21498594
J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2011 Apr 15.
Cutaneous MCTs: Associations with Spay/Neuter Status, Breed, Body Size,
and Phylogenetic Cluster.
White CR, Hohenhaus AE, Kelsey J, Procter-Gray E.
Source: Department of Internal Medicine, Animal Medical Center, New York, NY.
Abstract:
Certain breeds are known to be overrepresented among mast cell tumor (MCT)
patients, but other risk factors have not been evaluated. This study
presents results from a case-control study of 252 dogs with grade 2 or
grade 3 cutaneous MCT.
Increased risk for MCT development was found in spayed females (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.11),
boxers (adjusted OR, 6.09), Labrador retrievers (adjusted OR, 3.95), pugs (adjusted OR, 3.17), golden retrievers (adjusted OR, 2.12), the mastiff and terrier phylogenetic cluster (adjusted OR, 3.19), and breeds classified as large
(adjusted OR, 2.10) or giant (adjusted OR, 5.44). Additional studies are
needed to evaluate the role of these and other potential risk factors in
MCT development.
Dogs with stage 3 mast cell tumors have a 90% death rate.
More and more information is being revealed every day that gives those who love their animals justifiable concern about spay and neuter!
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Animal Rights Groups Tarnish the Pet Expo
Every year, the California Federation of Dog Clubs operates a booth at the Pet Expo in Orange County, CA. Information is provided about how to responsibly care for your dog, as well as information about the threats to ownership from the animal rights groups and the current legal challenges in our state. I helped staff the booth all day yesterday.
Now if you have never attended one of these Expos, let me describe the events for you. There are booths for individual breeds that are manned by breed clubs. There are rescue and adoption booths. There are many vendors and demonstrations as well, as the Expo rather resembles a county fair.
Demonstations are held with splash dogs and jump dogs and service dogs. There are petting zoos and pens filled with alpacas. There are entire buildings dedicated to small animals such as cats, birds, hamsters, rabbits, rats, reptiles, fish, etc. All in all, it's great fun; there's so much you'll want to see, particularly when you are an animal lover like I am!
We noticed that nearby to our booth was a booth advertising the California Spay-Neuter license plates. You may recall that the spay-neuter license plates are sponsored by "Social Compasssion", the group founded by longtime PETA employee Jane Garrison and her friends. The brochure about the license plate campaign claims:
And, studies to date show that spay-neuter SHORTENS lives, not saves them. All that bombastic rhetoric, when the truth is that spay/neuter actually CAUSES some very nasty health problems.
And, just as a technical point of information; it ain't "euthanasia" when they kill adoptable animals. It's just plain killing.
The "California Pet Lovers License Plate" campaign, spreading all those lies about why animals are KILLED in shelters. Maybe the reason for all that shelter killing just MIGHT be that the shelters are paid by how many they kill? Just a thought. When you get paid by a bounty system, there tends to be a lot of victims. Or maybe it could be that animals are killed because limit laws prevent people from adopting? Or could it be that areas that recently enacted mandatory spay-neuter laws find that suddenly their intakes are UP, not down?
Odd that in the midst of such a "crisis", "Save a Mexican Mutt", "Compassion Without Borders", and many other groups are actually IMPORTING dogs into California from other countries.
It ain't rocket science, folks. Shelters kill animals. Punitive programs and oppressive laws kill animals. And guess what, the animals who are already spayed/ neutered are killed too, right along with the rest.
I had flyers printed up and ready to go to inform the public about the facts behind the spay-neuter license plate program, but we were told by the event manager that we could not pass out anything that maligned another group who paid for a booth at the Pet Expo.
Yes, there's a dark cloud looming over the Pet Expo, and it seems to hover lower and larger each year. More and more, we are finding some very radical animal groups in attendance. Last year, right across from our breed booth, we had a booth set up by an animal rights pet rescue group. They had merchandise there emblazoned with anti-breeder slogans such as "Don't Breed, Don't Buy, ADOPT".
