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!!

.

Big Bucks in Retail Rescue!

How would you like to own the beautiful dogs pictured above? Friendly, healthy, happy, well-groomed, tail-wagging purebred Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. RAISING MY HAND here! I'd like to have ALL of them.

The owner, a USDA licensed breeder, has obviously taken very good care of them. And apparently just got paid off, BIG TIME!

Several "Rescue" groups heard that these dogs would be made available by the owner at public auction. One rescue group actually set up a "Go Fund Me" page for the purpose of bidding on the dogs. In less than two weeks, this one rescue group raised......are you ready for this?......over $183,000!

I'm not sure how many dogs this one particular group bought for the purpose of reselling at retail, but if they bought all 108 of the dogs mentioned in the article, they would immediately have available about $1700 to spend on each and every dog! I'm sure the original owner is laughing all the way to the bank, for getting a big price for these retired breeding dogs.

Not to mention, the "rescue" will be SELLING them soon to the public. Probably for several hundred dollars apiece. 


That's ends up netting them over $2000 per dog. Pay for a dental, a quick-snip castration, and WALA! A fast and easy profit.

And they say dog breeders are money-grubbing "puppy mills"! Pot, meet kettle!

Dog breeders don't have bleeding heart donations from fraudulent "Go Fund Me" pages to help them pay their mortgages and veterinary expenses. 

Dog breeders must pay for a Federal license. They have to be inspected. They are required to provide proper care and treatment of their dogs, BY LAW. They have to pay a LOT of money to keep their premises in acceptable conditions, to provide regular veterinary care, to pay for permits and fees. They have people watching to make sure that drinking water is fresh, that any medications used are in date, that accommodations are roomy enough.

"Rescues", who in cases like this are really nothing but Retail Rescue pond scum, have NO REGULATION. No care standards, nobody watching to make sure they take good care of their charges. And indeed, we have seen MANY rescues in recent years busted for animal neglect and cruelty. 

Any other pet dealer has to be licensed by USDA, but apparently not if you are a self-proclaimed "rescue".

Yet, in the eyes of the public,dog breeders are the "greeders", the bad guys! Dog breeders want to MAKE MONEY!!!!

I ask you, how else can one pay for dog food?

But that doesn't stop people from justifying this insane action. Why, they are saving these dogs from a fate worse than death! Being used for BREEDING!  The awful original owner had 100 dogs and was a PUPPY MILL!!

And they are putting this horrible, dog-abusing "miller" out of business.....how? By paying him big bucks for his dogs? 

Good plan.

Maybe he can retire...or maybe, he can take that money and go out and buy a whole bunch of new dogs to continue his breeding program. 

Good for him! Take the money, because you sure ain't gettin' no respect. Hey, maybe you can get the rescue groups to buy dogs from you again! A lot more profitable than breeding, and easier, too.

The donations for the PET STORE DEALER oops, sorry, I mean "Rescue", continue to stream in from John Q. Public. I guess Obamacare's "architect" Gruber was right after all when he said people are stupid. You can check here to see how much money to date the "rescue" group has raised from all the bleeding heart dummies out there. Maybe it'll be up to a $$ quarter million $$ in another week or so. 

That'll buy a whole lotta halo polish.


The 'abused' dogs one day after purchase. So sick, neglected and terrified due to their awful lives with an EEEEEVIL
PUPPY MILLER!

 

News flash..... had to update this as I find out more. There was actually raised a total amount of over $350,000 to buy these hundred dogs! Sucker born every minute!

PIJAC HIJACKED?

Today I read a post from PIJAC on Facebook in support of going out to a park in Washington DC where "rescue" pet adoption was being offered. That's rather odd, coming from PIJAC, the "Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council;" a group that is supposed to be an advocate for the pet industry. I would assume "industry" might include commercial breeders, licensed private breeders, and the like. Supporting "industry" would seem to be at odds with "rescue" unless, of course, pet "rescue" with their commandeering of the pet store niche, importing animals for retail sales in the US and the like, is finally being recognized as part of the "pet industry."

Funny that in 2011, PIJAC joined the HSUS to also publicly support California's SB 917, a measure that prohibits sales of animals in public places. If "rescue" is an industry like any other, why is PIJAC supporting "rescue" sales in the park, when they previously supported a law to prohibit sales in public places? Why is PIJAC colluding with the HSUS on measures that prevent pet sales, yet at the same time promoting sales in the park?

