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:
When it comes to the
No-Kill Sheltering movement, I have always been squarely on board. Years ago, I
read Nathan Winograd's books on the subject and found them enlightening,
uplifting, and just plain exhilarating! California Federation of Dog Clubs,
along with PetPAC, co-sponsored a no-kill sheltering seminar given by Winograd
in Ventura, California at the July dog show cluster just a few years back. This was during the time when we
were in the throes of battle with humaniacs who wanted every pet in the state
to be spayed or neutered.
At that time, I found Mr. Winograd to be a reasonable
and earnest proponent of the cause of shelter reform. While he never mentioned
being opposed to our mandatory spay-neuter proposal, he never outwardly
advocated for it either. I had assumed that the groups asking him to do a
presentation might have questioned his philosophy to see if it jived with the
world view of animal owners and breeders.
In Mr. Winograd's
seminar and his writing, there was never any blame placed on breeders or the
public at large for issues with shelter killings; the blame was always placed
squarely where it belonged, on regressive shelter management.There was
certainly no mention made of blaming nebulous "abusers" for animals
in shelters. Non-judgmentalism was the order of the day.
It was a refreshing
change from the lynch-mob mentality of the so-called "animal rights"
groups who have always profited solely by highlighting pornographic pictures of animal abuse and
neglect. In fact, Mr. Winograd is usually at odds with groups such as PETA, the
HSUS, the ASPCA and is a very vocal critic of these groups who proclaim to be
pro-animal but instead push for programs and policies that encourage needless
shelter killings. At least, he criticized their killing ways, so one would
think he also opposed other insane and
illogical animal rights world views.I was happy to have him autograph my copy of "Redemption". I drove home with an exhilarating new hopefulness for the future of America's shelter animals.
I wrote a glowing,
positive review for Winograd's book on Amazon. I joined the California
Federation of Dog Clubs in order to help in the cause of public education to
promote humane and responsible pet ownership, while at the same time ardently
fighting to preserve ownership rights.
Meanwhile, as time
passed, I noticed some disturbing trends. Clues that should have alerted my normally steady radar when it comes to trustworthy people. Winograd came out with a vegan
cookbook. Well, OK, he's a vegan, but not an ARist who would ever try to
legislate his way of thinking on the rest of us, right??
Wrong. Boy oh boy,
was I ever WRONG.
Next we began to hear
ramblings from Winograd about "puppy mills". In this blog post from
2012, Winograd answers a question about pet store sales:
“Given that pet overpopulation is a myth,
should we still fight to stop pet stores from selling puppies?” My answer was
“Yes.” Because even if every shelter embraced the No Kill philosophy and the
programs and services that make it possible, even if no dog or puppy was killed
in a shelter again, we’d still want to close down puppy mills.
Say WHAT? Where to
begin? Pet stores as evil peddler of abuse and greed, all the other bogus
stereotypes. He goes on to describe his view of the horrors of dog breeding in
establishments he slurs with the "PM" term. Naturally, we get no
specific examples. Just hysterical ramblings.
And further down in the same blog post,
Winograd states his opinion about breeders and the AKC quite clearly:
Moreover, I’ve held
workshops on shutting down puppy mills or closing down their markets at every
No Kill conference. I bashed the AKC in Redemption. And I believe that though
dogs are not dying because of pet overpopulation, they are still dying. And as
long as that is true, I believe people should adopt from a rescue or shelter. I
also could not care less about maintaining breeds and never have. As far as I
am concerned, if all dogs become all-mutt, that would be fine with me and
probably healthier for the dogs. I’m a Heinz 57 man myself.
Funny, I attended
that conference of his years ago, hosted by a dog show and dog interest groups.
Oddly enough, he never made mention of his belief in "puppy mills",
"adopt, don't shop", and had he mentioned his aversion to DOG
BREEDS...well, I think you can imagine it would not have garnered a warm
reception. I also read "Redemption" and honestly do not remember any
jab at the AKC, but I'll have to go back and see if the stars in my eyes
blinded me to the subtle displays of Winograd's ulterior anti-breeding motives.
Vegan...strike ONE.
Puppy mill rhetoric, strike TWO!Bashing AKC for no apparent reason, other than the fact that it represents dog breeders: Strike THREE.
But hey, we even have AKC breeders who buy
into veganism and who call other breeders that "PM" slur, who are
heavily involved in rescue; some even have those "until there are none,
save one" and "if you breed, rescue. If you don't breed, rescue
anyway" signature lines in their emails. They don't believe in their
hearts that people should have the freedom to breed in an unrestricted manner.
How about all the breed club people who believe no one should breed without
health testing and dogs being titled? Hey, folks, these people are supposedly
on our side and they walk among us.
Now we here at this
blog have been openly critical at times of the AKC; But there is ONE big reason why AKC deserves our support.
AKC
is US. It represents the vast majority of dog breeders in this country. Rightly
or wrongly in our methodology, we are the AKC and they are us. It's our family, and it is exactly
what we make of it; no more, no less. Our delegates
vote on the actions to be taken and on who will ascend to the upper hierarchy
of the managing Board of Directors. The flaws of AKC are all our flaws. On the
other hand, the very promotion and proliferation of dogs as pets in this
country is due in large part to the AKC.
