Seven False Premises of Mandatory Spay-Neuter Laws

Seven False Premises of Mandatory Spay-Neuter Laws

Testimony of Dr. John Hamil regarding AB 1634. The phrase "mandatory sterilization" is substituted for "AB 1634" in some sentences. The rest of the text is unaltered.

Twenty five years of experience in trying to find solutions to the problems of animal relinquishment and euthanasia leads me to request that you reject this ill-conceived bill which can not solve these problems and, more likely, will worsen them.

AB 1634 is based on seven

false premises:

1. That current policies and programs are not working.

The numbers of dogs entering and being euthanized in California shelters has dramatically decreased over the last 30 years in the face continued population growth. Unfortunately, the number of cats impounded and euthanized has not decreased significantly in the last 10 years. We have two entirely different dynamics which require very different approaches if we are to be successful. Mandatory sterilization does nothing to reduce the numbers of cats in shelters.

2. That the numbers of animals impounded and euthanized is

due to a “Pet Overpopulation Problem.”

The study done by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy found that the top five reasons for animal relinquishment were moving, landlord issues, cost, lack of time for pet and inadequate facilities. None of these factors are influenced by the purported “overpopulation” of pets. Mandated sterilization does nothing to help pets remain in their homes. If the animals in the shelter were due to “overpopulation;” we would find desirable puppies available in shelters, there would be no market for internet and pet store puppies, there would be no need for shelters to import puppies and puppy smugglers and brokers would be out of business due to market saturation. There is, in fact, a shortage of healthy, well bred and socialized puppies and kittens in California.

3. That being sexually intact equates to being bred.

We know that for personal reasons many owners choose not to surgically alter their pets and they are never bred. It is improper that the government impose its will on these responsible citizens in the absence of any public benefit.

4. That neutered animals are healthier physically and behaviorally.

Recently published data indicates that for a significant percentage of dogs this is not the case.

5. That mandatory spay/neuter will significantly reduce shelter impounds and euthanasia and that Santa Cruz is an example of its success.

MSN is a documented failure. Analysis of the Santa Cruz data and the rejection of this policy by its originator; the Peninsula Humane Society, the No Kill Community, Best Friends Sanctuary, and many other groups refutes this assumption.

6. That mandatory spay/neuter will greatly reduce the Animal Control costs.

Analysis of animal control data indicates that most costs are the fixed costs of facilities; administration, equipment, staff and retirement benefits. The continuous rise in California animal control costs in the face of decreasing numbers of animals impounded refutes this assumption.

7. That the law will not involve veterinarians in enforcement.

The requirement for veterinarians to write letters of exemption and to turn in rabies certificates indicating the reproductive status of the animal to animal control identifies the owners of intact animals. The public will correctly view veterinarians as enforcers.

SPECIFIC VETERINARY CONCERNS

• This law would intrude into the Doctor/Client/Patient relationship. This is an invasive procedure accomplished under general anesthesia with significant risk to the patient and there are significant physical and behavioral consequences for some animals. For these reasons this decision should not be mandated by the state but, rather, be made by the owner after discussion with their family veterinarian.

• In many jurisdictions with mandatory spay/neuter owners have tried to drop out of the system by not licensing their animals. Many owners know that veterinarians are required to turn in copies of rabies certificates and may decide to forego needed rabies boosters, thereby creating an increased public health risk.

• The contentiousness of this bill has driven apart the groups that contribute to and desire to solve this dilemma. If we are to be successful in solving this problem, we need to bring these groups together in developing innovative programs in the future.

If passed, this law will be unfair to the economically disadvantaged. They are the least likely to neuter their pets, see animal control as a threat, and have limited access to low cost clinics. We need to find ways to help this group enjoy the benefits of pet ownership.

If passed, communities in California will no longer have access to Maddie’s Funds. It is their policy to not provide funding for mandatory governmental programs. “Maddie’s Fund is committed to volunteerism” and is intended to foster innovative, collaborative programs like the CVMA Feral Cat Sterilization Program that resulted in the sterilization of almost 200,000 cats over a 3 year period. To date, Maddie’s Fund has provided over 19 million dollars to communities in California.