Here is a sign at a booth that I photographed yesterday.
There were plenty of rescuers with anti-breeder T-shirts as well. "Don't buy"? I guess they are giving the adoptables away for free? No money will change hands? They explain their fees as "Oh, that's not even enough to cover our veterinary expenses" Hey, guess what, that is exactly the same situation that breeders are in. Most all operate operate at a loss.
No, we are not allowed to spread the truth about the California Spay Neuter License Plate fund; yet, for some unknown reason, these radical animal rights groups are never told to tone down their anti-breeder rhetoric.
Our group also had to be subjected to a booth nearby for a group called "Arm the Animals". This group is anti-hunting, and just anti-HUMAN in general. They were selling T-shirts featuring screenprints of armed deer, gorillas, dolphins, elephants, even cats and dogs! The implications of these images of animals armed and fighting man are chilling. It really is not at all cute, chic or funny.
Still ANOTHER radical group across the aisle from us was the Irvine Animal Care Center.....the very group that is currently pushing in Irvine for mandatory spay-neuter of all pets by the age of six months. They also want to ban circuses, rodeos, and petting zoos. They wish to outlaw the sales of dogs and cats in pet stores. A nutty group like this has a spot at a pet expo, which features a petting zoo and pony rides? Guess the IACC's disdain for petting zoos didn't override their desire for $$$$ sales of pet supplies and donations to their rescue group. The IACC, an anti-pet store group, had a booth right next to PetStore.com! How's that for irony?
All that push for oppressive pet legislation, and yet the Irvine shelter admits it never has to kill for space.
My sister went to the Pet Expo for the express purpose of buying grooming equiment for her Poodle. Nope, no booths selling grooming equipment. Not a scissor, clipper or poodle comb in sight.
There was, however, a booth providing FREE grooming services to newly "adopted" rescue pets. Hey, what sort of home check can be done when a pet is adopted at a Pet Expo?
With all the radical groups in attendance, and the big push for "rescue" and "adoption", it's no wonder the breed booths each year are dwindling. Most of the breed booths now consist only of RESCUE groups for each breed. The value of obtaining a well-bred dog or puppy from a breeder is now a POLICALLLY INCORRECT notion, it seems. What a sad state of affairs for our society.
How much more radical animal rights rhetoric must we endure at the Pet Expo? And when will the operators of the event realize that animal expos and fairs will cease to operate if these groups have their way.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Pet Expo! Without encouraging participation by those who breed and raise animals, and excluding the radical animal rights groups who wish to end all purposeful animal breeding, the "Pet Expo" will not survive into the future.
Now if you have never attended one of these Expos, let me describe the events for you. There are booths for individual breeds that are manned by breed clubs. There are rescue and adoption booths. There are many vendors and demonstrations as well, as the Expo rather resembles a county fair.
Demonstations are held with splash dogs and jump dogs and service dogs. There are petting zoos and pens filled with alpacas. There are entire buildings dedicated to small animals such as cats, birds, hamsters, rabbits, rats, reptiles, fish, etc. All in all, it's great fun; there's so much you'll want to see, particularly when you are an animal lover like I am!
We noticed that nearby to our booth was a booth advertising the California Spay-Neuter license plates. You may recall that the spay-neuter license plates are sponsored by "Social Compasssion", the group founded by longtime PETA employee Jane Garrison and her friends. The brochure about the license plate campaign claims:
Spay and Neuter saves lives!......every year, hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats are euthanized in California's shelters simply because there are not enough homes. The simplest and most responsible act that a pet owner can take to alleviate this crisis is to spay or neuter their pets.Really? There are over five times more new homes opening up for dogs and cats every year in the US than there are pets killed in shelters. There IS no crisis.
And, studies to date show that spay-neuter SHORTENS lives, not saves them. All that bombastic rhetoric, when the truth is that spay/neuter actually CAUSES some very nasty health problems.
And, just as a technical point of information; it ain't "euthanasia" when they kill adoptable animals. It's just plain killing.