This is what separates us from animal wrongist
"humaniacs". They don't want people to breed pets, or in fact to even
OWN pets! That's the ultimate goal from their point of view.....NO PETS, no
animals in our lives at all. "Enjoyment from a distance".
Does Winograd really differ
from other humaniacs? Here is a quote from PETA's president Ingrid Newkirk:
"For one thing, we would no longer allow
breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet
shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have
to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a
protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But
as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced
breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we
would return to a more symbiotic relationship — enjoyment at a distance."
Why, these words could
have come directly from Winograd's mouth! He has paraphrased the exact same
sentiments on his blog!! Ingrid and Nathan, long-lost twins separated at birth?
Winograd's objective
was insidious but is now becoming crystal clear. His goals are the same as any
other radical animal extremist group. Those stray sheep in our own flock need
to eventually recognize the animal rights wolf at the door. And not just
recognize the threat but ATTACK with our full force of effort! We hang in there
with our own crowd, hoping they will "come to Jesus", because they are our
eventual only hope to preserve a way of life that deserves preservation.
Winograd is
exponentially more dangerous than assorted misled dog owners, because he sets
himself up as an expert on matters of public policy regarding animal ownership.....while he doesn't believe
in dog breeding!! According to him, dogs should just randomly mate and become
free-ranging "Heinz 57" purposeless creatures. Or, worse, should all be sterilized until they no longer exist.
And what step would
best separate people from their pets and from breeding? How about an ANIMAL
ABUSER REGISTRY. Yes, this is the latest brainchild of this very dangerous wolf
in sheep's clothing, this snake in the grass named Nathan Winograd. A registry with the intent to enshrine the
names of “abusers” so that they will have a scarlet “A” emblazoned on their
chest. Only not for anything quite as fun as adultery. The idea is for “Offenders” to be publicly
known, and barred from animal ownership way beyond any legal penalties they may
have already paid.
I went to Nathan
Winograd’s Facebook page, which I had previously “liked” and tagged as a favorite for
California Federation of Dog Clubs as well, to weigh in on this very onerous
idea. I posted a few thoughts. Minor offenses like failure to license are
considered animal offenses, should you be denied animal ownership due to that?
What about dirty teeth? Chimed in another commenter. People have been
prosecuted for that. Be careful what you wish for, someone else said, because
when your rescue is busted for being over a numbers limit, you will then be
branded “abuser”. One defender of the idea remarked “your veterinarian can
speak in your defense!” To which I replied that there had been many unjust
animal busts over the protestations of the accused’s veterinarian. I finished
off my comment by stating that I believed that the rights of humans were being
violated by misanthropists such as those in support of this registry. My friend
Mr. Kirby also posted some thoughtful comments. We were met with venom such as
this:
"Brenda
Mcnulty and I would say that THOMAS KIRBY and his ilk have shown their true
colors......do u have children? how about I abuse them and see how u like it
assholes."
Within a short period
of time, lo and behold, all opposing comments were removed by Mr. Winograd. Also,
I and other critics may no longer comment on that page! However, the offensive comment
flinging the “asshole” insult and threatening our CHILDREN with their
particular brand of misanthropist violence remains. Subsequently, Winograd
posted a long, pompous statement, which for sake of brevity I will only include
the beginning portion::
NW: Thank you for trying to respond to the inane,
conspiratorial, anti-animal positions from Kirby and other trolls with your thoughtfulness and compassion. I’ve
deleted and banned them. I welcome criticism because
criticism—when it is fair, thoughtful, and truthful—helps the No Kill
philosophy I champion, grow. But criticism that defends an immoral status quo
through selective use and even disregard of the truth is unconscionable. I used
to spend a lot of time answering each of their criticisms, trying to educate
them and others, and it’s been largely a waste of time. Instead of dialog, they
attacked; instead of discussing the issues, they accused. Recently, you may
have heard that Popular Science magazine no longer allows comments on their
articles. This is what they wrote: “Comments can be bad for science.
That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off.”….
I would add that trolls are bad for the truth, too. I am joining Popular
Science in two ways: I am turning off comments on my Huff Post pieces going
forward and I am deleting and banning anti-animal, pro-killing trolls on this
page.
WHOA. Let’s stop
right there! Those who disagree with Winograd are automatically “anti-animal,
pro-killing trolls” in his teeny tiny little mind! And the hypocritical
Winograd, who proclaims to welcome criticism, shuts off comments and bans any
disagreement. All in the name of science! He believes that his political
machine gun of a registry is….scientific! He is omniscient and any disagreement
is, well, simply wrong; and, worse than that, EVIL in intent!
What a giant crock of
crap!
The concept of animal
rights flies in the face of science. Science decrees that there is a food
chain. Dogs and cats are not vegans, and neither are people according to the
biology of our bodies. Science is the reason we include dogs in our lives to
assist mankind as guide dogs, police dogs, military dogs, guardians, herders,
and hunters (watch the animal rights nuts heads explode trying to process the
concept of HUNTING in the natural order of life). Science also has proven that
pet ownership confers health benefits on humans; reduced blood pressure, lower
stress levels, better heart health. Those who breed animals so that people can
enjoy pet ownership are doing society a SERVICE.
Now THAT’S science.