Has PIJAC been hijacked by the schizophrenic insanity of the animal rights movement?

So, here in California we have many cities which allow no pets for sale in pet stores, unless they are from unlicensed, unregulated "rescues." No public sales, unless they are from unlicensed, unregulated "rescues."

A very successful rescue in my area, "Priceless Pets" has been obtaining pets from the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA (IVHS) in Pomona, California, and selling them at retail. In fact, they are following the suggested business model here in California cities. They are selling these pets in a retail outlet pet store in Chino Hills, CA.

That's good, right? We are passing laws to outlaw public sales, to outlaw pets in pet stores unless they come from a "rescue." So, our local rescue is going with the trend, rescuing dogs and selling them in a retail pet store outlet.

Hold it right there! The IVHS now is prohibiting Priceless Pets from pulling animals from the shelter. They want to examine PP's "business model." They are afraid that Priceless Pets is operating as......hold on to your hat.....a PET STORE!!

OH NO!

But wait, we all thought that's what the public wants? Pet stores selling rescued animals for adoption? Our legislators are passing laws giving rescues monopolies on sales. And now, they don't want the rescues to operate as "pet stores?" It's a bit late to change your mind about that, now, isn't it?

Maybe the plain truth of the metter is that they simply don't want ANYONE to sell pets. Not pet stores, not breeders, not rescues, not anyone!

We want you to sell rescued pets in public places and pet stores....yes, we do....no, we don't.....yes, we do.....no, we don't.......yes, we do.....no, we don't....

In fact, this very same rescue group, Priceless Pets, has been persecuted unmercifully by the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA. In 2011, the owners of Priceless Pets WENT TO JAIL FOR FIVE DAYS, at the insistence of the IVHS, for zoning violations!

Yes, they really want to find homes for the animals, don't they? NOT! They'd much rather kill them. The animal rights faction really does live up to the motto:

 

"Animal Rights Means No Animals Left."

This entire "pet store vs rescue" fiasco coming to the forefront this week reminded me that I had never posted the article to this blog about California's SB 917. It went to "The Dog Press," but not here. So, here it is now, three years later. Thanks, PIJAC, for helping the HSUS push this one through!

California approves ban on public sales of animals – SB 917

 

Sale of an animal in public will now be a criminal offense

 

 

Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary,California Federation of Dog Clubs

July 27, 2011

 

SB 917 was signed into law yesterday by Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. The criminal animal cruelty statute now will include public sales of animals, making sales a misdemeanor offense right up there in the same league with beating, torturing and cruelly killing an animal. The law will go into effect in 2012.

 

The notorious CA SB 917 has been promoted by supporters as a ban on "roadside sales" of animals. In actuality, this bill prohibits any public animal sales activities unless specifically exempted….roadside or not. No animal sales may transpire in any public place. Offenders would face a fine on a first offense, and misdemeanor criminal charges thereafter. SB 917 adds to the current criminal animal cruelty statue. Current law describes animal cruelty offenses (such as torturing, tormenting, cruelly beating, mutilating, or cruelly killing an animal) and specifies that such activities can be charged as either misdemeanors or felonies, with possible jail time. SB 917 doubles the maximum allowed penalties for these offenses.

 

Equating heinous, abusive actions with animal sales sets the bar for animal cruelty at a very low threshold. Under the language of this bill, selling puppies will become as unfavorably regarded by the public as selling such contraband items as illegal drugs or stolen merchandise. This bill also establishes a worrisome precedent by criminalizing the very act of sales itself. The act of selling is not inherently abusive by any stretch of the imagination. Where will this lead in the future? It is frightening to contemplate.

 

Dog club meeting at a coffee shop? Transferring ownership of animals in the parking lot is now a criminal offense. Do you live 200 miles from your buyer? Be careful! Meeting midway to sell a puppy in any public place could now earn you a rap sheet. Giving kittens away at the local supermarket could be considered a misdemeanor offense under the provisions of this bill, as that could be construed by overzealous officers as “giving away as part of a commercial transaction”. Hey, the kid has change in his pocket? He must have been selling those kittens!