The "California Pet Lovers License Plate" campaign, spreading all those lies about why animals are KILLED in shelters. Maybe the reason for all that shelter killing just MIGHT be that the shelters are paid by how many they kill? Just a thought. When you get paid by a bounty system, there tends to be a lot of victims. Or maybe it could be that animals are killed because limit laws prevent people from adopting? Or could it be that areas that recently enacted mandatory spay-neuter laws find that suddenly their intakes are UP, not down?
Odd that in the midst of such a "crisis", "Save a Mexican Mutt", "Compassion Without Borders", and many other groups are actually IMPORTING dogs into California from other countries.
It ain't rocket science, folks. Shelters kill animals. Punitive programs and oppressive laws kill animals. And guess what, the animals who are already spayed/ neutered are killed too, right along with the rest.
I had flyers printed up and ready to go to inform the public about the facts behind the spay-neuter license plate program, but we were told by the event manager that we could not pass out anything that maligned another group who paid for a booth at the Pet Expo.
Yes, there's a dark cloud looming over the Pet Expo, and it seems to hover lower and larger each year. More and more, we are finding some very radical animal groups in attendance. Last year, right across from our breed booth, we had a booth set up by an animal rights pet rescue group. They had merchandise there emblazoned with anti-breeder slogans such as "Don't Breed, Don't Buy, ADOPT".
Here is a sign at a booth that I photographed yesterday.
There were plenty of rescuers with anti-breeder T-shirts as well. "Don't buy"? I guess they are giving the adoptables away for free? No money will change hands? They explain their fees as "Oh, that's not even enough to cover our veterinary expenses" Hey, guess what, that is exactly the same situation that breeders are in. Most all operate operate at a loss.
No, we are not allowed to spread the truth about the California Spay Neuter License Plate fund; yet, for some unknown reason, these radical animal rights groups are never told to tone down their anti-breeder rhetoric.
Our group also had to be subjected to a booth nearby for a group called "Arm the Animals". This group is anti-hunting, and just anti-HUMAN in general. They were selling T-shirts featuring screenprints of armed deer, gorillas, dolphins, elephants, even cats and dogs! The implications of these images of animals armed and fighting man are chilling. It really is not at all cute, chic or funny.
Still ANOTHER radical group across the aisle from us was the Irvine Animal Care Center.....the very group that is currently pushing in Irvine for mandatory spay-neuter of all pets by the age of six months. They also want to ban circuses, rodeos, and petting zoos. They wish to outlaw the sales of dogs and cats in pet stores. A nutty group like this has a spot at a pet expo, which features a petting zoo and pony rides? Guess the IACC's disdain for petting zoos didn't override their desire for $$$$ sales of pet supplies and donations to their rescue group. The IACC, an anti-pet store group, had a booth right next to PetStore.com! How's that for irony?
All that push for oppressive pet legislation, and yet the Irvine shelter admits it never has to kill for space.
My sister went to the Pet Expo for the express purpose of buying grooming equiment for her Poodle. Nope, no booths selling grooming equipment. Not a scissor, clipper or poodle comb in sight.
There was, however, a booth providing FREE grooming services to newly "adopted" rescue pets. Hey, what sort of home check can be done when a pet is adopted at a Pet Expo?
With all the radical groups in attendance, and the big push for "rescue" and "adoption", it's no wonder the breed booths each year are dwindling. Most of the breed booths now consist only of RESCUE groups for each breed. The value of obtaining a well-bred dog or puppy from a breeder is now a POLICALLLY INCORRECT notion, it seems. What a sad state of affairs for our society.
How much more radical animal rights rhetoric must we endure at the Pet Expo? And when will the operators of the event realize that animal expos and fairs will cease to operate if these groups have their way.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Pet Expo! Without encouraging participation by those who breed and raise animals, and excluding the radical animal rights groups who wish to end all purposeful animal breeding, the "Pet Expo" will not survive into the future.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
New England is running out of kittens!
