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/

The Big Lie from ASPCA

The ASPCA sent out a post via email blast this week:

It'll be a cold day in hell when I donate anything to this group.

Imagine this scene: More than 100 dazed and frightened puppies are picked up one-by-one out of filthy, cramped, wire cages and crammed into a windowless van. Missing their mothers, they spend a week hurling across Interstate highways—crying, yelping, barking and suffering—until the van pulls up to deliver them through the back-door entrance of a shopping mall pet store. In the pet store, the cute but likely malnourished, impaired, disease-carrying or emotionally scarred pups are left to do what puppies have always done: look for love in a kind, smiling face. They are bought by an unsuspecting person, and the cycle begins again.

Wow, this sounds horrible! Why, they just described the cycle of abuse perpetrated by Retail Rescue! This is EXACTLY what happens when so-called "rescues" truck dogs across the country, and subject them to thousands-of-miles-long journeys into the US from around the world! These dogs are intended to replace puppies in pet stores sourced from breeders. And yes, predictably, many of these "rescued" dogs are sick and malnourished. Some have even been infected with RABIES! 

Yep, there is no documented history on these animals at all. No way to know what sort of diseases, inherited or acquired, may be lurking. No insight as to inherited temperament. When one of these "rescued" dogs is bought by some big-hearted but dumb, unsuspecting person (like YOU), he is not covered by any "Puppy Lemon Law" protection. That means, when he bites your kid or requires expensive veterinary bills, TOUGH LUCK. You have NO RECOURSE. There is NO GUARANTEE, NO consumer protection, and no financial compensation to you.

But wait! ASPCA doesn't care about any of that....in fact, golly gee gosh! I just realized with a little more reading....they actually aren't talking about Pet Flipping "Rescues" at all.  

This is the tragedy of a puppy mill. Animals bred, born and abused in commercial breeding facilities are the very same animals destined for pet store windows in cities and towns all across America. Scenes like this play out week after week, year after year, but these tragic facilities are usually only brought to light when they are raided by animal welfare groups like the ASPCA.

Whoa! The ASPCA is trying to convince us that dogs bred by licensed and inspected breeders are all abused!  What a crock of manure! If commercial breeders are heavily regulated (and they are), how many do you think need to be "raided"? How many of their puppies are "diseased"? Do they regularly starve and beat their puppies? REALLY??

In fact, pet insurers charge much lower premiums for commercially-bred pet store dogs than they do for dogs from any other source. The reason? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary care in the first weeks of their life than puppies from any other sources, and as a result, the dogs who come from pet store have FEWER INSURANCE CLAIMS. 

Got it, ASPCA?? Commercially bred puppies are HEALTHIER than dogs sourced from small breeders and shelters. How do you like them apples, you lying scumbags? 

But wait! The ASPCA isn't finished just yet! They set the stage with fraudulent lies, and NOW.... the HOOK!!! 

With your support today, we can strengthen our work to advocate against puppy mills. We can assist in raids to expose their cruelties, fight as hard as we can to regulate commercial breeders and, most importantly, find loving homes for every innocent animal. Imagine how much suffering we could stop, and how many dogs, cats and other animals we could save, if we eliminated puppy mills in our country. That is what your gift to the ASPCA can help make possible. Please make a donation right now.

Sorry, you two-faced sheisters at ASPCA,  but when you LIE claiming that commercial breeders are not already heavily regulated, claim that their puppies are sickly and abused, and slander the name of dog breeders in general, you won't get a dime from anyone who has two brain cells to rub together. 

No breeders=no pets. 

The real goal of the ASPCA....PET EXTINCTION. 

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

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!

Can I keep My USDA Exemption?

Question: If I have only two females, can I ship and still keep my exemption? After all the discussion we've had about the new rule, I don't remember.
 