 

In a practical sense, what does this mean for animals? Sadly, it means that many people will be afraid to place animals at all, and instead of animals finding good homes, more dogs and cats will become homeless, to starve or be hit by a car; or, they might end up in the local shelter where they will add to the death toll. The Good Samaritan who attempts to find homes for the litter of kittens under his porch would end up with a criminal record. 

 

SB 917 was crafted with some specific exemptions. Shelters, nonprofit rescues, SPCAs, and pet stores are exempt, as are events held by 4-H Clubs, and Junior or Future Farmers Clubs. Agricultural/county fairs are exempt. Stockyards, public livestock sales, and live animal markets are exempt. Dog shows, cat shows and bird shows are exempt.

The fact that certain groups can be exempt from the “crime” of selling, or that the “crime” is OK in some locations but not others, demonstrates that the act of selling itself is not inherently undesirable or criminal.

But beyond that, what does the exemption for "dog shows" mean for us as dog hobbyists?

 Not much. In order to comply with this law, the dog sale must occur on the confines of the showground. As we all are aware, AKC has a strict policy of no dog sales at dog shows. Further, in order for the sale to occur legally, the show must ensure that all exhibitors comply with all applicable federal, state, and local animal laws. This requirement would be a practical impossibility. Exhibitors travel from different cities, counties and even different states to the showgrounds. Different areas have different animal control regulations. In addition, the exhibitors must carry proof of their paid entry fee. This last requirement seems to indicate that animal control personnel intend to police showgrounds. 

And there is good reason to believe that animal control personnel intend to police this new law, determining administration of violations and penalties. The bill states: "A notice describing the charge and the penalty for a violation of this section may be issued by any peace officer, animal control officer......or humane officer". Many animal control officers have an adversarial attitude toward dog breeders, and will now have the power to serve them with criminal charges and penalties simply for conducting an honest and honorable business transaction. Criminal records adversely affects an individual's employment eligibility and credibility in general and should not be imposed lightly by an animal control officer with an ax to grind and little education in constitutional law.

 

If the dog show exemption is completely meaningless for dog hobbyists (and it is), what venue for sales is left to California dog breeders? Sales in public is prohibited, and AKC dog shows do not permit on site sales. The only alternative is to conduct dog sales from private residences. The dangers of an individual selling anything from his home are well-known. Home invasion robberies, assaults and even murders have occurred during private party sales gone awry. There have been documented incidents where puppies were stolen at gunpoint from individuals conducting sales at their residences.
   

Putting aside the danger involved, dog breeding and selling is already laden with multiple onerous regulations and is rapidly becoming cost prohibitive in California. Many localities including Los Angeles City and County limit breeders to one litter per year, and an expensive breeding permit is required. In the city of Los Angeles, it costs $335 per year to license ONE intact dog; and this only IF you meet the requirements to qualify for the intact exemption! The very survival of dog breeding in California is tenuous at best.

 

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the sponsor of SB 917. That fact alone should tell you that the bill is part of a larger agenda to stifle animal ownership. This same legislation was brought forward in previous sessions in 2009 and 2010, and did not pass. In 2009, then-governor Schwarzenegger returned the bill, AB 1122, writing: 

 

"I am returning Assembly Bill 1122 without my signature. I am concerned with the scope and unintended consequences of this bill and that it does not assure the humane and ethical treatment and welfare of animals. This bill has unknown costs associated with the enforcement and implementation of prohibiting the sale of live animals in specified venues and could drive the selling of animals underground or to private sites. For this reason I am unable to sign this bill."

 

A similar measure banning roadside sales was recently nixed by Texas Governor Perry, who wrote in his veto statement:

 

"House Bill 1768 would encroach upon the rights of private enterprise and property owners while fundamentally altering and expanding the role of county government....... As a state, we should not raise barriers of entry into the marketplace, stifle competition or hinder the entrepreneurial spirit."

 Those involved in breeding and raising animals heartily concur!