From Charlotte McGowan:
We have tens of thousands of dogs being imported to fill New England
shelters that would otherwise be empty. And now we have step two!
Unbelievable! The New England Federation of Humane Societies just held a
conference in Maine. One of the talks was:
4:00 pm - 5:30 pm: New England is Running Out of Kittens! Discussion
of kitten importation and how we can get ahead of the issue.
Facilitated by Bert Troughton, ASPCA
Here is a link to whole conference:
http://www.newenglandfed.org/pdf/NEFHS2011.pdf
We have tens of thousands of dogs being imported to fill New England
shelters that would otherwise be empty. And now we have step two!
Unbelievable! The New England Federation of Humane Societies just held a
conference in Maine. One of the talks was:
4:00 pm - 5:30 pm: New England is Running Out of Kittens! Discussion
of kitten importation and how we can get ahead of the issue.
Facilitated by Bert Troughton, ASPCA
Here is a link to whole conference:
http://www.newenglandfed.org/pdf/NEFHS2011.pdf
Legal Definition of "Puppy Mill"
Is there truly a legal definition of "puppy mill" as some animal rights fanatics claim? Julian Prager explains below that there is NO definitive legal definition of this term!
A number definitions of the term "puppy mill" have been suggested, including "a place where puppies are bred for profit" (www.dictionary.com) and "a commercial farming operation in which purebred dogs are raised in large numbers" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary - 2nd edition). However it is worded, those who use the term usually claim it is an abusive and cruel place and that the legal definition applies in the jurisdiction involved.
The term "puppy mill" is not generally defined in state law as it applies in abuse or cruelty cases. That is the most significant issue with the use of the definition. They write as if "puppy mill" has a definition for abuse and cruelty purposes. It generally does not. While the definition cited in Avenson v. Zegart states that health is disregarded to re duce overhead and maximize profits, it does not say the dogs are found to be unhealthy. Under the definition provided, dogs may be healthy and sound, although they are not provided with the care we all would want and expect our dogs to have.
If the dogs are healthy, sound and well care-for, by whatever objective standard is used, then there is no cruelty or abuse unless the frequency of health checks is required in the state cruelty law. Some states do require annual or semi-annual vet examinations for large scale breeding operations. Most don't - in those states, the frequency of vet visits is not directly relevant to any finding of abuse, although it may be evidentiary depending on other factors.
The issue in Avenson v. Zegart was a narrow one in a case for summary judgment in federal courts. Although the narrow standard for summary judgment was not met, the court did stated that there may be to rt remedies available in state court. It is unclear from the language of the decision whether the federal court was adopting the definition or merely using the definition provided by the humane society. In either case, this would not be controlling precedent in other federal or state courts. Some courts have adopted this definition in other districts, but usually not in cases of abuse or cruelty. For example, it has been used to determine whether a request for discovery was sufficiently clear for the parties to understand what was asked for.
Until there is a legal definition that applies throughout out country, the definition is, at best, ambiguous and competes for legitimacy with other made-up definitions of the term "puppy mill." As the riddle apocryphally attributed to Abraham Lincoln points out this fallacy: "Question: How many legs has a sheep if you call a tail a leg? Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one." Let's not make that mistake here.
Julian Prager
"Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced." Albert Einstein
A number definitions of the term "puppy mill" have been suggested, including "a place where puppies are bred for profit" (www.dictionary.com) and "a commercial farming operation in which purebred dogs are raised in large numbers" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary - 2nd edition). However it is worded, those who use the term usually claim it is an abusive and cruel place and that the legal definition applies in the jurisdiction involved.
The term "puppy mill" is not generally defined in state law as it applies in abuse or cruelty cases. That is the most significant issue with the use of the definition. They write as if "puppy mill" has a definition for abuse and cruelty purposes. It generally does not. While the definition cited in Avenson v. Zegart states that health is disregarded to re duce overhead and maximize profits, it does not say the dogs are found to be unhealthy. Under the definition provided, dogs may be healthy and sound, although they are not provided with the care we all would want and expect our dogs to have.