If passed, this bill will eliminate many local sources of healthy, well bred and socialized pets. Because it will not decrease the demand for puppies and kittens, the bill leaves the people of California vulnerable to puppymills, unregulated internet sales, sellers of smuggled animals and unscrupulous brokers of animals from out of the US. These poor quality pets will be a burden and an expense and many will end up in our shelters.

Finally, it is my belief that locally developed, voluntary, collaborative, supportive and science-based programs always out perform punitive coercive ones.

Thank you for your kind attention. As a veterinarian, past president of the CVMA and an animal advocate, I ask you to vote AGAINST this bill.

(Adapted from Dr. Hamil's testimony at CA AB 1634 hearing)

"Sight Unseen" and other Drivel

Something has been nagging at the back of my mind; this whole recent chain of events with new government rules didn't seem to make sense. I just couldn't put my finger on it, but I knew something didn't add up. Today, it finally dawned on me exactly what the problem is.

Different rules from the same agency should not conflict. If the overall goal is to discourage so-called "SIGHT UNSEEN" pet sales and rid the market of supposed "bad breeders", then why are "SIGHT UNSEEN" sales from other countries not only unregulated, but actually sanctioned by recent USDA rules?
  

As you may recall, NAIA was complicit in formulating the new USDA import rules and publicly applauded their passage.* These new rules require imported dogs to have rabies vaccinations and health clearances, (GOOD). They forbid importing dogs for resale under the age of six months (BAD). The new rules would allow import of a dog from another country by purchasers who do not plan to resell the animal, as long as there is a health clearance (GOOD). So overall, more good than bad. Hobby breeders aren't really affected, so they are all fine with these new rules. They are happy to embrace a rule that they perceive will only adversely affect "Rescue Retailers."

Meanwhile, there is yet another rule that the USDA is implementing right here and right now in the US. This new rule requires anyone who ships a dog “sight-unseen” to a buyer, (and who also owns more than four bitches) to apply for USDA licensing. This revised rule would require thousands of small breeders to become USDA licensed, have their personal information registered into a publicly available database, be required to meet USDA "commercial" breeder standards (difficult to achieve in a home environment), and be available 24/7 for unannounced inspections by APHIS, regardless of the constraints of your “real job”.

Now, unless you are willing to cease shipping dogs entirely, if you keep four or more bitches you must be USDA licensed. This means you are now on the radar screen of animal rights groups, like CAPS and other loonies, who will have your contact information.

Animal rights nuts can and do target USDA commercial breeders for nasty terrorist attacks, with the intent to drive them out of business. Why would anyone want a USDA license? And who heads the USDA-APHIS enforcement division? Why a former employee of the anti-breeding HSUS, that's who! Many APHIS inspectors have been fully indoctrinated by animal rights fanatics, and are looking to "find something" on inspection. After all, they need to justify their existence, and finding violations and fining people is the only way do do that.

Due to many concerns arising from and the ambiguity associated with enforcement of these new rules, and the fact that despite several conferences, no one seems to really understand the new rules (including APHIS personnel themselves), thousands of breeders and dozens of dog clubs have mounted a legal challenge to block the new USDA-APHIS rules for breeders.

Representatives from the AKC and NAIA have not been supportive of this legal effort, claiming that breeders do not have “standing” in the matter. They have been assuring us that exemptions can solve all our worries. The matter of "standing" has now been settled, as the courts have determined that the case does indeed have merit, and the lawsuit moved forward with a court date. The USDA-APHIS then hired a NAIA lawyer as their consultant, to give the impression that the concerns of dog owners will be addressed. Never mind the fact that they did not address our concerns after literally thousands of public comments and questions during the conferences that went unanswered. But, adding a representative from the "breeder" side of the equation on their team will give them better odds in court, they reason. Window dressing.

Now think about this for a minute. Why are the events in regard to these two new rules from the USDA troublesome when viewed in conjunction with each other?

Here's why. These new rules don't dovetail. Foreign breeders can ship “sight-unseen” to buyers, while those in the US cannot do so without Federal regulation of their breeding activities.

Are breeders in other countries automatically more holy and righteous than breeders in the USA? Does the USDA wish to encourage"sight unseen" sales from overseas? Because that's what is going to happen when more US breeders quit shipping or even quit breeding altogether.

