Bo Bengston, There You Go Again!

Bo Bengston is at it again. In 2014 we did an extensive report on his two blatant anti-breeder misanthropist opinion pieces printed in Best in Show Daily.*

Now, the malice monger is denigrating greyhound racing; a time-honored tradition and exactly what the dogs are bred for! Mr. Bengston, a long-time whippet breeder, owns the "Sighthound Review" journal and recently posted this opinion on the Facebook page for his magazine (My comments in bold): 

Several fanciers have asked why SR turned down paid advertising on behalf of the racing Greyhound business in Florida, one of the few states in the U.S. to not yet have outlawed it - although a proposition to do so may be put on the November ballot. We did offer to publish the ad provided that only hobby racing was promoted. This offer was rejected, naturally, since the group behind the ad represents the commercial Greyhound racing business.

And What is wrong with a commercial business? That's the American way! How else does one pay for kennel upkeep, dog food and veterinary bills? How does one afford show expenses, if you choose to show? And Hobby racing is OK, but commercial racing isn't? What's the difference? If racing is cruel, surely it's cruel regardless of whether or not money involved? Isn;t the risk of injury just the same? Accidents can happen anyplace or time, they don't happen only if wagering is involved. 

Anyone who knows Greyhounds will be aware that they love to run, even at the risk of serious injuries. We do not doubt that some individuals in the racing business take good care of their dogs, at least as long as they run profitably, although living conditions are often unacceptable. Also, although advances have been made in the re-homing of ex-racers, any activity that discards dogs not yet past half their lifespan can hardly be in it "for the love of the dogs."

How do you know what the living conditions are like in Florida kennels? Have you visited any? Since you live in California, I doubt it. How many who show their dogs re-home them once their show career is finished? Yep, LOTS of them. I suppose they don't love their dogs? What's wrong with giving your dog a great home once it's career is over, whether it's a show career or a racing career? Rehoming signals that the owners cares about the well being of the dog and wants it to have a happy home with love and attention. Oh, the horror!

However, what will ultimately convince anyone who loves Greyhounds that commercial dog racing must end is that the figures do not add up. Greyhound bitches on the average produce 6-8 puppies per litter, and those that do not make the grade as racers are discarded. How many thousands of Greyhounds that have been put to sleep in the past we'll never know, but it's a frightening number.

Proof, please, that puppies are being killed. Anyone can speculate. If they are only interested in money, why would they kill puppies who could be sold for a decent amount of money? And, if puppies go to homes, what's the problem?

I would like to believe that the individuals who submitted the ad were in good faith, naively believing in their own story. However, the abuse heaped upon me and Sighthound Review for refusing to publish the ad makes this difficult to believe.

Sounds to me like you are the one who naively believes a false narrative. How dare you insult others you don't even know! 

If this stance is unpopular and puts us on the same side as a few organizations we do not otherwise support, too bad. Commercial Greyhound racing must end; anyone who disagrees with that cannot honestly say they love dogs.

You,sir, are not the appointed judge or jury of other members of society. Go ahead and team up with HSUS, ASPCA and other groups that would take your own dogs from you in a minute, you would receive poetic justice as your fate. Unfortunately, it's our descendants who will suffer the effects of your foolishness. 

You wouldn't want bull fighting to be legal in the U.S., would you?

What an assinine comment. It doesn't even deserve an answer because it is so insanely stupid, but I'll try. You are equating the intentional infliction of physical injury and death with racing, which of course is a false narrative. Didn't you yourself admit greyhounds love to run? And since that is true, you yourself support "hobby racing" so gee,  maybe you support bullfighting too? Your twisted arguments are insane.

**** all comments, both in support and opposition to this post, are automatically Hidden from public view and deleted once the admin sees them. Anyone using abusive language or threatening statements will be immediately banned from the page and reported to Facebook***

Typical of all autocrats, no dissention or discussion is allowed. I can only hope and pray that your subscriptions dry up, your bank account withers away, and you have to worry about how to support yourself and your dogs. Maybe then you will view puppy sales and income from your dog hobby as most breeders do....as a beneficial way to provide a service to your fellow citizens, and a necessary method to afford to keep your dogs.

*You can read "Best in Sanctimony here.

Waters Lights Fires

WATERS UNDER INVESTIGATION
Threatens Nation's Dogs on her 80th Birthday
In the wake of public death threats against the nation's dogs, animal right activists were successful this week in persuading Congress to open an investigation into Maxine Waters for animal abuse and terrorist threats against dogs. Waters celebrated her 80th birthday with her supporters, a big cake, and enough candles to burn down the rest of the State of California. The camera was rolling, but bless her heart, she was apparently clueless due to age-related sight and hearing impairment.
When asked what she wished for her birthday, she mused "I think dogs do not deserve to walk our streets; they are racist, they are sexist, they collude with Vladimir Putin. Dogs should be removed. Impound them! Impound them!"
"With this sort of inspiration, I could take these dogs out tonight." Waters exclaimed as she blew out the candles on her birthday cake amid the applause of her half-dozen remaining supporters. "I can't stand these dogs out everywhere you go. No Peace No Sleep! Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. If you see any dog in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We're gonna win this battle; God is on our side!
Impound forty five! Impound forty-five! Impound forty five!"
Representatives from PETA, alarmed at this obvious call for killing America's dogs, immediately invoked support of the public, soliciting letters and signature on petitions demanding Waters be investigated for inciting animal cruelty by the public. Only PETA, the Humane Society of the US, and local dog pounds should be allowed to kill dogs, they maintain. Dog Pound Workers Local 666 concurred, stating "This is an egregious attempt to deprive dog pounds of their sole source of income."
Animal Abuse is a felony punishable by jail time. Had Waters' rant been directed simply toward human targets, it would likely have avoided the scrutiny of Congress.
The President responded today in a Tweet "Maxine Waters, the leader of the Democratic Party, is a very low IQ individual. Her brainless senile threats against our great supporters are one thing, but when she threatens the nation's dogs, that absolutely crosses the Red Line. She will Make America Weak Again, Big League!"