Another commenter to
Winograd’s page noted:Nathan Winograd I
firmly support your no kill and totally believe in it but THIS I can not get
behind. A registry like this will be abused. If someone was once convicted of animal
abuse but is now
legally able to get animals NOBODY has the right to say that they should not. I
do not like the sex offenders lists for the same reasons. People will get put
on the list for things that are not really abuse ( no water at the time of
inspection, very minor things or having too many animals) these people do not
deserve to be haunted for the rest of their lives by their conviction Many
people that are convicted of animals abuse took a plea (I have talked and read
many abuse cases) to escape a worse sentence even tho they really did not do
any abuse. Many cases are bogus raids. This is like on a sex offender registry
where the girl was 17 and the guy 21 (my parents) but girls dad filed charges.
That guy does not deserve to be called a sex offender or harassed. Nor do those
that are accused of abuse but no abuse happened. As for the ones that did abuse
for real will continue and that will be found out.
But guess what?? A candidate for Los Angeles City Council,
David Hernandez, has not had the opportunity to read any of the opposing points
to this “abuser registry” concept, which as we have noted were removed. Only
glowing comments with praise for this program remain. Mr. Hernandez writes on
NW’s Facebook page:
“Can
we implement this at a Local Level? As a candidate for LA City Council I am
will to make this part of my platform…..Thank you, will get under way in
presenting this to the Neighborhood Councils in Los Angeles with the goal of
getting them to request the Los Angeles City Council adopt it.”
Just
peachy!
I
believe I will never use the phrase “No Kill” again because it is inextricably
entwined with misanthropist Winograd. From here on out, I’ll only note “successful
shelters”. Leave the drama to the drama queens like Nathan Winograd.
Legislation proposal from those who wish to ban breeding and ultimately eliminate animals from our lives.
A proposed change in USDA rules would bring almost every pet breeder under federal guidelines, forcing them to build commercial kennels and submit to unannounced inspections by either the public or the USDA. The new proposal would appease the blood-lust of animal extremist groups like the HSUS, PETA, ASPCA, and In Defense of Animals. These groups support a surge in the war against pet breeders, and using the US Federal government to aid in their vendetta makes it even more objectionable. Imagine our own federal income tax dollars spent in the quest to shut down any in-home pet breeding. Nauseating.
The new proposal comes at a time when we find the Federal government under heavy pressure from the HSUS and other AR groups to over-regulate animal breeders under the guise of improving animal welfare. Anti-hunting, anti-breeding, and anti-agriculture bills are popping up all over, and our legislators still don't seem to be clued in yet to the AR agenda.
The idea with the new USDA proposal is supposedly "to close a loophole for pets sold on the Internet." The truth is, there is no "loophole" that needs closing. Pet breeders are heavily regulated already at the Federal, state and/or local levels. With the federal budget deficit, there are insufficient resources to enforce the rules for commercial breeders as currently defined without bringing thousands of new entities under the USDA umbrella. And, so-called "Puppy Mill Bills" have been passed in almost a dozen large states, making federal intervention unnecessary in those locales.
A comment period is currently open until July 16. Please do go to the site to voice your objections and request the proposal be withdrawn:
Now, ay, here's the rub. Should enough people complain that the USDA withdraws the new rules, there is a bill pending in Congress that will accomplish pretty much the same goal. This bill is PUPS and we have blogged about it here previously. PUPS would tag anyone with ownership of ONE bitch, who sells "X"-amount of dogs or puppies in a year, as a commercial breeder. Makes no difference if you are an active hobbyist who does some breeding but still operates at a financial loss as most do….it's just a numbers game played with the intent to stop breeding by any means possible.
PUPS has nearly enough sponsors to be passed should it come to a vote. And, if the new APHIS regulations are not implemented once the July comment period closes, then I strongly suspect that PUPS will be brought up almost immediately for a vote quicker than we can say "WHAM BAM THANK YOU MA'AM ".
So it is important to continue to oppose on both fronts….PUPS as well as the new APHIS regulations.
In the wake of the dumping of the Clumber Spaniel by the Crufts vet yesterday, today we find this interesting commentary from the Clumber Spaniel breeders:
The owner was much more polite than I would have been! I'd have said the Kennel Club could go to hell.
More info on the "unhealthy" winner. Check out all the health testing, passed with flying colors.
Of course none of that means a thing to animal rights fanatics who are opposed to intentional dog breeding. And it doesn't mean a thing to the the lackeys of the AR groups - The "Pedigree Dog Exposers" and their ilk - who criticise any supposedly unnatural and "cruel" canine features; short or bowed legs, floppy ears, giant size, toy size, wrinkled skin, hairlessness, too much hair, short muzzles, curled tails....just the tip of the iceberg. Nothing short of a feral canid will satisfy the AR factions.
Some of the bloggers who keep more moderate breeds from the gundog and herding categories are foolishly supporting the campaign against other breeds deemed "extreme."
I guess they honestly believe that they won't ever be affected, so they have no problem supporting trampling on the rights of others to make their own breeding choices.
And, many UK citizens deny that they have significant AR activity....despite this latest conclusive Crufts evidence that AR philosophy is deeply entrenched at the highest levels.
PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk is English.
ALF originated in England.
The animal rights philosophy is deeply rooted in English Puritanism. Locke - Bentham - Taylor - - the Oxford Group - Band of Mercy - SHAC - and many other groups.