We also have a study in progress from Purdue that intends to set guidelines for breeding activities. Once that come on the scene, we will have yet another set of anti-breeding regulations that will effectively squelch the hopes of newbies who might aspire to being dog breeders....if only it weren't so difficult to qualify for that breeding permit! And how will breeders in other countries comply? Who will regulate them?

And then, we will have to have a NEW RULE that prohibits imports for ANYONE. It is easy to do, because there is already a prohibition for those who re-sell dogs under the age of six months, and no one said BOO when they slipped that neat little rule in there. In fact, the breeders stood up and cheered! All they need to do now, is to tweak it a bit. No one can import a dog for resale PERIOD. No one can have a dog shipped in from another country "sight unseen".  After all, that is the intent of the OTHER new APHIS rule, and we need all our rules to apply fairly to everyone and in all the same situations. Don't we?

If we can't ship a dog with a health certificate "sight unseen" without Federal oversight of our breeding operation, how can people ship one in from another country with just a health certificate?

The new rule requiring almost all US breeders to register with USDA-APHIS  MUST be struck down.

Support the KODA effort. Court date, October 9.

www.keepourdomesticanimals.com

 

*http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/article/naia-applauds-usda-rule-protecting-pets-and-people

You Can't Serve Two Masters

Here's some deeply disturbing news. At a time when literally thousands of dog clubs and owners are fighting a legal battle to stave off the new APHIS rules for breeders, NAIA's Julian Prager, a bulldog breeder, AKC judge, lawyer and former NY animal control director, announced yesterday that he is now working for USDA-APHIS. He just can't get enough of government rules and regulations. Especially when he is getting fed in the process!
 Do animal owners have any hope for the future? I don't think so. My crystal ball tells me we can only look forward to more red tape strangulation.
The USDA was not founded as an agency meant to regulate anyone, it was initiated to educate and advise farmers on good practices. But like most anything involving the government, it has expanded like the blob, feeding off of our human rights. Congress passed a law in the 1960s allowing USDA to regulate "commercial" dog breeders, and wala, here we are a few short decades later; now anyone who owns a few bitches and who sells even one dog by remote means like air shipping, is under their iron fist. Quite a nauseating turn of events here in a land where our freedoms are supposed to be a priority. 
A letter rife with baloney like how he will help develop government guidelines for "preserving bloodlines" and squelching "bad actors" was released yesterday by Mr. Prager. 
Now aside from the fact that the USDA could not produce even ONE example of a "bad actor" when requested to do so, what business is it of the government how anyone breeds, be it for the purpose of "preserving bloodlines" or crossbreeding to create a new breed? Will we now have minimal daily requirements for dog breeding? Get them OUT of where they don't belong! 
You just can't make this stuff up. Although it would have been nice to awaken and say, "oh gosh, it was only a bad dream."

I wanted to be sure that Delegates who were not at the meeting today and all club legislative liaisons received word of the announcement I made at today’s meeting.

Small hobby and show breeders have all been concerned about the implications of the revision to the “Retail Pet Store Rule" by APHIS and the implication for that group. APHIS has heard your concerns. At last year’s NAIA conference the APHIS Deputy Administrator met with about 20 of us after the session to discuss our concerns and issues. He committed to work with us to work to resolve these issues.

Two weeks ago, I was hired by Animal Care within APHIS as part of it central policy staff. My position, Canine Program Advisor, was advertised to bring in someone who would facilitate communication among APHIS, the breeder community, rescue groups and related animal interest groups. I will be providing APHIS staff with technical guidance on dog issues, assist in training their field staff, participate in developing program information material, conduct outreach and education and, most significantly, work on developing related policies and rules.

Both the amendment to the Animals Welfare Act in the Farm Bill and Conference Committee Report provide an opportunity for APHIS to clarify the existing rules and provide for a more clear structure for exemptions from licensing. APHIS was asked to clarify the definition of “breeding female” and I will be working with other staff to do that. The changes to the law give the Secretary the authority to exempt from licensing those whose activities have a minimal impact on interstate commerce and the welfare of animals. Both the AKC GR staff and NAIA are aware that the additional authority granted by Congress was, in large part, directed at addressing concerns expressed by smaller breeders who were breeding to preserve bloodlines.