We Still Don't Get It!!

I've been absent from this blog for a while, going through some life changes, but still involved in fighting the good fight for protection of animal ownership. I read a couple of articles today about the threats to dog ownership. I have to shake my head in wonderment at how much we DON'T understand about the situation we are facing.

Both articles mention that we need to be on guard against the extremists who want to remove our rights. So far so good, right?

Not really.

The animal rights nuts have constructed a "divide and conquer" strategy for us. They have coined the term "responsible breeder" and pitted the "responsible" against the "irresponsible." And we have happily fallen right into their web.

Now of course, there is no definition of what is "responsible" and what isn't when it comes to dog breeding, and there never could be. 

Health and welfare standards are met? That should arguable be what we are going for, but of course, that's doesn't display our halos properly. We rush to point out that we register dogs, show dogs, health test dogs, breed only purebred dogs with consideration of generations of pedigrees, etc etc. 

That's all fine and dandy, and great for those who want to do it, but who says any of that is necessary to preserve my RIGHT to breed my dog in the way I see fit? Who is anyone to judge who is more "responsible" than anybody else??  

My goodness, we sure want to assure the animal rights folks that we are truly RESPONSIBLE.....although no one can reach that undefined benchmark, particularly when you are dealing with people who hate ALL breeders. The animal extremists will be happy to draw up guidelines to determine which responsible people can own and breed dogs. Aren't they awesome? And hey, we are happy to help put those nails in our own coffins.

But on to specifics of the articles I read. The first was an article in a recent "Dog News". The article starts out in a very accurate manner, talking about the "take no prisoners" attitudes of the animal rights groups; how you cannot negotiate with them, and how animal owners need to band together to tackle the threats head on. But then, the article takes a downhill turn. The author decries dogs in shelters, blaming the "problem" on "puppy mills" and "irresponsible breeders." Her only concern is that these darn IRRESPONSIBLE breeders might outlast those sainted RESPONSIBLE breeders. 

Major Eye Roll.

She then wastes the last half of her article advising the reader about how to answer questions from the media. Has the media ever asked your opinion? No? Mine either. And I've been involved in dog law issues for 12 years now. 

Next, we find a blog praising "responsible dog ownership and responsible breeders." Heck she even has a Facebook group with over 16,000 "likes." A situation in and of itself that tells us how much trouble we are in, if people are gullible enough to think that the "responsible breeders" in this world are anything other than those the Animal Rights crocodile eats last. 

This author recently wrote a blog article asking "Where are Shelter Dogs Coming From?" While admitting that shelter numbers are at an all-time low, she claims this is due  primarily to the beneficial effects of the "adopt don't shop" campaigns. Yikes! Really? What about the fact that breeding has become practically forbidden everywhere? Ya think that might have had an effect? There is a mention of dogs imported for the rescue trade but no acknowledgement that this indicates a SHORTAGE of adoptable dogs. The author then asserts that there is a significant "problem" with dogs entering shelters, and it's caused by....you guessed it....IRRESPONSIBLE BREEDERS who are NOT breeding registered, purebred dogs, and to add to that, we can blame the IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS of the world.

In case you didn't notice, I'm fed up with articles slinging around the "IRRESPONSIBLE" epithet. Why, there are animals in shelters! Lots of them. Yeah, rescues import them in droves from other countries, but gosh darn it, those "irresponsible" breeders and owners of the world! Why there should be no animals in shelters EVER! We need a world where EVERYONE is RESPONSIBLE!

NEWS FLASH. 

Dogs get out of yards. They got old or injured and need to be put down. Maybe they just plain don't fit in the family, whatever! That's the JOB of the shelter, to take care of these situations. Not to run around looking for bogeymen and pearl-clutching about this TERRIBLE PROBLEM of animals in shelters. 

The numbers of dogs entering shelters is MINISCULE compared to the human population in this country. This is borne out by the fact that shelters and rescues have to import dogs from other countries to support their sales base!

On another note, for many years public relations programs have been promoting the concept of taking your animal to the shelter, instead of just turning it loose if you find you can't keep your dog. Yes, people used to actually do that, thinking they would be taken in by some kind-hearted person.....and often they were. But more often, they weren't. And you thought that IRRESPONSIBLE people were a recent phenomenon! 

So a public education campaign begged people to be RESPONSIBLE and bring their pet to the shelter where it could be re-homed or euthanized if necessary. And now, the public is being told it is IRRESPONSIBLE to take your dog to the animal shelter. If you doubt that they feel that way, just talk to any shelter worker. They literally FOAM with hatred at anyone who would actually bring them an animal! 

Shelters exist for a reason; we have pets in our lives. We are paying them good money to care for, re-home and euthanize if necessary. The day that we no longer need shelters will be the day we no longer have pets. Is that the ultimate goal? I hope not, but I suspect we in the Dog Fancy will allow the Animal Wrongists of the world to decide that for us. They've gotten a great head start!