 The HSUS, the sponsor of SB 917, has an admitted agenda to make animal breeding incrementally more expensive and inconvenient. This bill is another weapon in the anti-dog breeder arsenal. Couple the ban on public sales with other bills presented this session that require sellers to report buyers information to animal control (AB 1121), that require microchipping of any dog that is impounded (SB 702), and that prohibit anyone convicted of an animal offense from residing with animals for a period of 5 to 10 years (AB 1117), and we can see the pieces of the puzzle fitting together. With HSUS sponsoring the bill, the intent is clear. Criminalize dog owners by any means possible, and then prohibit them from future animal ownership for a good long time.

 

The Animal Council and California Federation of Dog Clubs opposed SB 917 early on, and other groups in the state soon joined in the effort as well.

But sadly, the AKC chose to remain silent on this bill, citing lack of an official policy on public sales. Dwindling numbers of AKC registrations and declining sales by private parties does not seem to be sufficient motivation to spur AKC into active opposition of all anti-dog ownership proposals.  

 

The Farm Bureau also naively did not oppose SB 917, pointing to exemptions in the bill for public sales of livestock. Don’t farmers use herding, hunting and guard dogs? Do farmers realize that under SB 917, they could now be arrested for selling a puppy at a fair or livestock show? Creeping incrementalism in these animal rights-sponsored bills will hasten the day that working dogs cannot be obtained at any price.

 

PIJAC (Pet Industry Joint advisory Council) actively supported SB 917. It seems that PIJAC was delighted at the thought of eliminating any competition for pet stores and heavily-regulated commercial breeders. Unfortunately, the animal rights groups in California are also lobbying intensely to ban sales of purpose-bred pets in pet stores and replace them with unregulated “rescues”. Combine a pet store sales ban with a ban on public sales, and consumers in California will have limited options for obtaining the pet of their dreams.

 

On August 2, 1776, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin said "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately” – meaning that if they did not band together in the fight against the British, they would all be hanged separately. These words still ring true today, 235 years later. We need all the animal interest groups to work together to oppose anti-dog ownership legislation.

So be warned, Californians. Soon you can be a criminal just for selling a dog.

 

  

New crimes created by CA SB 917

 

 SEC. 2.  Section 597.4 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

   597.4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully do

either of the following:

   (1) Sell or give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live

animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot,

carnival, or boardwalk.

   (2) Display or offer for sale, or display or offer to give away as

part of a commercial transaction, a live animal, if the act of

selling or giving away the live animal is to occur on any street,

highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk.

Shelter Solutions

California’s “Hayden Law”, enacted in 1998, extended the mandatory holding period for shelter animals from 72 hours to four to six days…..and because this extended hold is a statewide mandate, the state must reimburse local shelters for their costs.

California is just plain flat broke, and for the past few years hasn’t had the money to reimburse shelters the $23 million dollars per year it owes them under Hayden. But besides just plain not having the money to fund this mandate, another problems is the fact that the state reimbursement is only paid to shelters for animals who are ultimately killed. Those animals sent to rescues or placed for adoption must be paid for by the agencies or individuals who take them from the shelter, and not by the state. Shelters may not be as proactive as necessary because they will, in theory at least, receive reimbursement for animals that are killed.

Laws with good intention often come with unintended consequences, and the Hayden law is no exception, as it has served as a disincentive for adoption. People concerned with our shelter animals, however, are howling about the proposal to repeal the reimbursement provisions of the Hayden law.


Most shelters hold dogs and cats much longer than the prescribed four to six days as it is now, and even if the Hayden law is repealed in whole or in part, shelters would most certainly not be REQUIRED to kill in three days. They can continue with their current best practices and techniques. Adoptions and pets sent out to rescues are at an all-time high. No one wants to kill, we hear from the shelters.

According to our shelter managers, Los Angeles County holds animals an average of 11 days, and the City of Los Angeles holds them for an average of nine days. Well beyond any state legal requirement. Since there has been no state reimbursement since 2009, there will be no real substantive change in conditions even if the reimbursement provision is repealed. The law will just be altered to reflect the reality of the state’s inability to fund local shelters.


Besides, there are plenty of other progressive actions that could be taken to reduce the burden on animal shelters. Here are just a few ideas that could help:


• Raise the limit number of dogs someone is allowed to own. Why is 3 a magic number – especially if they’re small?


• Stop raiding places where the dogs are fine. Stop confiscating dogs from kennels where the dogs aren’t sick, in danger, or dying. Then there wouldn’t BE so many in the shelters. OH – and if there’s NO ROOM at the shelter, then don’t confiscate what you can’t take care of!