The RSPCA was formed way back in 1824 as the world's prototype animal rights organization.
Britain has long banned certain forms of hunting, and banning of canine crop/dock are AR concepts that have been well-established for many decades in the UK.
And now, the AR tentacles in the UK have extended far beyond the bans on hunting, crop/dock, and COI limits. Right up to the highest levels of the Kennel Club. No amount of health testing is enough, no pursuit of moderation will ever satisfy.
Our dogs need to be protected from those who wish to save them.
The pet killers and mysogynists join forces in Los Angeles
PETA is opening up their new, incredibly fancy Sunset Boulevard headquarters today. Former "The Price is Right" host Bob Barker donated $2.5 million to fund the construction of the "Bob Barker Building". The 88-year-old animal rights kook will be on hand for the grand opening of the "new home to PETA’s media, marketing, youth outreach and campaign departments".
In other words, their propaganda and lies headquarters.
$2.5 million, eh? I wonder how many animals they could have spared at their shelter (which kills almost every animal that has the great misfortune to enter their doors) with that money?
Fun With Statistics:
The City of Los Angeles killed 38,000 animals last year.
PETA's new building cost approximately $2.5 million.
At an average actual cost of about a dollar a day, that would feed all of those 38,000 animals for 65 days, which ought to be enough time to get them all adopted (assuming they're 100% adoptable).
PETA has killed over 28,000 pets at their Virginia headquarters. Using that $2.5 million, they could have fed all of those animals for 90 days.
Or, it could feed 6849 animals for a whole year.
But that is working off the assumption that Bob Barker and PETA are actually "ethical". HAH!
Los Angeles County announced just yesterday that they will be going door-to-door to enforce their mandatory spay/neuter /microchip law.
So much for the lies about these laws being "complaint-driven" and not targeting ordinary citizens who are not creating any problems.
Will Bob Barker show up at YOUR front door sometime soon to examine your dog's testicles?
For those who know the world of dog competitions mainly through the 2000 comedy film “Best in Show,’’ it’s all too easy to dismiss the humans in this world as obsessive fussbudgets who’ve lost track of the bigger picture. The Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show surely hasn’t dispelled that image with its decision to part ways with its former sponsor, Pedigree, over the pet food brand’s ads urging viewers to adopt shelter dogs.
Those Pedigree ads were powerful, featuring noble-looking canines and a somber voice-over urging viewers to adopt shelter dogs, not pity them. This was too much of a downer for the kennel club. “Show me an ad with a dog with a smile,’’ a kennel club spokesman told the Associated Press. “Don’t try to shame me.’’ Sure enough, the ads on this week’s broadcast, from competitor Purina, have been far more upbeat.
The kennel club is free to accept whichever sponsors it chooses. But a dog show - one billed, no less, as a celebration of dogs - is the best possible forum to urge the adoption of shelter animals. Instead, the kennel club’s stance only highlights the disconnect between the plight of millions of mutts and the bizarrely cosseted existence of canine 1 percenters.
Response -
PEDIGREE AND WESTMINSTER
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR letters - dog show hounded by controversy
February 23, 2012
RE “DOG show: Canine 1 percenters only’’ (Editorial, Feb. 15): The Globe mocks those who enjoy showing their dogs as a hobby, yet remains stone silent on the hypocrisy of the animal rights groups, whose shelter ads only serve to inflame public ill will toward dog show participants.
That “somber voice-over’’ in the Pedigree commercial belongs to David Duchovny, an animal rights extremist and supporter of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA attempted to interrupt this year’s Westminster dog show with with a stage-grabbing protest, like a similar protest two years ago. Thankfully, they were held back this time by security. The American Humane Association, a co-sponsor of the Pedigree adoption drive, is also a fanatical anti-breeding animal rights organization.
We are fed up with so-called animal rights groups. PETA euthanizes dogs by the thousands at their Virginia “shelter”, as do other animal rights groups through their promotion of anti-animal ownership legislation.
Breeders, on the other hand, do not suffer from any “disconnect’’ from shelter animals. We rescue and re-home thousands of dogs every year through breed rescue efforts. We support the Canine Health Foundation, which helps improve the lives of all dogs, whether purebred or mixed breed. Who are the animal rights groups to dare lecture the rest of us on how “unlucky’’ shelter dogs are, compared to the dogs who have the spotlight?
Animal rights groups should not be allowed advertising spots to heap scorn and derision on dog hobbyists.
Geneva Coats
PETA – “BREEDERS KILL DOGS”
February 26, 2012
IT’S DISINGENUOUS for letter writer Geneva Coats to criticize those who must perform the thankless, heartbreaking task of euthanizing homeless and suffering animals when the purebred dog-breeding industry she supports directly contributes to the need to do so ( “Breeders aren’t the problem; PETA is the problem,’’ Letters, Feb. 23).
The Westminster dog show is well aware of its role in the animal homelessness crisis, which is undoubtedly why it blocked commercials urging viewers to adopt homeless dogs for being too sad. Sad indeed: thousands of healthy dogs are waiting behind bars in shelters at this very minute. Their lives depend on being adopted, yet breeders continue to churn out litters of puppies, in hopes of making profits or winning ribbons. Every time someone buys an animal from a breeder, a dog or cat in a shelter loses her chance at a home and will pay with her life.
