Words MATTER - SHOP! Don't "Adopt!"

Think it's "cute" to say you "adopted" a "rescue" who is now your "furkid?" Well, it's not really "cute" at all if you give it some thought.The words we use matter.

 Did you know that the state of California passed a law a few years ago that removed the word "pound" or "impound" from all prior animal legislation and replaced it with the word "shelter?" Like it or not, words have definite meanings that affect public opinion and form the cultural zeitgeist. Why do you think they legally changed the word "pound" to "shelter?".....even though they maintain the right to capriciously kill in the so-called "shelter?" Because the name you tag something with forms it's public image. Perception becomes reality.

Animal Rights people co-opting the terminology we use is very dangerous, it's not benign, and it's aimed squarely at legally removing our ownership rights. "Rescue" implies animal abuse. "Adopt" infers a status equal to humans. "Guardian" instead of "owner" means the pet has inherent rights that supercede your right to determine his care and destiny. If pets are "fur kids" the state can step in and mandate how you care for them down to minute details. Kiss your pet ownership rights goodbye.

The "Adopt don't Shop' mantra has been very successful at demonizing breeders. it's time to turn it around! Get a great pet....SHOP! Shopping is a good thing. Most shoppers thoughtfully research before they make a purchase. When it comes to a pet, research prior to purchase is important. Avoid those "adopt-a-thons" where impulse buying is encouraged, and you might just end up with a dog who doesn't suit your lifestyle or home situation. SHOP...and get the dog that is right for you to OWN!!

.

Insanity in Santa Paula

The Neuter Nannies are at it again. Santa Paula is the next city in California poised to mandate that owners and their veterinarians inflict unnecessary and harmful surgery on pets in the community. Up on the agenda for the next city council meeting is a delayed vote on a mandatory spay-neuter-microchip ordinance.

At the hearing two days ago, not just one but TWO local veterinarians (they are the experts, right?) testified against mandated neutering of pets. Despite the evidence presented that spay/neuter has adverse effects on health, the city plans to amend and pass their proposal. As long as they toss a few “exemptions” into the pot to remove some objections, they have no qualms about squelching the right of an owner in consultation with his veterinarian to decide what is best for his dog's health.

Kiss nice dogs like this goodbye when the neuter nannies sink their talons into your community

The local shelter, “Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center” boasts of being the nation's first open-admission no-kill shelter. According to the claim on their Facebook page, 99% of the animals who enter their shelter, LIVE. Yet representatives from this group are still not satisfied. Like most animal rights fanatics, they want to spay-neuter pets into oblivion. The SPARC is backing the new ordinance and their representatives spoke in favor of it at Monday night's City Council meeting.

The rescue brigade will continue to cry “overpopulation” until there is not one single animal entering a shelter, anyplace. I hate to break the news to everybody, but that can only happen when there are no more pets left PERIOD. 

And this group also had the temerity to contradict the testimony of the two local veterinarians, who were concerned about the adverse health effects of spay and neuter. Here's a quote from a local newspaper article:

Representatives from the Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center, meanwhile, urged council to approve the ordinance. Health problems, such as musculoskeletal injuries and cancers, occur in many animals whether they are spayed and neutered or not, they said.

Brilliant! Whoever was quoted here probably has his GED. I'm sure he knows better than two local veterinarians about the health effects of spay-neuter.

This person is so ignorant that he can't discern the difference between INJURIES and DEVELOPMENTAL problems resulting from lack of hormones. He is unaware of (or just plain doesn't care about) the many, many studies in multiple breeds that prove that cancer risks are many times higher for spayed/neutered animals than those who are intact. And, he isn't going to be paying the veterinary bills for the owners whose dogs become lame, hypothyroid, or aflicted with bone cancer or hemangiosarcoma. When the dog becomes more aggressive towards humans (as studies have found to be the effect of spay/neuter) will he be able to rehome the dog or will it have to be killed?

Here's the viewpoint of Santa Paula's esteemed mayor:

Mayor Martin Hernandez said he supported the ordinance, noting that those speaking against it were not from Santa Paula. He said requiring animals to be fixed is good for the community, and regulations are necessary."If laws were for the responsible people we wouldn't have people getting DUI's daily," he said. "Do you think that people are tending to their animals more than they take responsibility for driving under the influence of alcohol? I don't think so."

Well, that settles the debate, then. Ignore your two local veterinarians and the reams of knowledgable dog people from the Ventura County-based Kennel Clubs, who will have to deal with your stupid ordinance. Or maybe, their dog breeders could simply refuse to sell puppies to anyone who lives in Santa Paula. There's a great benefit for your community. No pets.

Good for the community? In which universe, exactly? Where is the evidence? Mandatory spay-neuter has NEVER been proven beneficial to ANY community where it has been enacted. In fact, licensing and rabies vaccination compliance DECREASES. Shelter intakes INCREASE. And FEWER dogs are reclaimed from shelters! Low-income people and seniors will be disproportionately hit with the higher costs. It's expensive to have the unnecessary surgery done, and even more costly when the dog gets cancer and dies an early, expensive death.

And “tending to their animals” is equated with foisting unnecessary, life-sucking surgery on them? How stupid is that? Well, we can't expect genius from someone who draws a parallel between animal ownership and drinking alcohol.

As if all this wasn't ridiculous enough, the ordinance also requires the Animal Services Coordinator, who more than likely has ZERO expertise in dog breeding, to administer a written test on humane breeding practices. If you fail the written test, no breeding permit for you.

Microchips are fine but they can rarely travel in the body, and the insertion process is not without risk. Again, the owner should have the right to decide if he wants to use a chip or if he prefers a collar with tag or a tattoo for ID purposes.