If the dogs are healthy, sound and well care-for, by whatever objective standard is used, then there is no cruelty or abuse unless the frequency of health checks is required in the state cruelty law. Some states do require annual or semi-annual vet examinations for large scale breeding operations. Most don't - in those states, the frequency of vet visits is not directly relevant to any finding of abuse, although it may be evidentiary depending on other factors.
The issue in Avenson v. Zegart was a narrow one in a case for summary judgment in federal courts. Although the narrow standard for summary judgment was not met, the court did stated that there may be to rt remedies available in state court. It is unclear from the language of the decision whether the federal court was adopting the definition or merely using the definition provided by the humane society. In either case, this would not be controlling precedent in other federal or state courts. Some courts have adopted this definition in other districts, but usually not in cases of abuse or cruelty. For example, it has been used to determine whether a request for discovery was sufficiently clear for the parties to understand what was asked for.
Until there is a legal definition that applies throughout out country, the definition is, at best, ambiguous and competes for legitimacy with other made-up definitions of the term "puppy mill." As the riddle apocryphally attributed to Abraham Lincoln points out this fallacy: "Question: How many legs has a sheep if you call a tail a leg? Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one." Let's not make that mistake here.
Julian Prager
"Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced." Albert Einstein
7 Things You Didn't Know about Puppy Mills
7 Things You Didn't Know About Puppy Mills
1) The phrase "puppy mill" has been promoted in the media by the animal rights movement, people who want to end all animal ownership. It is applied indiscriminately by these fanatics to anyone who breeds dogs.
2) There are just two types of breeders: those who are humane and those who aren't. Current laws prohibit inhumane, abusive and neglectful treatment of dogs. So-called "puppy mill bills" target according to number of dogs owned; however, what is important is the standard of care, not the numbers.
3) Most commercial breeders have state of the art kennels. They need to meet stringent USDA standards and the standards of their state laws.
4)"Sick" puppies do not sell. It is counterproductive for any industry to produce a defective product and expect to stay in business.
5) Passing laws to outlaw "puppy mills" will not solve anything. Inhumane breeders are already in violation of existing laws. New, stricter laws will only affect those breeders who are dedicated and caring. We need to enforce cruelty laws that are already on the books.
6) All the breeders in this country cannot produce enough puppies to meet the demands of the American market. Currently, hundreds of thousands of dogs and puppies are imported from other countries to meet the demand.
7) Breeders are not responsible for the presence of dogs in shelters. We have a problem with responsible ownership. Education is the key to improvement in this area.
For more information:
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Backbone Gone?
From Barbara Andrews editorial at:
http://www.thedogpress.com/Editorials/1104-Backbone-Gone_Andrews.asp
Dear. Ms. Andrews
There is a great deal we can do. First and foremost, STOP blaming all
the ills of the dog world on 'puppy mills'! Just STOP.
Doing this creates a false story line that is exploited to pass laws
that hurt hobby breeding right along with -- often before --
commercial breeding. Pet limit laws and anti-'hoarding' laws because
"We don't want puppy mills HERE!"; breeder licensing laws that drive
some of us away because of the invasion of privacy and the costs and
create the niche for a terror campaign by incompetent and corrupt
animal control, and that above all leave a stench in the public mind:
"Dog breeders are bad people."
Talk about what good breeders do when you can; point out bad ones when
necessary, making clear exactly what IS bad. But DO NOT use an
all-purpose non-specific smear term to apply to any breeder because
you ARE smearing all of us when you do.
The AKC has come many miles in the last five years. But yes, they
could still do more. The AKC needed to deal with issues coming from
larger kennels and nearly all of those are now commercial. That was
good (more like 'essential,' actually) but when a registry enforces
standards for care and conditions that increase customer costs it
needs to show corresponding value. The AKC did NOTHING to show its
customers that those added costs were justified, the attitude was "If
you don't already know why you need the AKC, then don't let the door
hit you in the backside."