Breeding may be a hobby for people like Coats, but for dogs waiting in shelters, it is a death sentence. If breeders really cared about animals, they would stop bringing more of them into a world that is tragically short of good homes and work to promote spaying, neutering, and adoption instead.
Daphna Nachminovitch Vice president, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Norfolk, Va.
There's a reason that PETA’s president is dubbed “THE BUTCHER OF NORFOLK”
Feb 26, 2010
The hypocrites at PETA kills adoptable animals by the thousands at their Virginia "shelter". They have a horrific 97% kill rate. This is a matter of public record. Meanwhile, other shelters in the US, who actually do care about animals, have made great strides in reducing their intake and euthanasia rates. According to Maddie's Fund, we are on target to reach a nationwide "no kill" level by 2015.
Pet overpopulation is a myth. The overwhelming majority of our nation's pets are sterilized, and we now face an acute shortage of pets in many areas. Many shelters, particularly in the New England states, import dogs from other areas and even from other countries. Hundreds of thousands of dogs are brought in from Taiwan, Romania, Mexico and the Caribbean. In November, 41 "rescued" dogs were shipped into Los Angeles from Spain.
Massachusetts shelters have imported street dogs from Puerto Rico for many years now. In July of 2004, six people had to receive rabies treatments after a Massachusetts shelter imported a rabies-infected Puerto Rican street dog.
Nationwide statistics show that there are almost six homes available for every animal that is killed in a shelter. Shelters who kill adoptable animals do so by choice.
Don't be fooled by PETA propaganda. PETA kills animals. Their sadistic, misanthropist philosophy is the antithesis of "ethical".
"Maverick" a rescued Weimaraner, to participate in this year's Westminster Kennel Club show!
The Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show spotlights the creme de la creme of the dog world. And in a curious twist of fate, the world of canine rescue is also a hot topic of discussion at this year's show.
In one of the most heartwarming stories ever, we learn of a Weimaraner named Maverick. Maverick's owner purchased him from Craigslist a couple of years ago. Seems Maverick was in very poor condition, underweight, neglected and unhealthy. But within a few months, under the tender loving care of his new owner, Maverick began to go to dog shows....and win...and win big....and as a Grand Champion, he will now be a participant in Westminster, the most prestigious show of the year.
Maverick's owner feels that his dog was a “rescue”. Indeed, Maverick could well have ended up in a shelter or rescue had he not been sold on Craigslist. Had that happened, Maverick would almost certainly have been neutered. What a pity that would have been for the Weimaraner world.
I've often thought that the requirement to spay/neuter every rescued dog was not only unnecessary, and potentially detrimental to health, but also contributes to narrowing of breed gene pools. Canine geneticists advise us to keep as many individuals as possible in a breed's gene pool. Genetic diversity is necessary to maintain overall health, vigor, longevity, fertility and optimal immune system function. In the case of purebreds, spay/neuter of all rescues is a very unwise move that reduces genetic diversity. While of course we must be discriminating in selecting individuals for breeding, considering health and good temperament, it's also a beneficial goal to include as many individuals in breeding programs as possible to help promote diversity and avoid the pitfalls of inbreeding. Another benefit of genetic diversity is lower incidence of breed-specific genetic health problems.
Wholescale spay/neuter, along with over-use for breeding of just a few dogs deemed exceptional, dangerously narrows the gene pools of our breeds. Maverick’s story is a success story not only for him and for his owner, but for his future generations. They would never be born if the typical “rescue” ending of a routinely performed neuter had spelled the end of Maverick’s tale. Thankfully, Maverick’s genes were ultimately preserved.
Animal rights groups have convinced us that it is merciful to spay and neuter all the animals that pass through a shelter or rescue situation. They imply that breeding is a cruel fate for animals. I think they are wrong. Dogs enjoy the activity of raising their young, just as we do.
And speaking of animal rights groups and Westminster, we also learned this past week of the termination of the Pedigree “Dogs Rule” advertising/adoption campaign that has been held during the Westminster KC show for the past several years. In my case, there was an immediate visceral objection to seeing presented abused and neglected rescued dogs (very few of which were intentionally-bred purebreds) at an event of this nature. Animal rights groups do believe that purebred dog breeding is to blame for shelter intakes and they make no bones about voicing that opinion. Even the narrator of the Pedigree commercials, David Duchovny, is an “animal rights” proponent and a PETA supporter.
So, way back in 2007, I was curious about the Pedigree campaign which was jointly conducted with the American Humane Association.
I checked out the American Humane Association website, to see where they stood on issues. The page I referenced has since disappeared and the website has been streamlined, but I looked at their website and discovered that:
They support AR agenda legislation in various states.
They advocate for mandatory, pre-pubescent spay-neuter.
They oppose medical research using animals.
They promote various “freedoms” for farm animals.
They oppose commercial, for-profit breeding, slurring this as “puppy mills”, and state that this is inherently cruel.
They support “guardianship” as opposed to “ownership”.
They oppose any and all tail docking, ear cropping, debarking or declawing.
They oppose racing and coursing.
They support mandatory microchipping.
The AHA was surely laughing at us, because they were successful in perpetuating the image of show dogs as the source of shelter intakes. And they did it at the biggest kennel club event of the year! And the dog breeders actually CHEERED for them!