Santa Paula, the latest in the string of Neuter Nanny cities here in our state.

The article is here:
http://www.vcstar.com/news/local/santa-paula/santa-paula-delays-vote-on-spay-and-neuter-ordinance-276d0d30-ddb4-4e55-e053-0100007f47ef-363296281.html

The Front Door Dilemma

It's been encouraging to note so much recent shelter success and so many areas where “No Kill” status has been achieved in recent years. Maddie's Fund believes that the entire country can easily achieve No Kill status NOW.*

We have more households owning dogs than ever before, fewer shelter deaths than any time in history, and more people looking to welcome dogs into their homes and treat them as valued clan members.

Hooray, right? Well, maybe not so much.

I've blogged at great length here about the shortage of adoptable dogs and how many shelters and rescues have turned to the importation of dogs from other countries to fill the void.

Despite shelter shortages, despite the importation of hundred of thousands of dogs from outside the US each and every year, despite people who want to adopt puppies being unable to easily find any, today I sit here and feel horribly pessimistic about the future of pets in America.

The general public has been brainwashed over at least four decades to believe that dog breeding is a nefarious activity. Breeding in order to have puppies, maybe even to have some puppies to sell, is an Extremely Politically Incorrect Activity.

The general zeitgeist in this country is a perverse and strong opposition to dog breeding and selling. In fact, if you tell most people you want to breed your dog, he or she will look at you like you have two heads. Planning a litter must surely be some sort of evil plot to produce animals destined for torture and abuse. In fact, some believe that a bitch having a litter is abuse in and of itself.

We continue to see strong forces at work who wish to ban breeding, who insist that there be laws to require sterilization of all pets.

This seems contradictory, because It's clear there is a demand for dogs that grows stronger every day. Where will the dogs of the future come from? Who will fill the market for family pets?

I read a blog named “Out The Front Door” which is No Kill-focused. In a recent post, the author openly admits that a shelter dog shortage is coming. He (or she?) rejoices at the coming shortage of shelter dogs. However, he is worried. Very worried.

People who want dogs might decide to...hold on to your hat.....BUY one from a breeder. Good heavens! We can't have that! Why, OTFD hopes that we will continue to import street dogs from other countries, and even step up the numbers of street dogs brought into the US.

OTFD prays that breeders in America will go the way of the dinosaur.

OTFD and indeed, many many of those involved in shelter and/or rescue would rather force you to get your next dog from the streets of a third world country rather than buy a happy, healthy dog purposely bred by a breeder right here in the USA.

Never mind the risk of RABIES which is still rampant in other countries. Never mind that these street dogs, seemingly destined to be your only option in the pet stores of the future, are bred under unknown welfare conditions and the absence of any standards. Never mind that our own American breeders have good health and temperament uppermost on their priority list and are ready, willing and able to supply the market.

Nope, OTFD and others like them don't care about any of that one whit. They just want you to stop.

Stop breeding.

I ask you, is this not the quintessence of cognitive dissonance? 

It's all well and good to get dogs Out the Front Door of the animal shelter, but who is going to provide the dogs that come In the Front Door of your home? 

What sort of dog lover doesn't like puppies to be born? There can only be one conclusion when this mindset has become so prevalent. These shelter and rescue folks don't actually like dogs. In point of fact, much like Wayne Pacelle, the President of the Humane Society of the US, they would prefer that another dog or cat would never, ever be born!

The rescue brigade love dogs so much that they hope they will all be sterilized and that no one on the planet will ever breed them. Ever. That's their real goal! Pet extinction. They would rather no dogs exist than man breed them.

The mind boggles. I hope the day never arrives when the animal rights fanatics succeed in removing dogs from our lives completely.

*http://www.maddiesfund.org/no-kill-progress.htm?p=topic37
http://outthefrontdoor.com/2015/01/08/the-coming-shelter-dog-shortage-part-ii/

Reappropriation, Baby

PUPPY MILL!!

This derogatory slur has been popularized in the media. It's been hurled at us by misanthropist animal extremists in a very successful effort to marginalize the good work of all dog breeders. The term has also unfortunately sometimes been used by dog breeders to slur the competition. After all, the more one breeds, the better one's breeding skills become, and the more likely one is to become successful (whether that success is measured in quality of dogs and/or in the ability to profit financially). What better way to marginalize the competition than to tar them with a nasty label?

After decades of use, the "Puppy Mill" slur has been picked up and accepted by the general public, and is often quoted by the media in evening news stories. It's become part of the popular culture. Everyone seems to believe they have an understanding of what it means. "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it." Much like other offensive and sordid crimes like murder, theft and rape, evil grubby animal-abuse and exploitation for profit can be identified by sight. We Know a Puppy Mill when we see one, right?

Or do we? Is it someone who breeds "too much"? Heaven forbid they MAKE MONEY! from their dogs! Those poor bitches never get a rest! They never have any human contact! Their feet never touch the ground! They never see a veterinarian! Blah blah blah, with every other ridiculous lie that can be cooked up.

In a futile effort at self-defense, dog breeders have attempted to define the "puppy mill" term. It's a place where dogs are abused. Or, they explain that  the phrase "puppy mill" shouldn't be used at all since it really doesn't apply to 99.999 % of the dog breeders out there.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the wrong approach. It's not working.

On the other hand, I hear from many sage voices in the dog world that we should NEVER, ever, utter this term. Using it, they say, only promotes the cause of the enemy; the animal fanatics like HSUS's Wayne Pacelle, who don't ever want to see another dog or cat born. We are facilitating their goal of entrenching the term into popular culture by using it more and more.

Unfortunately THIS approach isn't working either. The phrase "puppy mill"  won't go away simply because we ourselves pretend it doesn't exist or that it is not Politically Correct.