The result was utterly predictable: New 'just a registry' registries
sprang up. The quality was widely variable but what they had in
common was lower costs and a willingness to treat the customer as a
CUSTOMER. As in 'is always right,' rather than 'needs us.'
All is not lost. The AKC owned -- still largely commands -- the
marketing high ground. It still has name recognition that the others
only dream about. It could use its position to tell the public why
'AKC registered' is the mark of quality in dogs. It is at last taking
steps in that direction but needs support, encouragement, and as we
see progress, more of our MONEY.
The continual talk of puppy mills would be merely a distraction for
the AKC if it didn't generate so much waste and ill-feeling. How can
it help us that every Board of Directors has 'Puppy mills are the
problem!' members? Answer: It can't -- these people keep the AKC from
focusing on the real enemy, namely the animal rights movement. THEY
are a major reason the AKC has done such a poor job of marketing.
Just a couple more comments. First, we really DO need commercial
breeding. Yes, Ms. Andrews and others, the AKC was RIGHT about this.
Hobby breeders would have to expand production by three or four-fold
to supply the annual requirement for puppies at current prices. Do I
need to tell my fellow active breeders that "THAT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN"?
(Or rather, it could only happen if the number of hobby breeders were
greatly expanded. Since the AKC is only just discovering the idea of
recruitment and the laws really ARE unfavorable, that expansion is at
best well in the future.)
If visible and legal commercial breeding is eliminated, it will be
replaced by INvisible and ILlegal commercial breeding. Some of this
will be back in the hills, some will be overseas; how can we imagine
that any of it will meet reasonable standards for ANYTHING? How
can that be better for ANYONE? HOW CAN IT BE ANYTHING BUT A DISASTER
FOR THE DOGS?
And finally, if quality home hobby breeders are having trouble selling
puppies then either they're in a breed which is not in demand as pets
-- a reasonable choice but not a justification for whining about poor
sales -- or they aren't doing a good job of marketing. Do you tell
your prospective customer who you are and what's important to you? Is
what you say about yourself what buyers would want to hear? (Hint:
Your show wins are pretty far down your pet buyer's list ...)
'Marketing' is the lamp by which your prospective customer sees you.
If your number one priority is a healthy, happy dog that is everything
your breed standard says it should be but all you talk about is your
show wins, you are hiding your light under a basket. If you don't
bother returning referral phone calls, if you hang up if someone asks
the price right up front, you're kissing some potentially great
owners good bye before you've even said 'Hello.'
Do you have a whole bunch of rules about who you won't sell to? Do
those rules really identify homes that would be unlikely to succeed or
do they just reinforce your feeling of superiority?
Do you have a clear up-to-date web site giving the reader information
about both your breed and your breeding program? Do you focus on
helping a good family get together with a good dog, even if that means
a referral to someone who has puppies right now? Or puppies of a
certain color? Or sells for less than you do?
ARE YOU NICE TO YOUR PROSPECTS AND CUSTOMERS?
Or would you rather blame all your troubles on 'puppy mills'? That's
certainly easier ...
Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
Virginia
http://www.thedogpress.com/Editorials/1104-Backbone-Gone_Andrews.asp
Is there anything we can do to counter PETA’s incredibly effective
campaign that makes people want to “save a life” by adopting someone else’s reject instead of buying a healthy, socialized, gorgeous purebred from a breeder?
How can we overcome the image HSUS projects of genetically defective purebred dogs? Since AKC absolutely refuses to market the concept of well-bred purebreds, is there any reason to stand up for what we believe in? Are we too crippled, too browbeaten, and too alone to change the direction of purebred dogs?
Dear. Ms. Andrews
There is a great deal we can do. First and foremost, STOP blaming all
the ills of the dog world on 'puppy mills'! Just STOP.