I have asked for feedback from the Delegates and all clubs regarding what fact-based standards would work for your breed in your real world activities. APHIS needs solid data, not conjecture, to bolster each type of exemption and the exemptions should be tailored, to the extent possible, to a range of situations, not just a particular breed. For example, what data are there to provide a basis for determining when the number of animals being bred is insufficient to maintain breed existence? For all of the concerns expressed during the process of adopting the new rule, real world, grounded examples are needed to support an suggestions made to provide for exemptions.

As I said at the Legislative Caucus, drafting rules to include one group of require licensing of another group are fairly easy. What is difficult is writing a rule that the bad actors can’t wiggle around while still permitting those properly caring for their animals through. This all started because large breeding facilities that were previously excluded from the retail pet store definition because they sold wholesale, began selling dog of questionable health directly to purchasers through internet sales. That was the target of the rule revision. It is your mission (in your own self interest) to provide APHIS with the information that justifies including one group under licensing requirements, while exempting another group. And it can’t be “because we are the good guys.” It has to be some fairly objective criterion or criteria that are unassailable. Because you know there are those out there who will claim that just because you breed, you are suspect.

I can be reached at Julian.D.Prager@aphis.usda.gov. I look forward to your assistance in developing clear rules and meaningful exemptions for activities which have a minimal effect on interstate commerce. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, please let me know. This is a complex process and it will take time to address Congress’ changes to the law and requests to the agency. In the meanwhile, the current rule is being enforced. Since discussions are just starting internally, I cannot tell you where this will wind up, but there is a way forward and I ask for your help in establishing a clear path ahead.

Julian Prager

NO WONDER Mr. Prager has pooh-poohed the legal challenge to the new APHIS rules. He LIKES the new APHIS rules!
Sort of creepy how we see prominent people doing their political power dances. First the USDA hiring from the ranks of the HSUS, then we had Ed Sayres and PIJAC, and now Julian Prager and the USDA! I'm afraid to see what will happen next!

Here's an old and wise precept about conflict of interest. Matthew 6:24: 

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."

Or we could revise it for today: 

"You cannot serve both the breeding community and the USDA-APHIS."

KEEP OUR DOMESTIC ANIMALS

We've become accustomed to “White Lies” from the popular media and from our government. Most of the time we just laugh and dismiss them as irrelevant. But sometimes, these lies take on a life of their own.

Take, for example, the recent revision of USDA-APHIS rules. The reasons cited for the revision include:

1. Recommendation from an audit from the USDA's Office of the Inspector General (or “OIG”)
2. Response to a petition to the White House from supporters of the Humane Society of the US (“HSUS”); and
3. Many complaints received by the USDA from consumers who received sick pets after buying “sight-unseen” over the internet.

The response to these three reasons cited includes a revision of rules to require anyone who owns more than four breeding females of any species and who ships pets to even one buyer, must now fall under the licensing requirements of the USDA.

The problem with this is that hobby breeders, who often own more than four breeding females (particularly with small breeds) and who frequently ship pets, are generally unable to comply with USDA licensing requirements meant for commercial breeders, dealers and exhibitors like circuses, zoos and animal parks.

We don't keep dogs in cement kennels with impermeable surfaces. Instead our dogs are housed in areas with grass, carpeting and even upholstered furniture. We don't rely on our dogs as a primary source of income, so we have a “real” job, and are not home during business hours to submit to unannounced inspections. We don't sell in order to make a net profit, and we sure don't have the money to pay for additional structural modifications and licensing over and above our local requirements.

A further claim by USDA is that FEW breeders will be affected...about four thousand at most, they claim. However, in their own OIG report, they claim that: “more than 80% of breeders that OIG sampled were not licensed under the Animal Welfare Act, because they sold pets over the internet and claimed retail pet store status.”

Make up your mind, which is it? A few thousand, or 80% of the hundreds of thousands of breeders in the US?

But let's back up a bit. How was this impeccable USDA OIG research done?

By internet searches. Must have taken a whole hour-and-a-half one afternoon. Your tax money at work, folks.