What to do? Can't explain that we are the good guys, and can't even mention the phrase they are calling us, as if our not mentioning it will make it go away. HA! Fat chance!

You will be called a Puppy Mill from here unto eternity because you are a dog breeder, and those who don't like dog breeders will continue to sling nasty slurs your direction.

That's a fact, Jack. You can count on it! Animal rights nuts are relentless in pursuit of their goal of making dog breeders go the way of the dinosaur. If calling us "puppy mill" works, they WILL continue the campaign.

I firmly believe we need a new, proven approach. There is only ONE course of action that can work to mitigate the damage that the tactic of name-calling inflicts.

The only way to neutralize this phrase is for us to embrace it.

REAPPROPRIATION, BAY BEE!

Much like racial slurs that have been embraced by those they objectify, and sexually derogatory slurs that have subsequently been embraced by women and gays, the only way to neuter this term is to embrace it. Bathe in it! Say it often and say it loudly! Be PROUD that you, a fine dog breeder, are a puppy mill!

Repeat after me, slowly and proudly:

YES, I AM A PUPPY MILL!

I am PROUD to mill puppies. My mill is the FINEST on the west coast. My mill produces the most EXCELLENT dogs in all the land! My milled puppies are the BEST you could ever find! They will smother you in kisses!

Looking for a new kennel name? How about "Puppy Mill Acres"?

Perhaps set up a billboard along the highway:

PUPPY MILL

NEXT EXIT

FINE QUALITY PUPPIES AVAILABLE!

My puppy mill dogs are excellent pets, fine hunters, fabulous guardians, wonderful herders. Thank goodness I breed plenty of fantastic dogs here at my top-class puppy mill!

Embrace your unique contribution to mankind. Be proud to be a puppy mill! 

Wikipedia: 

A reclaimed or reappropriated word is a word that was at one time pejorative but has been brought back into acceptable usage—usually starting within the communities that experienced oppression under that word, but sometimes also among the general populace as well.^[(The term "reclaimed word" more often implies usage by a member of the group referred to.)
This can have wider implications in the fields of discourse, and has been described in terms of personal or sociopolitical empowerment.
Reclaiming or reappropriating a word involves re-evaluating a term that in the dominant culture is, or at one time was, used by a majority to oppress various minorities of that same culture.
In some cases, this reappropriation is so successful as to turn a previously disparaging word into the preferred term: for example, gay, previously an insult, is now strongly preferred to "homosexual", both as an adjective and a noun.
One of the older examples of successful reclaiming is the term "Jesuit" to refer to members of the Society of Jesus. This was originally a derogatory term referring to people who too readily invoked the name of Jesus in their politics, but which members of the Society adopted over time for themselves, so that the word came to refer exclusively to them, and generally in a positive or neutral sense, even though the term "Jesuitical" is derived from the Society of Jesus and is used to mean things like: manipulative, conspiring, treacherous, capable of intellectually justifying anything by convoluted reasoning.
Reclaimed words differ from general reclamation outside of language because of their deliberately provocative nature. In addition to neutral or acceptable connotations, reclaimed words often acquire positive meaning within the circles of the informed

AKC, Animal Rights and Dog Training

Out of the UK, the cradle of the animal rights terror movement, comes a study that denigrates the use of electronic collars as a tool for dog training:

“The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs with Remote Electronic Training Collars in Comparison to Reward Based Training” *

If you read the abstract, there doesn’t seem to be any real downside to using electronic training collars. But the take-home message? E-Collars work, but not any better than positive reinforcement, so why subject your dog to unnecessary stess? And now, we have another biased study to point to in order to justify the ban on E-Collars that animal rights nuts are pushing for in the UK. Talk about researcher bias! 

Of course, the group of dogs they studied were PET dogs. And what is the most common use for E collars in pet dogs? It’s for pet containment in areas where fences are not used. I suppose it’s better to have your dog tethered? Maybe these animal rights do-gooders would  prefer that your dog roam and be hit by a car?

E collars are also commonly used to avoid surgical debarking for dogs who are noisy. A noisy dog provokes complaints, and may end up at the dog pound unless the owner has options available such as a bark collar or surgical debarking.

E collars are successfully and humanely used to train dogs for off leash work, such as hunting or obedience.  A well-trained dog is a happy dog under the charge of a responsible and loving owner. 

Now, to add insult to injury we find AKC’s Vice President Gina DiNardo on a TV program discussing use of E Collars. DiNardo states that “we” (presumably the AKC) support only positive reinforcement in dog training.” **

Will corrections with a flat collar and lead soon be out at the AKC? Maybe they should make a rule that dogs can’t be restrained on a lead at a dog show. After all, a snap on the lead! WELL! That is NOT POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT. 

This is what it says about electronic collars in the Board Policy Manual:***

Training Collars (July 2001 Board meeting) Special training devices that are used to control and train dogs, including but not limited to, collars with prongs, electronic collars used with transmitters, muzzles and head collars may not be used on dogs at AKC events, except as allowed in the AKC Rules, Regulations, and policies. 
The American Kennel Club recognizes that special training collars may be an effective and useful management device, when properly used, for controlling dogs that might be extremely active, difficult to control on a neck collar, or dog aggressive. These collars are also recognized as possibly useful for gaining control at the start of basic obedience training, essential education that dogs deserve and need. 
There is a point at which owners should have sufficient control of their dogs to manage them on regular neck collars, without the use of special training collars. This is the point at which dogs are acceptable on the grounds of AKC competitive events and will have the opportunity to participate in those events.