• Start doing a better job of identifying what breed the animals in shelters belong to - THEN maybe they’ll be placed in appropriate rescue groups, or sold to people who will know what to expect when it comes to behavior – and the boomerang effect will be broken.


• How about lowering the price of the dogs and dog licenses – so people can AFFORD to own one.


• Stop the 2-tiered fee scam which requires a higher license fee for intact animals. Most of the owned dogs and cats in our state have already been castrated anyhow. But there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that intact owned animals are any more a burden on society than sterilized ones.


• Stray or feral animals are the ones who are problematic, but they don’t have OWNERS to sterilize them. Feral cats comprise the majority of intakes and deaths. Trap-neuter and release of feral cats is a proven solution that few animal control departments use. I guess it’s easier to continue to blame animal owners for all the animals out there who don’t have owners.


• Stop the exaggerations about the numbers of dogs that are pure-bred. Many shelter workers have personally told me, and I’ve seen it, that there are VERY few. The ads/promos make it sound like the shelter has ALL the breeds, just come and get one. People go looking for a pure-bred – and they’re not there. There are many excellent reasons for purebreds – including some idea of personality, size, and behavior – not to mention benefits of specific breeds for people with allergies.


• Provide incentives for apartment owners to allow pets.


• Picked up a stray with a license or a microchip? Give it a free ride home. Stop charging up the ying-yang with outrageous impound fees so high that people can’t afford to bail their pet out.


• Stop allowing the mass importation of stray dogs from Mexico, Taiwan, the Caribbean, Spain, Brazil, etc. Shelters and rescues import thousands every year.


• Make the shelters report legitimate numbers – and NOT count the dogs multiple times, NOT count the DOA, and NOT count the ones brought in at the end of their lives to have a humane end.


• Take the funds that encourage illegal aliens to take up residence and live in comfort and distribute them to the shelter system instead.


• Stop making it more profitable for the shelters to kill than to rescue. Hey – make them WORK with rescue groups.


• Stop the unionization of the shelter workers. No union will EVER agree to a reduction in their force or their job security.


• FINALLY – HSUS, PETA and other sham organizations could give some of their ill-gotten SCAM monies to our shelters.


• Just STOP making laws that make it more difficult and more expensive for people to own a pet.


Our legislators should be able to come up with many more ideas – that are NOT onerous to pet-owners, that encourage people to have pets, and that would shrink the shelter population. Let’s get to brainstorming!

(Thanks to Carol Hamilton for all her great suggestions)

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."

Puppies Are Products

Puppies are products. They are a commodity that the animal shelter pet stores should relocate according to supply and demand. At least, that's the opinion of an ASPCA senior director, who was quoted in a news article yesterday about the reasons that dogs and puppies are shuffled from shelter to shelter. She said:

"It is a supply and demand issue. If you had a store and you had extra widgets at one store, and people were buying up widgets at another store, wouldn't you move your widgets?"


So, puppies are widgets, and shelters are pet stores. Glad to see them finally admit it.

However, we should all be outraged.

This is hypocrisy of the highest order, because shelters and rescues often claim that their motives are altruistic and not based on money. They urge us to "adopt, not shop". Yet, now they themselves are admitting that there is no difference in "adopting" vs "shopping" and purchasing from any other source, be it a breeder or a pet shop. A sale is a sale, and even shelters and rescues are in business to sell their product.

Yes, Puppies ARE  Products.....

There has been a dramatic decline in shelter admissions across the nation. In certain areas, shelters don't have ANY adoptable dogs to offer the public for "adoption" (SALE). Puppies are imported from other states and even other countries in order to stock the shelves.

The decline in shelter admission is a huge success story. Education has worked! Shelter killing is at an all-time low. Hooray!

But, if you were a business, say the sheltering industry, and you saw your market declining, what would be your response? You'd work your butt off trying to extend the life of your current product and expand your offering. And one of the most effective ways to do that is to eliminate the competition.