Doing this creates a false story line that is exploited to pass laws
that hurt hobby breeding right along with -- often before --
commercial breeding. Pet limit laws and anti-'hoarding' laws because
"We don't want puppy mills HERE!"; breeder licensing laws that drive
some of us away because of the invasion of privacy and the costs and
create the niche for a terror campaign by incompetent and corrupt
animal control, and that above all leave a stench in the public mind:
"Dog breeders are bad people."
Talk about what good breeders do when you can; point out bad ones when
necessary, making clear exactly what IS bad. But DO NOT use an
all-purpose non-specific smear term to apply to any breeder because
you ARE smearing all of us when you do.
The AKC has come many miles in the last five years. But yes, they
could still do more. The AKC needed to deal with issues coming from
larger kennels and nearly all of those are now commercial. That was
good (more like 'essential,' actually) but when a registry enforces
standards for care and conditions that increase customer costs it
needs to show corresponding value. The AKC did NOTHING to show its
customers that those added costs were justified, the attitude was "If
you don't already know why you need the AKC, then don't let the door
hit you in the backside."
The result was utterly predictable: New 'just a registry' registries
sprang up. The quality was widely variable but what they had in
common was lower costs and a willingness to treat the customer as a
CUSTOMER. As in 'is always right,' rather than 'needs us.'
All is not lost. The AKC owned -- still largely commands -- the
marketing high ground. It still has name recognition that the others
only dream about. It could use its position to tell the public why
'AKC registered' is the mark of quality in dogs. It is at last taking
steps in that direction but needs support, encouragement, and as we
see progress, more of our MONEY.
The continual talk of puppy mills would be merely a distraction for
the AKC if it didn't generate so much waste and ill-feeling. How can
it help us that every Board of Directors has 'Puppy mills are the
problem!' members? Answer: It can't -- these people keep the AKC from
focusing on the real enemy, namely the animal rights movement. THEY
are a major reason the AKC has done such a poor job of marketing.
Just a couple more comments. First, we really DO need commercial
breeding. Yes, Ms. Andrews and others, the AKC was RIGHT about this.
Hobby breeders would have to expand production by three or four-fold
to supply the annual requirement for puppies at current prices. Do I
need to tell my fellow active breeders that "THAT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN"?
(Or rather, it could only happen if the number of hobby breeders were
greatly expanded. Since the AKC is only just discovering the idea of
recruitment and the laws really ARE unfavorable, that expansion is at
best well in the future.)
If visible and legal commercial breeding is eliminated, it will be
replaced by INvisible and ILlegal commercial breeding. Some of this
will be back in the hills, some will be overseas; how can we imagine
that any of it will meet reasonable standards for ANYTHING? How
can that be better for ANYONE? HOW CAN IT BE ANYTHING BUT A DISASTER
FOR THE DOGS?
And finally, if quality home hobby breeders are having trouble selling
puppies then either they're in a breed which is not in demand as pets
-- a reasonable choice but not a justification for whining about poor
sales -- or they aren't doing a good job of marketing. Do you tell
your prospective customer who you are and what's important to you? Is
what you say about yourself what buyers would want to hear? (Hint:
Your show wins are pretty far down your pet buyer's list ...)
'Marketing' is the lamp by which your prospective customer sees you.
If your number one priority is a healthy, happy dog that is everything
your breed standard says it should be but all you talk about is your
show wins, you are hiding your light under a basket. If you don't
bother returning referral phone calls, if you hang up if someone asks
the price right up front, you're kissing some potentially great
owners good bye before you've even said 'Hello.'
Do you have a whole bunch of rules about who you won't sell to? Do
those rules really identify homes that would be unlikely to succeed or
do they just reinforce your feeling of superiority?
Do you have a clear up-to-date web site giving the reader information
about both your breed and your breeding program? Do you focus on
helping a good family get together with a good dog, even if that means
a referral to someone who has puppies right now? Or puppies of a
certain color? Or sells for less than you do?
ARE YOU NICE TO YOUR PROSPECTS AND CUSTOMERS?
Or would you rather blame all your troubles on 'puppy mills'? That's
certainly easier ...
Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
Virginia
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Exploitation is our middle name!
This is better than a soap opera! Heck, we we don't even need to make this storyline up, it just keeps falling into our laps.
Announcing newly engaged "power couple" Wayne Pacelle and fiance, ABC news correspondent Lisa Fletcher. Nothing like an opportune hearts-and-flowers announcement to spice up your book sales. The exploitation continues unabated!
Announcing newly engaged "power couple" Wayne Pacelle and fiance, ABC news correspondent Lisa Fletcher. Nothing like an opportune hearts-and-flowers announcement to spice up your book sales. The exploitation continues unabated!
Poor Wayne; he looks like he's in pain, doesn't he?
Sure hope Lisa doesn't plan to have any kids; I hear the brain and nervous system doesn't develop properly without vitamin B-12 (and it's not reliably available in vegan foods). Not sure if she is a vegan, but since Wayne requires that his HSUS cohorts are vegan, it seems likely that he'd require that in a prospective wifey poo as well.
Sure hope Lisa doesn't plan to have any kids; I hear the brain and nervous system doesn't develop properly without vitamin B-12 (and it's not reliably available in vegan foods). Not sure if she is a vegan, but since Wayne requires that his HSUS cohorts are vegan, it seems likely that he'd require that in a prospective wifey poo as well.
A vegan diet for kids...that could be considered child abuse, couldn't it?
Hmm, maybe that explains the genesis of the HSUS thinktank. Could the HSUS vegan heads be a bit low on an essential vitamin?
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Hypocrisy of "The Bond"
Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 251.
When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, "If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born."
Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266.
Wayne Pacelle's book comes out today.
The book's cover presents the image of a girl hugging a dog, juxtaposed with the name Wayne Pacelle, and the title in bold "The Bond".
My, oh my! What a conundrum. It must have been difficult to find a fitting cover image for this book. Since Wayne, vegan president of HSUS, admits that he has never owned a pet, and per an LA Times article in 2008, couldn't even bring himself to touch his girlfriend's cat, just what sort of "BOND" or kinship can this huckster actually have with any animal?
NONE!
Obviously, we don't have any pictures of HIM hugging a pet.
A bond is a tie; one that you might expect between a husband and wife, or between a parent and child, or between a person and pet. A sort of special kinship that implies an intimate connection.
Wayne, when you become a puppy raiser for guide dogs for the blind, you can then write with authority about a selfless "bond."
Most of us who keep and raise pets are very familiar with that bond. We live, sleep, eat, and breathe right along with our animals. We care for them when they are sick or injured. We sit up all night with newborns. We train them as herders, hunters, guides, protectors, and companions.
Our bond with animals extends beyond the owner-pet bond, to the time-honored practices of farming and hunting. In the tradition of native Americans, we appreciate our animals, and are grateful for the life-sustaining meat, milk, eggs, cheese, leather, fur, wool, and feathers they provide us.
Yet, when interviewed for the LA Times in 2008, Wayne's parting comment was:
"Animals for the most part just need to be left alone."Does this comment describe a Bond? No. It is the comment of one who has never had a pet, never lived on a farm; of someone who has a rock where his heart belongs.
It's the comment you'd expect from one who urges shelters to kill their animals.
We'd expect to hear it from the president of the HSUS, a group that lobbies incessantly for laws that make it increasingly more difficult and more expensive to own animals. They work tirelessly to BREAK the human-animal bond!
It's the sort of comment you'd expect to hear from the cold, calculated mind of a businessman; a con man whose sole interest in animals is to exploit them for personal gain.
Yep. Wayne and his HSUS exploit animals. Big time! To the tune of over a hundred million dollars every year!. Wayne and his minions at HSUS are experts in animal exploitation. And hawking "The Bond" continues in that tradition.
Exploiting animals for money! Isn't that the criticism that HSUS throws at the rest of society? Gosh, even MORE hypocrisy.
Some things never change.
Thank you, HumaneWatch, for this GREAT poster!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)