I found it curious that during the Pedigree drive and fundraiser conducted during the Westminster KC show in 2007, there was never any mention of the many breed rescue groups, run primarily by breeders and breed club volunteers. I did not pay much attention to the commercials in subsequent years, so I don’t know if breed rescue ever was mentioned.
The Pedigree commercials referred to AKC show dogs as “lucky”….saying shelter dogs are “not as lucky as the show dogs you see here”. The implication was that these show dogs are the few, the minority, that most dogs end up at shelters. Not true. A very small percentage of dogs end up at animal shelters each year….check the nationwide numbers, it is around 3-4% of owned dogs. The vast majority of dogs in the US are cared for in a responsible and humane manner, and do not end up abandoned. Sometimes, I think it is too easy to forget that, especially for those who work day-to-day in a stressful shelter or rescue setting.
It’s not a result of “luck” that the vast majority of dogs lead a good life. It is the result of plenty of hard work, effort and dedication on the part of their owners. But mostly, it's the result of our love affair with our dogs. Westminster is a quintessential display of that affection we hold for "man's best friend".
Responsible ownership and breeding is constantly under attack from AR groups. Good riddance to the Pedigree commercials at Westminster.
Remember, it was just a couple of years ago that PETA interrupted the Westminster show with their cheap shot-style protests. Maybe that is when the club decided enough was enough and to sever ties with animal rights groups:
PETA is using the White House petition website in an attempt to push their radical "no more pets" legislative agenda. Nearly 10,000 people have signed their petition, (including over 5,000 signatures in the first 24 hours) which calls for a nationwide mandate that all dogs and cats be sterilized!
Well, since PETA kills over 94% of the dogs and cats that they claim to "save" I guess it's not surprising that they are proposing a nationwide pet extinction bill. Bob Barker, the unqualified simpleton celebrity "expert", is also acting as the mouthpiece to popularize this horrific idea.
Pet "overpopulation" has been thoroughly debunked, and without breeders, there would be no pets in the future. None at all!! Breeding of dogs and cats has been a time-honored pastime for thousands of years. Not to mention, the vast majority of owned pets are already sterilized.
Yet animal extremists have managed to deliver a black eye to those people who love animals and enjoy pet stewardship and breeding. The real problem in our nation that needs to be addressed is not some phony-baloney "overpopulation", but a very real crisis of shelter mismanagement. For some reason, we have people in charge of shelters who relish killing animals rather than having the vision and dedication to save them.
Let's hope people wake up to the animal rights agenda of eliminating animals from our life before the damage is irreparable.
This article is filled with many errors and misperceptions from celebrities who really do not have facts or logic on their side. Let's correct some of these urban legends right here and now.
SPAY-NEUTER AND SHELTER INTAKES
There is an assumption by the article author that mandatory spay and neuter laws work to decrease the number of shelter intakes, and thus reduce killings. In fact, the opposite is true. Every locale that has enacted a mandatory spay and neuter law has seen a RISE in shelter admissions and killings. Fort Worth, Texas repealed their mandatory spay and neuter law as licensing and compliance plummeted, and cases of rabies increased.
Memphis passed a mandatory spay and neuter law last year. Since then, shelter intakes have risen 8% in that city.
Los Angeles is another case in point. After decades of steadily declining shelter numbers, LA reversed the good trend in one fell swoop with enactment of a mandatory spay and neuter law. Intakes and deaths immediately rose by over 30% and continue in an upward spiral. (1)
No mainstream animal welfare organization supports mandatory spay and neuter. The AVMA opposes it. So does the ASPCA, Best Friends Animal Shelter, American Humane Association, Ally Cat Allies and the No Kill Advocacy Center. They know what the Huffington Post should have also discovered, had they done their due diligence - that punitive legislation increases shelter admissions and deaths.
The American College of Theriogenologists is composed of veterinarians who specialize in reproductive medicine. They also have studied the issues and oppose mandatory spay and neuter. The ACT notes:
"....the decision to spay or neuter a pet must be made on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the pet's age, breed, sex, intended use, household environment and temperament. The use of generalized rules concerning gonadectomy (removal of the ovaries or testes) is not in the best interest of the health or well-being of the pets or their owners."
"In fact, in some European Union countries where gonadectomy is illegal unless deemed medically necessary (such as Norway) there are no significant problems with pet overpopulation, indicating that the pet overpopulation problem that exists in the United States is due to cultural differences on the importance of pets, the responsibility of pet owners, and the ability of the government and national agencies to properly educate the public. "
All the experts who have examined the issue (not actors who don't have a clue about the truth) are opposed to mandatory spay and neuter because it increases shelter intakes and death. But, why wouldn't spay and neuter be in the best interest of the health an well-being of the pet, as stated by ACT?
SPAY-NEUTER AND HEALTH
In fact, there are few benefits, and many health risks associated with surgical removal of the sex organs. The American Veterinary Medical Association admits to some seldom-mentioned problems with sterilization in this journal article:
"....potential health problems associated with spaying and neutering have also been identified, including an increased risk of prostatic cancer in males; increased risks of bone cancer and hip dysplasia in large-breed dogs associated with sterilization before maturity; and increased incidences of obesity, diabetes, urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and hypothyroidism." (2)
In 2007, in an attempt to verify previous scientific testing regarding negative health effects resulting from spay-neuter, yet another study was done on the effects of neutering on the male urogenital tract. The results were shocking.