So, you perpetuate the myth of overpopulation. You tacitly encourage the importation of dogs from Mexico, Puerto Rico and Taiwan to ensure a continuing revenue stream. You claim that there is a big problem with greedy, evil breeders. You sensationalize shelter killings. You sling arrows at "hoarders" and "backyard breeders."  You denigrate dog owners as "irresponsible." You try to convince people that only "rescued" animals should be available for the pet market. You popularize slogans like "Don't breed or buy while others die"!

Also, if you're a business in trouble, what else do you do? You reach out to the government for help. Monopolies, exemptions, subsidies, new laws to enforce against your competitors.

Unfortunately, the sheltering industry model has one additional facet - the compulsion of law. Other businesses ultimately survive because people choose to do business with them as suppliers or customers. The sheltering industry has the ability to compel a portion of the community to involuntarily provide product and then make themselves the only store in town.

You shut down the competition, seize their animals, call it a "rescue" and voila! Free widgets for the store.

It doesn't get any sweeter than that.

ASPCA: Puppies Are Widgets in our Stores

The rescue relocation shuffle among animal shelters, the new pet stores, is being justified by this statement from an ASPCA senior director:

"It is a supply and demand issue," Monterose said. "If you had a store and you had extra widgets at one store, and people were buying up widgets at another store, wouldn't you move your widgets?"

Ah, NOW I understand. When the humaniac rescuers at the ASPCA and elsewhere claim that "Puppies AREN'T Products" what they really mean to say is, "Puppies ARE Widgets". Glad they cleared that up for us.

www.adn.com/2014/01/22/3285442/map-pinpoints-shelters-with-too.html#storylink=cpy

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.

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.

San Diego SPCA aims to Eliminate the Competition

Did you know that rescue groups in San Diego import dogs from outside the area, and even from Mexico? It's true. Helen Woodward has imported dogs from as far away as Romania on a regular basis. There is a shortage of adoptable dogs in San Diego. And now, these same "rescue" and "humane" groups are supporting a ban on the sales of puppies bred by licensed ethical breeders here in the US.

The animal rights fanatics prefer for NO animal to be purposefully bred, ever.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/may/02/san-diego-proposal-ban-retail-sale-dogs-cats-and-r/

"Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society and SPCA, said the ordinance would help find more homes for the 45,000 animals that come through the shelter system in San Diego County."

What a bald-faced liar!

This is not about finding homes for shelter animals. There is a grand total of ONE pet store in San Diego. Shutting them down will have vitually NO EFFECT on the shelter population, and will not help even ONE shelter dog find a home. No, this is an ideological issue. This is all about institutionalized prejudice against pet breeders. It's all about demonizing pet breeders. It's all about making pet ownership more restrictive.
But then this is the People's Republic of California we live in, so no surprise there.

Currently, no adoptable dogs are killed in San Diego's shelter system. Ever. Because THEY ALL FIND HOMES.

"Animal advocacy groups report 99 percent of canines sold in pet stores come from inhumane puppy mills, which fail to provide adequate veterinary care."

What utter CRAP. And this is published as if it were gospel by a San Diego news outlet. Commercial pet breeders are among the most highly regulated of industries. VPI pet insurance reduced the rates for pet store puppies by 30% as compared to pets obtained from other sources. Why? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary care in the first 12 weeks of life than any other puppies, and, as a result, have fewer claims.

Oregon Has to Stem the Tide of Yellow Journalism



Unsourced photo attached to referenced article. We don't know exactly what is going on here, or where the picture is from. But hey, it LOOKS dramatic, and the emotional impact is more important than any actual FACTS.

Just read a ridiculous article today (see link below), claiming that because "rescues" are bringing dogs from California to Oregon, California must surely have a surplus of pets. "California Has to Stem the Tide of Dogs" the headline blares. These relocated pets, according to this article, are riddled with disease, suffer from severe emotional distress and are kept in horrific conditions.

Well, claim #3 may not be far from the truth. Lord knows that some of these "rescues" lately have been busted for keeping their charges in abusive and negectful conditions.

While I agree that dogs should not be transported across state lines for purpose of “rescue”, most of this article is emotional histrionics with no basis in facts. Firstly, the misconception that the state of California is lax on sterilization and that is the reason that dogs are being transferred to other states is DEAD WRONG.

