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.


  1. It should be noted that it is the CDC that is requiring a rabies vaccination before import of a puppy while USDA is restricting the commercial import of dogs. The former is to combat rabies while the latter is to try to stem the import of literally thousands of dogs from Mexico and the Carribean. It's comparing peaches to screwdrivers the way it's presented here.

    1. 'scuse me but why do we need international puppies for resale? This was to prevent import of black market puppies by the rescue business. I think someone's looking for a chance to take a swing at NAIA... Got that one all wrong.

    2. You are replying to someone who didn't say anything about needing puppies for resale, but I assume you are remarking about a comment in the post about NAIA participating in the import rule making process. It seems strange that someone can't ask an honest, well-considered question without it being interpreted as a "swing". Methinks a certain group is overly defensive?
      Again, I believe it is very necessary to require health certification prior to importing any dog. The prohibition on importing for resale under a specific age doesn't seem logical or sensible. Where is the evidence that all or even most of the dogs imported for the rescue trade are puppies under the age of six months? I could be wrong but most imported rescues that I have seen are not young puppies. Just as with the new APHIS rules for US breeders, where is the evidence that such a rule is needed? APHIS couldn't produce even one complaint about sick dogs being sold by someone selling online when asked to do so.
      And, 'scuse me but who are you to decide what anyone else needs or doesn't need? Isn't this still the USA where we still enjoy at least a few basic human rights, like the right to buy and sell animals as we please as long as they are healthy?
      Either the purpose of the rule was to ensure good health, or it was to prevent rescues from importing for resale, or both. If the rule was meant to curtail the import rescue retail trade, they should have just written it that way, instead of limiting it to puppies under a certain age. Such a prohibition is dangerous because it infringes on our basic right to partake in free trade. Educate the public, reduce the demand for dogs from other countries and improve the oublic image of commercial breeders here in the US, and the problem will be solved. WALA no more black market dogs.

  2. Perhaps the input of the CDC was sought in making the new rules, but they are not CDC rules, they are USDA rules. While primarily concerned with rabies, the dogs/puppies must be certified for general good health.
    Prohibiting import of puppies under the age of six months for retail doesn't halt the import of any dog over the age of six months for retail, rescue or any other reason, as long as the dog is certified healthy.
    If they wanted to stop the import of dogs for resale, they should have simply written it that way. There should not be age criteria.
    The bureaucrats should have thought twice before inserting screwdrivers into the peaches. But then again, that's what bureaucrats do best.

  3. Sayres says: " . . . 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."

    That slap in the face ought to be enough to get him fired from PIJAC on the spot. He has spent 40 years in the animal RIGHTS field, with an occasional dip into animal welfare. Those who raise purpose-bred dogs, however, on any scale, are - with the exception of a small fraction of unethical, incompetent, substandard breeders - continuously involved in animal welfare; that of the animals they own and animals in general. Many of these breeders are suppliers of PIJAC members - how dare Sayres say that they have not been concerned with "humane care standards that prioritize the care and conditions that matter most to the well being" of the dog. He must truly believe all the hateful rhetoric of his years at ASPCA and its peer group - that pet breeders are, with few exceptions, greedy, loathsome exploiters whose only concern is how much money they can put in their pockets. But NOW, after spending two days at Hunte's facility, he wants their own trade association to force them to change, because the myriad local, state, and federal regulations breeders must comply with have allowed them to remain greedy and loathsome, and have not persuaded them to pay any heed to the welfare of their animals. I did not think it was possible for anyone to paint stereotypes of dog breeders that were more sickening than those brandished by animal rights agitators over the last decade. I was wrong. The picture is pretty much the same, but it looks even worse with the signature of this "artist" affixed.

    1. He seems to be an opportunist at best and a mole at worst. Not trustworthy, in any event.

  4. Clarification on dog import rules:
    The CDC has adopted a rule requiring all dogs imported into the United States to be vaccinated for rabies or to be from a rabies-free country. This applies to all dogs, all ages, imported for all purposes, with some very narrow exceptions.

    The USDA has adopted a rule prohibiting importation of dogs under 6 months of age for resale, and requiring that all dogs imported for any purpose be accompanied by a certificate of veterinary inspection (CVI, often called Health Certificate). In most circumstances a dog would need to be vaccinated for rabies in order to obtain a CVI, so this rule dovetails with the CDC rule that applies to dogs generally. People may continue to import dogs under 6 months for their own use; the age restriction applies to dogs IMPORTED FOR RESALE.

    1. It's common sense to require rabies protective measures. It's not common sense to restrict resale of dogs, regardless of age. We may now expect that this rule will eventually be tweaked, either by adjusting the age threshold or by extending the import restriction to non-dealers.
      As to who initiated the rabies requirements; that's really a moot point.