Neutered dogs were four times more likely to suffer from malignant bladder cancer than intact dogs. Neutered dogs were eight times more likely to suffer from prostate transitional cell carcinoma than intact dogs. They were twice as likely to suffer from prostate adenocarcinoma, and four times as likely to suffer from prostate carcinoma. On average, castrated dogs are three times more likely than their intact counterparts to develop some type of prostate cancer. (3)
But specific health problems are not the most serious concern when it comes to sterilization surgery. In a recent study reported in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, female Rottweilers spayed after the age of six years old (or never spayed) lived on average 30% longer than spayed dogs. (4)
In a nutshell, you could have many more years with your dog simply by avoiding unnecessary spay surgery. The only medical indications for spay surgery are treatment of pyometra when it occurs, and prevention of breast cancer in breeds that are genetically predisposed. These problems affect a relatively small number of dogs. Bottom line, spaying is a decision best left to the owner after weighing the risks vs benefits of the procedure.
The government has no moral, ethical or medical justification to mandate spay/neuter surgeries. Sterilization can jeopardize good health and can shorten the dog's lifespan. Such nanny laws violate our rights to make our own decisions regarding our animals. Who likes being forced by our lawmakers to spend hundreds of dollars on surgery that is unnecessary, and that can be harmful to our animal's health? No one.
SPAY-NEUTER IS PART OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS AGENDA OF PET ELIMINATION
And then, we have to deal with the issue of the radical animal rights groups like PETA. Who out there is still foolish enough to listen to PETA? PETA claims to love animals, but their actions betray their hypocrisy. PETA kills animals. They killed over 94% of the animals they took into their Virginia "shelter" in 2010, even while other shelters in the area have excellent save rates. (5)
PETA's employees were convicted of picking up dogs and cats from local veterinarian's offices and shelters, promising to find them homes, but instead killing them in the van within a few minutes, and then dumping the bodies in various regional dumpsters. These poor animals never even made it out of PETA's pickup van alive! (6)
Elimination of pet breeding a stated goal of Animal Rights groups, as per their twelve-step convention platform. This platform was printed in "Animals' Agenda" magazine in November, 1987 in an article entitled "Politics of Animal Liberation" by Kim Bartlett. Item #10 states:
We strongly discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or purebred dogs and cats. Spay and neuter clinics should be subsidized by state and municipal governments. Commerce in domestic and exotic animals for the pet trade should be abolished.
Are things becoming a bit clearer now? The animal rights groups have admitted upfront their agenda to end the pet trade. And the aggressive push for spay/neuter, sales bans and over-regulation of breeding is all part of that agenda to end pet ownership. It's a goal they have been progressing for the past 30 years. And claims of "abuse" and "overpopulation" are tools used to achieve that end.
We need to preserve the gene pools of our breeds of dogs and cats if we expect to have pets in the future. We all want to have pets a few years down the road, don't we?
Well, most of us do, but not PETA and other radical animal rights groups. PETA's Ingrid Newkirk has stated:
"In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether."
and
"If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind."
So PETA would be happy if pets went extinct, but I doubt that it would be OK with the 2/3 of the households in the US who enjoy having pets to enrich our lives.
Pet Population Problems are Grossly Exaggerated
The number of animals killed in shelters needs to be viewed in perspective. Let's look at some REAL facts and figures.
According to the 2011-2012 nationwide survey conducted by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, there are 165 million owned animals in the US. The numbers killed in shelters, an estimated 3-4 million, is less than 2% of the total number of all owned animals in the US.
And those killed are not all OWNED animals. There is a large population of unowned feral cats in the US. Nationwide, over half the shelter intakes are feral cats and their kittens. These should be trapped, neutered and released, not killed.
Considering that there are probably countless millions of feral cats out there to add to the total numbers of owned dogs and cats in the US, the percentage of those killed in shelters is minuscule. By the way, feral cats are not going to line up to comply with the law and be sterilized. Spay-neuter laws won't affect their numbers one whit.
Next, a goodly percentage of those animals who are killed are aged, ill, injured, aggressive, or brought in for owner-requested euthanasia. Another fun fact: In California in 2010, a full 11% of animals listed as shelter intakes were DOA. Yet these already-dead animals count as shelter intakes.
The APPMA survey further informs us that a full 78% of owned dogs are ALREADY spayed or neutered, and a whopping 88% of all owned cats are also spayed or neutered. So where are all these dogs and cats that need to be forcibly neutered?
They exist solely in the overactive imagination.
ANIMAL ABUSE IN OTHER COUNTRIES - PET IMPORTATION INTO THE USA
David Duchovny is quoted as saying that other countries "control stray dog populations by poisoning, hanging, throat slitting, beating to death, electrocution, and shooting."
What do Mr. Duchovny's statements about the inhumane treatment of dogs in other countries have to do with the conditions of dogs living right here? Absolutely nothing.
Abuse of animals is a separate issue from pet population control issues. Correlating animal abuse with population issues is a common logical fallacy. If there is any relationship, it is one of the US supporting abuse in other countries. US rescue groups import animals from these other, less humane, countries on a regular basis.