Under the Vincent Law, passed way back in 1998, California state shelters are mandated to sterilize all dogs and cats prior to release. Of course, this law was also based on the false premise that shelter problems are caused by failure to spay/neuter. It failed to take into account that, in 1998, shelter numbers had dramatically declined from the 1970s and 1980s...WITHOUT any mass spay-neuter, or forcing people to sterilize their adopted dog or cat.

But even as shelter numbers continued to decline, we couldn't leave well enough alone. Several local areas decided to pass laws requiring all pets to be sterilized. The most densely-populated areas of the state like Los Angeles County have had mandatory spay and neuter laws for several years now. And them, guess what happened? You got it, after those laws were passed, shelter intakes and deaths increased. That is the norm; such foolish, punitive and coercive laws always cause higher shelter intakes everywhere they have been tried. And, some people out there don't necessarily WANT their pets spayed/neutered as they are aware of the negative health consequences that often accompany such drastic measures.
Next, IF these shelter animals are in such horrific condition, how about holding the government shelters responsible for that, rather than spouting a stock meanigless reply about "overpopulation"? Aren't shelters the ones releasing these animals? At least, that is what is being reported here. IF the reporting is in any way reliable.

Shelters sending out dogs laden with parasites and rife with various diseases? Somehow I doubt that. But, even if true, abuse is abuse, whether the animals are being cared for by a private party, a state-run shelter, or a largely unregulated "rescue" operation.

And just because it's called a "shelter" or a "rescue" doesn't necessarily mean there's anything humane going on.

The fact is that there are so few pets available in some areas of the state, that shelters and rescues in California are IMPORTING DOGS from other states and even other countries.

That's right. “Dogs Without Borders” in Los Angeles will order you a dog from as far away as Taiwan. The Helen Woodward Humane Society in San Diego County has shipped in dogs from the south for years, and imports dogs from Europe...specifically from Romania....every month. Compassion Without Borders" has long brought homeless stray dogs into California for the rescue trade. Golden Retriever Rescue LA imports dogs from Taiwan. Beagle rescue flew 40 dogs from Spain into Los Angeles. Then we have Save a Mexican Mutt, who obviously bring up mutts from Mexico.

Gotta restock the store shelves, you know.

Now here's another interesting factoid that those in Oregon probably haven't considered. The US Border patrol did a survey recently and discovered that over 10,000 dogs and puppies are smuggled into San Diego County from Mexico, each and every year.

That's because the shelters in San Diego County rarely have any adoptable dogs.

The group “Wings of Rescue” admits that, over the past few years, it has cherry-picked about 2,000 of the most desirable young and small breed dogs from California's shelters to re-sell in Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia.

WHY is this happening? Why are animals being relocated from one area to another?

Because there is a shortage of pets in some areas.

Having a pet SHORTAGE is not desirable either. A shortage drives up prices, and promotes the black market sales of animals and indiscriminate breeding for quantity, not quality.

But the misguided well-meaning "rescuers" and the less-altruistic animal rights kooks won't rest until all pets in this country are sterilized. They dream of the day when there is a shortage of pets across the nation, just as there already exists a shortage in selected areas such as the New England states and the Pacific Northwest region. They'll be glad to fill the void with pets from Mexico, the Caribbean, Taiwan and other distant locales. (Shhh!! Some of them actually make money doing this!)

Now, let's conduct a little exercise in shelter math, shall we?

According to California's 2011 state shelter statistics (the latest year for which statistics are available) there were 176,907 dogs euthanized for the entire year in California's shelters. We don't know how many of these were adoptable dogs, but most shelter experts estimate that roughly half of all dogs killed are adoptable (ie not sick, injured or aggressive)

The population of California stands at just over 38 million. Using all lthis data, we can calculate that there was less than one adoptable dog killed in an animal shelter for every 400 citizens in 2011. That's hardly what anyone with two brain cells to rub together would be stupid enough to call "overpopulation"

Out of 400 people, perhaps just ONE might be looking for a nice dog? Do you think that shelters might possibly be able to find homes for all or even MOST of the adoptable dogs? There is absolutely no reason why not, IF they are doing their job in a proactive manner.

But don't let facts interfere with the spay-neuter propaganda agenda.

http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2013/01/17/7738/
http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/index.ssf/2012/12/oregon_welcomes_some_250_dogs.html