Yes, AKC has the right to ban muzzles, e-collars and prong collars from their shows, but what people do away from the show grounds is none of their business. The AKC does NOT have the right to get on national television and denigrate a very useful, humane and responsible tool for training. Trainers should have the option to choose which training methods work best for them, without the nannies of the world butting in. 

And speaking of the nannies of the world, why here’s one now! 

AKC's Vice President Gina DiNardo

Media Appearances:

• More than 100 TV/Radio appearances

• NBC’s Today Show – multiple appearances

• iVillage Live – multiple appearances

• TV Commentator – Mohegan Sun AKC Events

• Satellite Media Tours for AKC/Eukanuba National Championship and AKC Meet the Breeds

• NPR and Animal Planet Radio

She’s presented as a media pro and is a top level AKC official, and yet, she spouts notions contrary to the interests of dog owners….the very group that AKC supposedly represents. If AKC has ANY integrity, they will fire this ignorant talking head immediately. 

Not only is John Q Public being snowed, but seems as though AKC is being infiltrated by the warm, fuzzy, “they're our fur kids” types. The same type who recoil in horror at the thought of disciplining their child in any meaningful manner. Can you imagine controlling a recalcitrant child using only "positive reinforcement"? It doesn't work for kids and it doesn't work for dogs, either. A stern "NO" would also be banned under the system of positive reinforcement only. Boo Hoo! You might cause STRESS and hurt feelings! 

This kind of evolving intrusive and restrictive "Welfare" philosophy is why we should fear the publishing of the upcoming Purdue study on dog husbandry practices.

Let’s see, Sayre to PIJAC, Prager to APHIS . . . . what’s next, Pacelle to AKC?  

*http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0102722

**http://video.foxnews.com/v/3782913580001/humane-to-use-shock-collars-for-dog-training/#sp=show-clips

***http://www.akc.org/rules/policymanual.cfm?page=5

Shelter Schizophrenia

If you had to describe the shelter/rescue movement in just one word, that word would be:

SCHIZOPHRENIC***

How does mental illness relate to the shelter and rescue mindset, you might ask?

The GLARING evidence for the disjointed, illogical mentality of "rescue" and "adoption" was right there in public view, in the commercials during the Superbowl football game a couple of days ago.

First, check out this ad from Audi featuring a "Doberhuahua".

 

Haha, very funny, eh? A young couple are stupid enough to breed their obviously mismatched dogs, and the result of their efforts is the "puppy from hell." He's snarling, aggressive, dangerously insane, and stupid to boot. He's a mixed breed dog, an intentionally bred dog. Yet, by some strange twist of fate, he is thrown into the mix with all the other intentionally-bred "purebred" dogs at a dog show. Maybe Audi's people read about how mixed breeds are competing at Westminster (even though just in performance events) and thought it would be clever to poke fun at that idea?

It seems to be "common knowledge" as promoted in this commercial, that if a dog is purposely bred (either a purebred, or heaven forbid! a mixed breed), then he is going to be defective. And both purebred and mixed breed dogs automatically qualify to participate in a dog show, according to this commercial. HUH?

Perhaps someone should educate the folks at Audi at how we arrived at the Doberman breed. We MIXED the shorthaired shepherd, Rottweiler, Black and Tan Terrier and the German Pinscher to get the breed today known as a Doberman Pinscher. And chihuahuas were MIXED with another breed to get the long coated variety.

The ad ends with the couple picking up a shelter pet. Naturally, the shelter dog is a well-behaved WONDERFUL dog; no one knows what breeds went into his makeup, so we can't make fun of his lineage.

How illogical and delusional is it to believe that a mixed breed dog is a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad dog.... UNLESS he comes out of an animal shelter? In which case, he's automatically a perfect little angel.

Did I mention that schizophrenia is characterized by withdrawal from reality?

More evidence? How about a commercial from people you would normally expect to "get it", Budweiser? Their annual Superbowl commercial is usually wonderful, and this year it is a commercial featuring purebred English Labrador Retriever puppies. Take a look!

 

Hmmm. In this commercial the intro features a sign for "puppy adoptions", and then shows a pen full of gorgeous Labrador Retriever puppies.

Are we supposed to believe that this is a "rescue" center, since they are using the politically correct term "puppy adoptions"? My first thought was that the only way a "rescue" gets their grubby paws on beautiful puppies like those is by stealing them from a breeder.

Then the rest of the video shows the antics of an escape artist pup and his horse friends who team up to prevent him from leaving for his new home. Sure, it could happen (rolls eyes). Wonder why the pup doesn't have a dam who was worriedly looking after him. We only see Little Miss Adoption Godmother tracking him down. This seems to give further credence to the idea that this is a "rescue" scenario.

After a bit of investigating, I found that the puppies in the Budweiser video were bred by Blackfork Labradors. They state on their website that they breed English-style Labradors in four different colors. No mention of AKC registration but mention of careful selection for health and fitness for work and companionship.

I found myself wondering if these particular breeders might soon become a target of the new APHIS rules, as it seems they ship dogs to buyers in what might be viewed as "large volume". I hope they were not consulted about the content of this commercial, as "adoption" centers aim to put breeders out of business....permanently!

The commercial itself was taped at Warms Springs Ranch, owned by Budweiser. The website of Warm Springs Ranch states that it is a breeding farm. NOT an adoption center or a rescue.

So why use a touchy-feely phrase like "adoption" if we are talking about a dog SALE? Sales of animals are NOT "adoptions". Ever. You "adopt" a child or a relative. You OWN your pet. Big difference. Animals are only referred to as being "adopted" lately because we as a society are falling into the trap of using the animal rights extremist propagandist lingo.

Anheuser-Busch should have refrained from such animal rightist jargon. If you breed and sell, say so! Don't insert "adoption" signs into the mix just to be politically correct.