Why? Because we have a SHORTAGE of adoptable animals here in the continental US. Check out the websites of such groups as "Compassion Without Borders", "Save a Sato", "Dogs Without Borders", "Animal Rescue Team Taiwan","Pets From Paradise" and many others. By importing from areas with purported abuse, we only perpetuate the cycle of animals raised under poor conditions.
According to the illogic presented in the Huffington Post article, it's not OK to breed our animals here in the US under regulated and humane conditions, but it is fine to import them from other countries, when they are bred under unknown, possibly abusive conditions? There have been so many instances of dogs imported by "rescues" exposing US citizens and animals to rabies and other problems that the USDA is currently writing regulations on the importation of puppies.
All in all, over 300,000 dogs are estimated to be imported each year (7), and even more are smuggled into the country illegally. (8)
Shelters in the New England states have to import dogs because they don't have enough to fill the demand. "North Shore Animal League" has made this into a full-time business. There are tens of thousands of dogs being imported to fill New England shelters that would otherwise be empty. And now, the New England Federation of Humane Societies recently held a conference in Maine. One of the topics for discussion was:
"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 (9)
I guess that pretty well blows the assertion out of the water about one cat producing 420,000 kittens. All New England would need would be one lone cat to supply them with all the kittens they would ever need.
THE TRUTH ABOUT PET "OVERPOPULATION"
Why the need to relocate and import dogs and cats? After all we have "overpopulation", right?
WRONG. The facts and figures paint a different picture.
Acording to shelter statistics recently assembled, there are approximately 3 million dogs and cats killed each year. Acording to shelter expert Nathan Winograd:
"How many need to find new homes? If shelters are doing their jobs comprehensively, just over 2 million (3 million on the high end). The remainder should be increased reclaims or in the case of feral cats, TNR'd." (trapped, neutered and released)
Winograd recounts that there are 23 million homes opening up each year for dogs and cats. Four million homes will adopt a shelter pet. Another 17 million have not decided where they will obtain their new pet, and could be influenced to adopt from a shelter.
"So, 17 million people for 2-3 million dogs and cats. Has this happened anywhere? Yes, there are many communities which have hit the 90th percentile in save rates. How long did it take them? They did it virtually overnight when new leadership committed to the No Kill philosophy and passionate about saving lives replaced long standing bureaucrats mired in defeatism and excuse making." (10)
So yes, Ms. Gauld, we CAN adopt our way out of this. We already have. We have a shortage of pets. Maybe someone needs to speak up and say, enough with the sales bans and the spay-neuter rhetoric. It's time to start breeding some nice animals before all we have left is street strays from distant lands where abuse is rampant. Do we really want to support the system of abuse in other countries as detailed by Mr. Duchovny?
The statement that breeding causes shelter animals to be killed is absurd. It makes about as much sense as saying that no one should have a baby as long as there are homeless people on the streets, or kids in orphanages. The logic is the same as that which our mothers used when they implored us to eat our peas, because there are starving children in other countries. Such statements are light on logic and heavy on guilt.
Again, why is anyone listening to the hypocrites over at PETA? Mandatory spay and neuter does not save lives; in fact, such mandates shorten the lives of our animals and cause increases in shelter intakes and deaths. (11) Perhaps a new law requiring celebrities to be muzzled in public would be more beneficial to society.
Our animals pay with their lives for these anti-animal spay-neuter laws.
Our local high school is sponsoring an "animal rights" club as an extracurricular activity. The issues surrounding the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare are very familiar to those who work with animals in industry, entertainment, sport or recreation. As society has migrated from our agricultural roots to a more urban existence, the importance of distinguishing between animal rights and animal welfare becomes critical.
Animal rights is a philosophy that animals have rights similar to or the same as humans. True animal rights advocates believe that humans do not have the right to "use" animals in any capacity. They would prohibit raising animals for meat, milk, eggs, leather, fur, feathers, wool, or even honey. They would also ban rodeos, horse racing, circuses, hunting, life-saving medical research using animals, petting zoos, marine parks, and the breeding of companion animals as pets, police dogs, seeing eye dogs and working dogs who help with hunting and herding on farms. In short, any use of animals for industry, entertainment, sport or recreation would be eliminated.
Animal Welfare, as defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association, is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthansia. Animal welfare uses science-based care and treatment guidelines in caring for animals.
Impressionable high school students should be aware of the true nature of PETA and other "animal rights" groups. They are hypocrites.
PETA kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to kill 25,840 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding them homes. In contrast, other shelters in the area save the majority of their intakes.
Despite its constant moralizing about the "unethical" treatment of animals by farmers, ranchers, scientists, fishermen, and countless other Americans, PETA employees were recently convicted of picking up puppies and kittens from local veterinarians offices (supposedly for adoption), killing them in the van and then dumping the bodies in dumpsters. They never even made it out of PETA's van!
PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group's overall goal as "total animal liberation." This means no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing, and no pets (not even seeing-eye dogs). PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of animals.
PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminal terrorists. And its infamous "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign crassly compares the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide with farm animals.
I hope our high school students will do a bit of research into the differences between animal rights and animal welfare and not blindly follow vegan teachers with an animal rights agenda.