OIG report, page 37: “We used two search engines to identify how many of these breeders were licensed in two of our eight sampled states. We identified 138 breeders that had more than 3 breeding females or handled more than 25 dogs a year. We found 112 of the 138 (81 percent) were not licensed by APHIS. If the breeders had sold their dogs wholesale (i.e. not retail through the Internet), they would have needed a license.”

First off, how do you accept at face value ANYTHING that's simply information gleaned from an internet website? Someone could embellish their website to include dogs they bred who are now owned by others. Or, information could be out of date. People DIE and their websites still live on.

Most people with common sense contact sellers, ask for references from previous buyers or from their veterinarian. They ask for recent photos to be sent to them or ask to see the dog(s) on skype or Youtube. But not the USDA OIG. Nope, we get our information the quick, lazy and unreliable way, via GOOGLE.

The plain fact is that it is not possible to know for sure how many dogs a person owns (intact or otherwise) or how many puppies they sell or if they actually do ship dogs, simply based on a website.

The USDA further admits in their own report that selling directly to the public via the internet is by definition RETAIL. Retail sellers have always been exempt from the AWA. This has been upheld in court! Look up DDAL v. Veneman.

Most all hobby breeders have a website and sell remotely. That DOES NOT make them terrible, horrible, no good really bad animal exploiters who need to be regulated by the USDA. In fact, it is a violation of our rights to personal privacy to have government workers traipsing through our homes unannounced simply because we have a hobby that involves breeding our pets.

Then there's the question of sample size. 138 websites in 8 states? Hardly a representative cross-section of the nation's breeders.

And HOW do they know that those breeders whose websites they perused sold even ONE animal sight-unseen? THEY DON'T.

And even if the web seller in question did sell pets remotely, SO WHAT??

Ah, but the USDA claims to have received many complaints about people receiving sick animals when purchasing and having the pet shipped to them. See reason #3 above.

My first instinct in reaction to this is to say, BUYER BEWARE. Do your homework, research the seller and his or her reputation. Make your purchase thoughtfully. It is YOUR responsibility to choose your next pet, after all. Not the government's responsibility to protect you from your own choices.

But upon reflection, my second instinct is skepticism. Sick Dogs? WHERE ARE THEY?

PROVE IT!!!

A friend of mine was way ahead of me there. She wrote to the USDA and demanded that they PROVE their assertion that people are receiving sick dogs when buying sight-unseen via the Internet. Here is the response she received:

Dear Ms. XXXXX:

This is in response to your July 16, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for copies of complaints concerning the welfare of dogs and other pets received by APHIS directly from members of the public as referenced in that statement. Your request was received in this office on October 13, 2011, and assigned case number FOIA 12-03007-F.

Animal Care (AC) employees conducted a thorough search of their files and did not locate any information responsive to your request.

AC has informed this office that they have no records concerning the welfare of dogs and other pets received by APHIS directly from members of the public as referenced in the APHIS issued Regulatory Impact Analysis & Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis Proposed Rule, APHIS-2011-0003 RIN 0579-AD57 because they do not record complaints regarding retail sales as it is not an Animal Welfare Act (AWA) covered activity.

You may appeal our no record determination. If you chose to appeal, your appeal must be in writing and must be received within 45 days of the date of this letter to the following address:

Administrator

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Ag Box 3401
Washington, DC 20250-3401

Please refer to FOIA 12-03007-F in your appeal letter and add the words “FOIA Appeal” to the front of the envelope. To assist the Administrator in reviewing your appeal, provide specific reasons why you believe modification of the determination warranted.

If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Kacie Edwards of my staff at (301) 851-4084.

Sincerely,

Tonya Woods

Director
Freedom of Information & Privacy Act
Legislative and Public Affairs

BTW, an appeal was sent but was never answered. Funny, eh?

So, there is absolutely NO documentation to support the assertion that even ONE complaint about internet sellers was ever received by the USDA!

We can see that the audit itself was a farce, and there is absolutely no validity to the claim of complaints about sellers shipping sick dogs. What about the petition?