Similarly, a friend of mine recently took back a puppy she bred. When she found him another home, she actually told the buyer to consider that puppy a "rescue"!! When I asked her Why on Earth would she want anyone to think that her beautiful puppy was a "rescue", she replied, "Well, the concept of 'rescue' is important to my buyer and she wants to feel like she is doing something good by 'rescuing' a dog."

How schizophrenic are we, that we feel guilty about buying or selling a nice dog? We have become browbeaten into surrender under the brunt of propaganda by misanthropist humaniacs who foist phoney terms on us like "rescue" and "adoption" and "puppy mill" and "backyard breeder"....and all the rest of their trashy rhetoric.

The Budweiser Clydesdales are carefully selected to look, act, and perform as top notch draft horses. Why produce a commercial that tacitly promotes animal "rescue" and "adoption"? As if breeding wonderful dogs for sale is something of which to be ashamed.

Let's refrain from promoting this unrealistic, martyr/savior complex when it comes to our animals. Please.

Yes, this commercial is "cute" and "heartwarming" and all the other trite cliches, but when you consider that damaging attitudes are reinforced with widely-distributed videos like this one, it is easy to see where all the intrusive and draconian nationwide anti-animal ownership legislation is coming from. Animals endowed with Disney-esque human qualities in the popular media have spawned the disjointed and illogical, SCHIZOPHRENIC animal rights philosophy.

You'd think Anheuser-Busch might consider the part their highly popular commercials play in forming public perceptions. After all, they are horse owners. Are they unaware that there is a highly successful campaign right now in New York City to ban carriage horses from Central Park? Don't they realize that their Clydesdales could be the next target of an animal rights attack campaign?

It seems to me that this failure to "get" the big picture is simply a manifestation of our own schizophrenic denialism when it comes to the threats from animal extremists.

Animal rights nuts often ascribe human thoughts and feelings to animals in order to make us want to treat animals more like humans. I don't find that "cute" at all. For that reason, I could not enjoy this year's Budweiser commercial.

We should strive to reject pathologic altruism as a philosophy counter to our well-being and that of our animals.

***SCHIZOPHRENIC: "Of, relating to, or characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements."

or

"Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances."

That'll Never Happen!

What do veganism, the movie "Blackfish" and the proposal to ban Central Park carriage horses all have in common?

They are all results of the extremist animal rights agenda to eliminate animals from our lives.

The official “Animal Rights Agenda” was drafted in 1987 and included in the Green Party platform, and was also published in ‘Animals Agenda’ magazine. The “Agenda” includes these statements of policy:

• We strongly discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or purebred dogs and cats.
• We encourage vegetarianism for ethical, ecological, and health reasons.
• We call for the eventual elimination of animal agriculture.
• We believe that animals should be left in their appropriate environments in the wild, not showcased for entertainment purposes.
• Hunting, trapping, and fishing for sport should be prohibited.

People scoffed at groups like PETA. "Those crazy ideas will NEVER take hold!" they said.

But here we are, nearly 30 years later.  And we can see that the campaign for animal rights has had a definite influence on society. Inch by inch, bit by bit, these animal rights concepts are taking root in the public psyche.

Veganism is promoted in our schools and in many commercial food enterprises.

Laws restricting breeding of pets are being seen in many areas.

Pet stores are being attacked for selling pets, and laws are being passed to prohibit them from doing so.

Humaniacs are infiltrating agriculture with moles and fabricating videos that supposedly demonstrate "abuse".

In California, the name of the Department of Fish and Game was recently changed to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. A subtle but disturbing shift. The term "wildlife" is not necessarily synonymous with "game".

Animals have lived outdoors in a wide range of temperatures since time immemorial, but suddenly the government is confiscating dogs that are kept outdoors. "Too cold", they claim.
 
Demonstrators attacked the Sea World float at this year's Rose Parade in Pasadena, and masses of ordinary people who saw the movie "Blackfish" are now proclaiming "I'll never go to Sea World again!"

The film "Blackfish", filled with misrepresentations and lies, was produced by anti-captivity animal rights activists with an agenda. The lies are being slowly revealed, but the damage to the reputation of marine parks has already been done. It's a little too late to put the toothpaste back into the tube now. Animal activists know that getting in the first strike is imperative to shock and sway the attitude of the public.

Horses have been bred for centuries to pull carriages, but according to animal rights extremists, this is now an abusive form of "slavery".

The comparison of animals to human "slaves" or animals to human victims of genocide should be deeply offensive to people everywhere.

New York City's new mayor DeBlasio has vowed to put an end to the horse carriage industry in that city. He is not only pandering to animal rights groups; he has an ulterior motive for banning horse-drawn carriages. The pricey real estate currently occupied by the stables has been promised to a campaign contributor. 

The mayor has hidden his agenda to pad his own wallet behind wild-eyed humaniac crusaders who want to "free the horses". Freed, to join the masses of other horses who are slaughtered because of lack of resources to feed and house them. A horse without a paying job is a dead horse.

The campaign against animal agriculture could not be more clearly delineated. Miyun Park, HSUS Vice President from 2005-2009, said at an animal rights conference in 2006: “We don’t want any of these animals to be raised and killed [for food]…unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of waiting until we have the opportunity to get rid of the entire industry. And so because of that….we work on promoting veganism.”

And thanks to this "work", humane and ethical measures designed to keep animals safe, such as cages for chickens or prods to keep cattle on their feet, are now viewed as "cruelty".

Our largely urban society does not have any realistic understanding of agricultural animal management. Few people nowadays live on farms, and those who never gave a second thought to where their dinner came from see a video with trumped-up incidents of farm animal cruelty, and suddenly they embrace veganism with a born-again religious fervor.