A petition by the radical animal rights group the Humane Society of the US was acted upon by the current administration. Yet what was it that this petition requested? It requested that “PUPPY MILLS” (a legally undefined entity) that sell puppies via the internet be regulated under the AWA.
A reasonable reaction to anyone using such an emotion-laden term as "puppy mill" would NOT include lending any sort of consideration to their nonsensical request.

And hey, if you ship a dog and own more than four intact females, now you are automatically a "puppy mill"? Good to know.

The current group of USDA-APHIS licensed breeders are slurred as “puppy mills” by these same animal rights activists, and laws are being passed in many locales to prevent the puppies from licensed, inspected breeders to be sold! But these humaniacs want even MORE breeders regulated under APHIS, so they can agitate to prevent them from breeding and selling any puppies at all!! Pretty clever tactic, I'll admit. And in today's current United States of Idiocracy, they seem to be getting away with it so far.

Oddly enough, major dog organizations...the very groups that should be on the front lines supporting our rights as breeders.... have so far refused to challenge these new APHIS rules, which clearly violate the intent of the Animal Welfare Act by regulating non-commercial, hobby breeders. Instead, these groups are urging their supporters to try to seek out loopholes for exemption. If we don't go along with these new rules, they say, then Congress will pass PUPS and we'll be in an even worse situation. In fact, these major groups have been cooperating with USDA-APHIS in formulating and implementing the new rules! A horrible betrayal of all of our rights, sadly enough.

Animal Rights "humaniacs" won't stop at redefining retail pet stores and new APHIS rules. They are going to push for an easy score like PUPS regardless of what happens with the new APHIS rules. When that happens, we will have to be on the front lines fighting that atrocity of PUPS as well.

A large group of independent dog breeders and owners (over 21,000 to date) have decided to mount a legal challenge to these new rules. You can read more about that process here:

 www.keepourdomesticanimals.com

The new USDA-APHIS rules are based on a trifecta of lies....a report cobbled together by the USDA from internet searches, a petition to the White House from the ever-disingenuous HSUS, and the completely unsustantiated claim of "complaints" about sick puppies being shipped to buyers.

Please support “KODA” and the effort to protect our domestic animals from excessive federal government regulation.

Surely he needs to be regulated by the Federal government!

Irreconcilable Differences.... INDEED

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.

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=10853

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.

Animal welfare is animal rights.

Don't believe me? I'll prove it to you. Better yet, I'll let you prove it to me.

But I don't believe in animal rights.

Okay, fine. But do you believe standards of animal care should be regulated or legislated?

Well, every animal has a right to--

Wait a minute. You said you don't believe in animal rights.

I don't.

So then, back to legislating or regulating standards of care. Why do so?

Because animals have a right to--

There's that word "rights" again.

It's just a word. I meant--

Laws are just words. Regulations are just words. Words define how we live, how we behave, how we think, what we believe. Dictating standards of animal welfare -- that's giving rights to animals. A right to food, a right to shelter, a right to medical care, and if you don't provide your animals with those rights, those words will put you in jail.

But shouldn't everyone have to take care of their animals?

Sure -- of their own will. Because it's the ethical thing to do. 

Not because the animal has rights provided by law.

Not unless you actually believe in animal rights.

Lieu the Panderer

Letter sent to California Senator Ted Lieu today.

How hypocritical that Senator Lieu would oppose hunting with hounds due to his misguided and mistaken opinion that it's cruel to the dogs and/or the bears, yet defend shark finning because of supposed racial connections. I don't care what kind of soup people wish to consume. What is horrific is the way shark fins are obtained. I assumed Senator Lieu isn't concerned about living sharks having their fins amputated, after which their finless bodies are thrown back into the water to drown.


As for SB 1221, it seems to me to be an abuse of power for our legislators to step in regarding policies which come under the purview of California Fish and Game Commission, policies which are determined by science and logic, and by experts on the subject. It is not appropriate for senators and other public officials to make decisions based on input from avowed anti-hunting extremist groups such as the HSUS, decisions that will likely result in harm t o the animals involved. The use of dogs to tree animals that pose a danger to humans is an efficient and humane method of wildlife management, and the California Fish and Game Commission is the appropriate agency to make determinations regarding such methods.