The end justifies the means, to radical activists. Lies about supposed animal cruelty and abuse justify the goal of getting people to reject the very basic and natural human-animal relationships. Once the humaniacs gain public acceptance of their claims of exploitation and abuse, it is easier to push through more and more laws that restrict animal ownership.

Step by step, eliminating the human-animal connection. That's the goal of groups like PETA, HSUS, and the ASPCA, and that goal is  gradually becoming reality.

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!

Rock Bottom

Imagine you live in a state where it is illegal to buy or take possession of an animal in a public place. Where you cannot buy a pet in a pet store, unless it is a "rescue" or shelter animal that may be trucked in from another state or even another country. Where dogs must be spayed/neutered by law in many localities, and where the state  government actually wanted to pass a mandate that every dog in the state be sterilized. 

In this hypothetical place, you cannot easily own an intact animal. In order to qualify, you must show your dog in competition, belong to a breed club with an enforced code of ethics, and pay a hefty fee. Breeding is out of the question because government requires you to qualify for an expensive breeding permit before you can ever consider the possibility. Any pet that is "adopted" through a shelter or rescue MUST be sterilized BY LAW. There are limits on how many pets you can own. All the while, you hear grumblings on the street that there aren't enough homes to absorb the strays. Well, that last part about not enough homes for the strays is a lie,  but you have heard so many lies told so often, that you now just accept those lies at face value and believe them as truth. 

Now imagine that you don't care too much about any of that, because you don't have any plans to be a dog breeder. You are happy to own an occasional pet or two. None of those problems affect you, right?


Let's see about that. 

Believe it or not, our hypothetical state actually exists. It's called CALIFORNIA. 

So, one fine sunny California day, you decide that you would like to get a puppy of a certain breed that you have long admired.

You pick up the Los Angeles Times and pull out the classified ads. You quickly scan to the "Pets for sale" section. Notice anything strange? Where there used to be dozens of ads for puppies and kittens on a daily basis, now you are lucky to find a handful. And darn it all, there is NOT ONE AD for the breed you want.

You go to your local pet store. They do not sell pets, they inform you, only pet supplies. Maybe on the weekend you can come back when they have an "adopt-a-thon"?

So now, you are looking online, researching about the breed of puppy you would like to buy. You come across a website that urges you to contact a local breed club for breeder referrals.

You find the local club for the breed you are interested in, and contact them. But no one has any puppies available. In fact, few members are even planning to have any litters in the near future. Even fewer are interested in talking to you, a complete stranger, who could very well be a government agent looking for people breeding dogs "under the radar".

You decide to look a bit farther from home, maybe in Nevada or Arizona or Oregon. Now you are being told, it may be possible to buy a puppy but none of those breeders will ship due to new federal regulations. Can you afford to take time off from work to drive out of state? Can you afford to buy a round trip plane ticket for yourself, and then an extra fare for the puppy?

So there are no puppies available locally in either pet stores or from local breeders. Going outside the local area is too difficult and expensive. Just where will you find a puppy? Rescues and shelters may have a dog that looks similar to the breed you are interested in, but you have no way to know the health history of the dog and its relatives. That makes you feel uneasy. They don't have any puppies, only adults. You really want the joy of raising a puppy of your own. Also, when buying a shelter or rescue pet, there are no money-back guarantees, like the state requires when you buy from a breeder or a pet store.

Sure, you have adopted shelter animals in the past, and they can be wonderful, but you really want a puppy of this particular breed THIS TIME. Why can't you find one? And while researching online, you have read the latest canine health studies that have given you pause about spay/neuter, particularly at a young age. If you are lucky enough to find a puppy or dog of the breed you want through a shelter or rescue, why are you being forced to sterilize your dog, when you don't want to?

So now, you are starting to get pretty pissed off. You can actually feel your knickers twisting, and it is quite uncomfortable. What right does the government have to limit your choice of pet and what you do with it? Why all the insane rules?

Maybe you give up, throw up your hands in frustration, and settle for a pet rock. Or maybe, just maybe, you mobilize your family and friends and insist that your politicians answer to you for the anti-pet laws they are passing on a regular basis.

Once you have hit rock bottom, please don't settle for a pet rock. Speak up! Elections DO have consequences, and we are now paying the price for electing current AR-friendly politicians at the state and federal level. 

Here's a novel concept. How about we vote for those politicians who uphold the constitution and preserve the rights of the individual? And make sure to let them know WHY you are voting either for or against them. 

Two thirds of US households own pets. Once politicians realize that we are a voting force to be reckoned with, they will not be so eager to pass such oppressive laws.

May you find the puppy of your dreams, but at this point, I'm not real optimistic about that possibility.

Read Between the lines - USDA Conference Call

I've got the transcript in front of me from the USDA conference call regarding the new rules for retail pet stores, that took place on Sept 10, 2013, Thanks to the Sportsman and Animals Owners' Voting Alliance! I've also listened to the recording of the call, courtesy of The Cavalry Group. After examining the details of the call, I tried to imagine how it might go with a "read-between-the-lines" interpretation. Here we go!

Kevin:

Welcome, callers. After suffering years of much yammering in our ears from scam groups like the Humane Society of the United States, the Doris Day Animal League, the ASPCA and other radical animal extremist groups, we are posting new rules limiting your exemption from the Animal Welfare Act as a retailer of pets. Dogs, primarily. But of course we will combine different species to "count against you" in order to limit you further.

We've discovered that 80% of breeders out there are hobbyists and are escaping our iron fist. That will never do! We want them to change to a business model.

The humaniac supporters of our new rules claim that USDA licensing is the hallmark of a "puppy mill". We're not so sure about that, but we are really listening to them. It seems that even though they don't like USDA licensed breeders, they want to have thousands more of them. Go figure! But, we need the money so we're anxious to get started. Why, they've already greased the palms of the politicians who appoint us with millions of dollars! We are DETERMINED to please them! Maybe we'll enjoy more of that sweet gravy!

We relied on the HSUS and other animal fanatics to help write up these new rules. They decided that you should be allowed no more than four female dogs on your premises. Any intact bitch "counts against you" as long as she is not too old or too young. But we will be the ones to decide if she "counts against you" or not! It's good to be queen, no? We don't bother with those pesky little details, like whether or not she is ever actually bred.

Further, our good friends, the humaniacs, insist that you must have a face-to-face meeting involving buyer, seller and the pet when the transfer is made. This doesn't need to be at your home, where you could be robbed at gunpoint or targeted by animal rights nuts who enjoy turning breeders in to authorities for any infraction of rules or laws, whether real or imagined.

No problem! You can meet in the WalMart parking lot. Just like all the people who sell sick dogs out of the backs of their trucks that they brought up from Mexico a few days ago.. You just go ahead and model your business practices after them. Many of them claim to be "rescues", so we can be sure that they are more noble than the rest of humanity. We like those "rescues" because they don't intentionally breed dogs. At least, we can't prove that they do, so no point in pursuing them. They are exempt from any and all rules.

Even though all dogs shipped currently are examined by a veterinarian, we have no confidence in the ability of a veterinarian to evaluate health. A veterinary health certificate is useless, even though all airlines currently require one to ship a dog. The buyer knows better than a veterinarian if the pet is healthy or not. Besides, we really don't care about health. It's all about getting snitches into your home in our quest to stop you from breeding.  

We are fully aware that hundreds of thousands of you oppose being brought under wholesale, commercial breeder regulations. We also know of the many concerns you have and exactly WHY you are opposed. We've read all of your comments, petitions and letters; but frankly, WE DON'T CARE. These are the new rules. If you don't like them, then you can just quit breeding dogs. Please.

We are only here today to explain to you, the BREEDERS who sell and ship sick, genetically defective pets to poor, unsuspecting buyers, why you can't do that any more. We will answer your questions if we feel like it. Regarding the questions we don't understand or don't want to be truthful about? Well, we will simply hem, haw and hedge.

Frankly, we don't like the fact that the information superhighway has facilitated sales of pets. Things have just been too easy lately for buyers and sellers. We prefer the days when people had to rely on classified ads in newspapers or the back of magazines to sell pets. That really put a cramp on pet sales, and we appreciated that. We really thought it was terrible that Sears, Roebuck and Co. sold dogs by catalog, but we could never figure our any way to "get" them for doing that.

Until now, that is.

We initially provided estimates on how many more breeders we thought we would be licensing, but we really doubt that will happen. We know that most of you will give up your dog breeding entirely, or at least cut it back significantly. If you want to give USDA licensing a whirl, we anticipate that you will need a one-time investment in an amount to effectively double the size of your current mortgage, to convert your home into a commercial kennel. Of course, your local zoning laws will prevent that anyway, so don't worry! It's all good.

OK let's get right to those questions! Who is first?

Susan from Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders:

My dogs both work in the field and are pets and are show dogs, too. Must I become USDA licensed? What do you consider a "working dog" for purposes of exemption?

Dr. Russian:

Let me get this straight, you have a dog who does multiple things?

Susan: Right.

Dr. Russian:
Wow that's incredible! Then you must keep separate kennels. Dogs that work must be kept separately from dogs who are pets.

Susan:

But it's the same breed. It's the same dogs. All my dogs have multiple uses. They are retrievers, they hunt. I don't keep them in kennels. They are house pets too. Would hunting dogs and retrieving dogs be considered "working dogs" for purposes of exemption?

Dr. Russian:

What a conundrum. I really don't understand the concept of dogs having multiple uses and purposes. I suggest you call me and run your "business model" past me. That way I can figure out the best way to harrass you, OK? And make sure to tell all the other people in your group to call me, too! Next caller.

Roland from the National Finch and Softbill Society:

Are birds exempt? What about birds or dogs bred to a breed standard? How many comments opposed your new rules? Will the USDA contract out their inspections?

Kevin:

Birds are exempt. That's why we took your call. Geez, why did you have to ask other questions too? Who the hell is screening these callers?

Well, let me try to tackle the other questions, since this is probably all going on the record. We have no plans to outsource inspections at this time. Why should we when we have HSUS lackies employed right here at the USDA for that purpose? No comment on how many comments were submitted in opposition to the new rules. We frankly don't care. As to standards, we have our own standards, and they are arbitrary and capricious. That suits us just fine. We don't care about you.

Roland:

Again, why are show standards not taken into consideration?

Dr. Russian:

The rules are up, read them and get back to me. We've already told you, we don't give a shit about show standards.

Sarah from HSUS and Doris Day Animal League:

We are SO EXCITED that OUR new rules are going into effect!!! We only hope that they can do enough damage to really cripple pet breeding here in the US before this gets challenged in court. Our group (DDAL) already tried to push retail hobby breeders into the same regulations as wholesale, commercial breeders, but the courts ruled that we couldn't do that. The nerve of those courts, upholding the constitution! But that won't stop us from continuing on our crusade to ban breeding! My question is, how will you make effective use of your time and limited resources? How soon will you jump on board our bandwagon and start reaching out to bitchslap some breeders?

Kevin:

Not to worry, Sarah and other goodie two-shoes. We want to get to the most people as quickly as possible in order to protect animals from being exploited as pampered pets. We will look initially at those breeders we can catch who appear to have high volume, then we will be happy to take complaints from humaniacs such as yourself. So we will be depending on you guys from HSUS, DDAL, CAPS and other to help us out here, OK? Please don't let us down!!