As for the abhorrent cruelty to sharks involved in the finning process, using racial preferences as an excuse for such behavior is spurious and deceptive. I have no objection to shark FISHING, only to the mutilation of live animals in shark FINNING.

By the way, I doubt if the Chinese emperors who so valued shark fin soup were aware that it has a high concentration of a BMAA neurotoxin, which can cause neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's and ALS, in humans. If Senator Lieu really cares about the races he purports to be defending, perhaps he should pass that message along to them.

Carole Raschella

Anti-hunting bill passed by California legislature

SB 1221 is on to the governor. Voting went mostly right down party lines; Democrats AYE Republicans NO. (Except turncoat Strickland, wonder how much $$$ the HSUS greased his palm with?)

Tell me again about how both parties are the same?

We need to BOOT these legislators OUT of office and for those who remain in power, they need to be cut back to part-time status.

UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: SB 1221
AUTHOR: Lieu
TOPIC: Mammals: use of dogs to pursue bears and bobc
DATE: 08/27/2012
LOCATION: SEN. FLOOR
MOTION: Unfinished Business SB1221 Lieu Concurrence
(AYES  22. NOES  13.)  (PASS)


AYES
****

Alquist Calderon Corbett De León
DeSaulnier Evans Hancock Hernandez
Kehoe Leno Lieu Liu
Lowenthal Negrete McLeod Padilla Pavley
Price Simitian Steinberg Strickland
Vargas Yee


NOES
****

Anderson Berryhill Blakeslee Cannella
Dutton Fuller Gaines Harman
Huff La Malfa Walters Wolk
Wright


NO VOTE RECORDED
****************

Correa Emmerson Rubio Runner
Wyland

APHIS Illumination

Many thanks to the wonderful folks at Washington Animal Watch and The Cavalry Group for their fantastic work on the new APHIS rule proposal and the PUPS bill. They're savvy enough to present the information in an easy-to-understand visual format and are busily disseminating that information on social networks like Facebook. Here are two posters from WAW, along with a nice flowchart that was formulated by Mindy Patterson's Cavalry Group. Thanks Mindy! 

Please "LIKE" Washington Animal Watch and The Cavalry Group on Facebook and be sure to follow their respective sites (http://www.waanimal.blogspot.com/ and http://www.thecavalrygroup.com/) Great information to pass along to your family and friends who may not be intimately involved in the dog world. 

Animal Abuser Registry

I received the below forwarded message regarding the nationwide push for "animal abuser" registries in my inbox this morning.

 

To most people, the idea of an abuser registry sounds peachy. Just register all those convicted animal offenders so we can prevent them from owning animals in the future. Not that registries for child abusers and sex offenders have been shown to work, but hey, such efforts make a nice public show of concern that goes over well at election time.

 

But if you examine the animal abuser registry issue more closely, there are some definite valid, frightening concerns involved here. 

Notice, there are many types of offenses that can be considered "abuse" offenses, including being over legal limits (so-called "hoarding") or failure to license, and technical offenses such as an observed lack of space/food/water readily available. Such offenses are vague and arbitrarily applied. Such offenses could apply to almost anyone. I know of a case from just last week, where the accused "abuser" had animals in excellent condition, and could not have been charged with any neglect, so the raiding agency searched her refrigerator and took any bottles of medications that they could find (including those labelled for the human of the household). They were hoping to find something illegally purchased without a prescription. Never mind that various animal antibiotics, wormers and parasite medications, and even all vaccines with the exception of rabies, do not NEED a prescription when bought for animals. Most of these can be bought 'over the counter' and online with NO prescription. And never mind that if these animal rightist seizing agencies can't find any actual animal "abuse", they will grasp at straws to try to manufacture a technical offense that will stick. Naturally, if anyone is scrutinized enough, an offense can eventually be found...there are so many laws on the books that it is impossible to exist in today's world without being a criminal.

To the AR activists behind such punitive laws as abuser registries, every breeder is a "puppy mill", and every owner of multiple dogs is a "hoarder". There are many, many trumped-up "abuse" cases against animal owners formulated daily in the hope of "getting" animal owners and freeing the animals from their human enslavement.

 

Are you aware of the agenda of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, who formulated this message? They are a radical animal rights group.