Sarah:

We are ready, Kevin!! We won't fail in our quest to shut down every dog breeder in the US! Thanks again!

Jennifer from the HTPCB:

What is the definition of a "breeding bitch"?

Kevin:

It doesn't matter as long as you let people into your home to inspect you. Why are you breeders so hung up on definitions? We make the definitions up as we go along.

Dr. Russian:

Breeding FEMALE (oh I just can't bring myself to use that "B" word!). I say, it's a dog that can breed. Ultimately, we decide what does or does not "count against you" for your numbers limit. End of story!

Cathy from Animal Welfare Institute:

Hallelujah! Our prayers have been answered! New rules to put more pet breeders out of business. I just want to be sure you cover each and every species of pet. There is too much animal suffering, forcing them to be pets.

Kevin:

Yes, don't worry. All species of pets are covered.

Cathy:

Whew! Thanks again!

Tracy from the HSUS:

We are thrilled that those greedy, evil breeders will now be forced into the USDA system or quit breeding entirely. Thrilled, I tell you! When can we get started?

Kevin:

Well, by law, we have to wait 60 days to start enforcing any new rules. However, our motto here at the USDA is "why wait on legal technicalities"? Let's start right now looking for people to harrass by going through breed registries and looking at people advertising on the internet. We hope they will voluntarily just give up breeding on their own, or turn themselves in for enforcement, but if not, don't worry, we'll be on the lookout for them.

Larry, President of North American Falconers Association:

Are birds exempt?

Kevin:

Another call about birds? Great! Yes, birds are exempt.

Larry:

But you just told the lady from Animal Welfare that all species of pets are included?

Kevin:

Well if you were looking for honesty, Larry, this is the wrong place to be. Birds are exempt. We haven't figured out how to include them "at this point". Our friends at the HSUS are helping us work on getting standards in place to regulate birds.

Larry:

Great!! Birds are exempt! Yay!

Linda, hobby breeder:

Currently buyers all come into my house. I don't ship. So I'm a retail store, right?

Kevin:

You are covered.

Dr. Russian:

People don't need to come to your home for you to be exempt. Don't listen to Kevin, he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.

Linda:

Wal Mart parking lot is OK?

Kevin:

Sure, why not? But be careful not to get arrested in the states that have laws against sales in public places. Those new laws are awesome!! Hooray for HSUS! We're so glad to see that selling animals is now a crime in many places.

Linda:

My daughter and I both have breeding bitches, she has three, I have five. I also am a broker for other people. How does all that work? These new rules are confusing.

Dr. Russian:

We see intact dogs on your premises, they are being counted. If you don't ship any dogs you are not covered. But now that we know you are a dog breeder and broker, we are going to definitely have you on our radar screen.

Linda:

But I don't ship.

Kevin:

We will wait, maybe, for a few months or even years before we start to go after people like you. But rest assured, we WILL be coming after you eventually. What we say now, and how the rules are written, may be two entirely different things.

Linda:

I advertise online, sometimes dozens of dogs for sale at a time.

Kevin:

Boy, you are one of those upfront, honest people who will be the first to go. SUCKER!!

Since you say you don't ship, we will be leaving you alone. Temporarily. Rules will be tightened up in the future to better protect dogs and persecute breeders.

Deborah from ASPCA:

Thank you thank you! How can we make sure that everyone is licensed within 60 days? How will we go after people who don't apply for a license?

Dr. G:

We will outreach beginning immediately. We will try to get the more naïve to turn themselves in and those who don't, we will be on the lookout for them. Rest assured, humaniacs, that your wish is our command.

Carla, breeder of Aussies:

There is an exemption for working dogs. What about stock dogs? And, if I have a state license, why do I need a license with the feds?

Kevin:

We don't care how many layers of bureaucracy you have to contend with. The more, the better. I don't know what a "stock dog" is so I'll let Dr. Russian address that part.

Dr. Russian:

Good God, I don't know what a "stock dog" is either. But if it isn't used for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, exhibition or use as a pet, then we can't sink our meat hooks into it. Darn.

Kara from MPBA:

Can we advertise on the internet as long as we don't ship? What about my stock dogs? What if I say I'm selling breeders? Can't you give us a few loopholes to work with?

Dr. Russian:

We LOVE people who advertise on the net, that's where we will go a-huntin' for breeders. So advertise away! Your business model is what we are looking at. If you sell dogs, then how you do it is OUR decision!

After all these questions about dogs for stock, I am really wondering now what the heck you are talking about. Stocking the shelves of your stores? Making soup? You breeders are really wierd!!

Kevin:

We are from the government, and we are here to help! Restraint of trade is what we do best. Who needs free enterprise? Phooey.

We suggest if you are confused about the rules that you call us so we can begin to investigate you immediately. We need to know about your "business model" even though you are a hobby breeder, not a business. We don't take into consideration your profit or loss, only the fact that you dare to sell pets. At the end of the day, that's all that matters. We are here for the animals, and as long as we draw breath and continue to collect our six-figure salaries (provided by your tax dollars), we are committed to continuing to dream up new ways to screw over anyone evil enough to breed pets.

I will happily refer those of you with further questions to our knowledgeable enforcement division: Sarah L. Conant, former lawyer for the Humane Society of the US, and animal rights extremist Deborah Dubow Press. They are waiting to prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. They'll even do it with a smile!

And, if we can drive a few breeds extinct, or prevent someone from getting the dog of their dreams, then our efforts will not have been in vain.

The dog of tomorrow, once breeding is stopped.