 

saova.org/resources_ALDF.html

 

Notice the closing motto of the below message: "Animal abusers should be put down". Calling for the killing of humans for "hoarding" and whatever other oddball charges the AR groups can come up with? That is frightening.

 

Be careful what you wish for. You might be next on the "list".

---

 

First U.S. Animal Abuser Registry Makes Convicts Public Monday, Suffolk County activates the first animal abuser registry in the United States, which will make public the identities of convicted animal abusers. The internet registry will display their names, addresses and photographs. The law requires pet stores, breeders and animal shelters to check the registry and not sell or adopt animals to anyone on it, according to the Animal Law Coalition. Abusers will stay on the registry for five years each, and will face jail time or fines if they do not sign up for and renew their registrations throughout that period. The Coalition reports that in Suffolk County, "animal abuse" includes animal fighting; overdriving, torturing and injuring animals; failing to provide proper sustenance; aggravated cruelty to animals; abandoning animals; interfering with or injuring certain domestic animals; and harming a service animal. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is leading a nationwide effort to pass more laws like Suffolk County's. If registries like this were widespread, they could make a real difference in preventing animal cruelty. Without them, convicted animal abusers, including hoarders, can easily evade court sentences forbidding them from owning animals by moving to a different county or state. Nationwide registries would make it much harder for them to acquire new animals just by changing their location. Registries like Suffolk County's could also prevent crimes that hurt humans. A person who abuses or kills animals is five times more likely to commit violence against humans and four times more likely to commit property crimes, according to a Business Week report on a 1997 study by Northeastern University and the Massachusetts SPCA. Other counties and states have considered similar registries and some plan to implement them, but last February Colorado voted down a law to create one. Objections to the registries include concerns about the civil rights of animal abusers and the possibility that exposure to the public will make offenders even less likely to cooperate with authorities that otherwise might be able to keep them from harming other animals Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/first-u-s-animal-abuser-registry-makes-convicts-public.html#ixzz1uIBmR9h6

The Writing on the Wall

Elizabeth, the Lhasa Apso deserves hearty congratulations for her Best in Show win at Crufts 2012.

The Lhasa Apso is closely related to the Pekingese, the Shih Tzu and the Tibetan Spaniel, and a bit further removed is the Tibetan Terrier, the Pug and the Japanese Chin. In fact, sometimes different-coated dogs known popularly as "Prapsos" (perhaps Apsos) are born in Shih Tzu and Lhasa Apso litters. These dogs have different coats, shorter and straighter, and they look nearly identical to a Tibetan Spaniel. 

This is a clue to the close genetic relationship these breeds share. Historically, it is believed by some that the Chinese used the most extreme short-faced Tibetan dogs to develop the Pekingese. Some people believe it happened the other way around; that the Pekingese gave rise to those other breeds, but either way it is obvious that the Peke has been interbred with and is closely related to the various Tibetan breeds.

Elizabeth, and indeed her breed in general, escaped the intense scrutiny of being on the "High Profile Breed" hit list. At least for this year.

This despite the close relationship to other breeds under fire, and sharing some of the much-criticised "extreme" features. The Lhasa Apso has a coat that dusts the floor. And hair that cascades over the eyes. And an undershot lower jaw. And is brachycephalic.

The AKC breed standard states:

The preferred bite is either level or slightly undershot....Heavy head furnishings with good fall over eyes, good whiskers and beard.

The KC standard specifies:

 Head furnishings with fall over eyes, but not affecting the dog's ability to see....Muzzle.....length from tip of nose roughly one third total length from nose to back of skull...reverse scissor bite.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't find fault with the standards. I'm simply anticipating future criticism by the nannying animal welfarists. A short muzzle, with an undershot bite? Dentition is probably suboptimal. Isn't all that hair a bit too "extreme"? That has been an oft-repeated criticism of the Pekingese....too much coat. Will the Lhasa be next to be criticised for their coat? At least the coat of the Pekingese doesn't fall over the eyes!

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
  Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
  Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

But helpless pieces in the game He plays,
  Upon this checker-board of Nights and Days,
He hither and thither moves, and checks ... and slays,
  Then one by one, back in the Closet lays.

Lhasa apso littermates, "Prapso" on the right