Answer: Yes, probably, since according to the amended Regulations, you can have up to four "breeding females" and ship "sight unseen" as pets. However, several issues come to mind that may not make this an easy question to answer:

1. Do you co-own "breeding females" elsewhere? Regulations unclear about whether they should be counted. Similarly, do you kennel or board "breeding females" owned by others? They possibly would be counted in the total number of breeding females allowed.


2. You are aware, aren't you? that APHIS definition of "breeding females" probably would include intact bitches that you wouldn't wouldn't consider breeding? (e.g., too old, too young, health problems etc.) -- you may not breed them but APHIS might still count them in the total if they believe them "breedable". 

 3. Do you participate in Rescue activities, and have you housed rescue "breeding females" (intact bitches)? From what I'm hearing, APHIS has for the present time chosen to look the other way on this issue, and not count rescue animals in the totals. However, by a strict interpretation of the Regulations, intact "rescue" females would count (especially if you transfer any dog "sight unseen" to a pet home), no matter how APHIS is viewing them now.


4. Are all animals shipped by you as pets offspring of the pets you own, and born and raised on your property? It's questionable how APHIS would view a "sight unseen" sale of a "stud fee puppy", for example since to obtain the "four or fewer" exemption, any pet you sell must have been "born and raised" on your property according to the Regulations.. This is not one of the changes made in 2013 to the Regulations, but was there all along, but wasn't generally enforced, at least for small home hobby breeders such as yourself. How or if it will be enforced now is a good question. (This is yet another thorny rescue question as well).


5. Do you own other "breeding females" that are included in the Regulations? (small pet mammals, primarily). Does anyone else in your household or who resides on your property have any "breeding females" (dogs or otherwise.) All those get counted in the total of "four or fewer."


You may want to get clarification on your situation from APHIS directly. Unfortunately, what an APHIS representative tells you now may or may not be admissible in Court if it conflicts with what's in the Regulations.


Finally, remember (especially if you openly ship to people you don't know well, or if you advertise that you ship) that you are a potential target for the ARs, and they might try to have you investigated. If APHIS comes to ask as to your mode of business, you will need to have proof that -- throughout the year that you shipped those animals -- that you only had two "breeding females" (and not more than four) and that you complied with other requirements of the Regulations needed for the "four or fewer" exemption.


If you choose to go the easier route, and decide to have no "sight unseen" sales, you can, of course, have as many "breeding females" as you wish if you sell to the final purchaser (and not wholesale should you own more than four breeding females). But it would still be a good idea to document how these animals were transferred to the new owner so that they weren't a "sight unseen" sale.


AWA and AWA Regulations can be found here, and here.

Submitted by Margo Milde via the Pet Law list.

Margo is long-time Legislative Liaison for five dog clubs: Rand Park Dog Training Club, Agility Ability Club of Illinois, Fox River Field Spaniel Club, Moraine Tracking Club, and Field Spaniel Society of America (AKC parent club). She is also a Board Member of the Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs and Owners. However, her answer here may not officially represent the position of these organizations.

You Can't Serve Two Masters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julian Prager

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

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

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

Or we could revise it for today: 

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

A Fox in The Henhouse - PIJAC hires Ed Sayres

When I wrote my last post on August 8, I had no idea just how prophetic it was. In that post, I pointed out how the animal rights philosophy is seemingly pervading and perverting the essence of PIJAC, a group that is supposed to represent the pet industry. PIJAC was glorifying an "adoption" event in a park. The title of the post, "PIJAC HIJACKED?" asked the question, and now we have a definitive answer....YES! This week comes the news that PIJAC recently hired Ed Sayres, former CEO of the ASPCA to lead their organization.

You probably remember this guy Sayres. He's rabidly anti-breeder, rabidly anti-pet store. 

Mr. Sayres, in his tenure as leader of the ASPCA, also blocked "Oreo's Law" for years until it finally died. Oreo's Law would have required shelters to turn over animals to rescues who were willing to accept them. This makes sense, because we have observed for a long time how most "shelters" would prefer to kill animals than find them homes. "Oreo's Law" would have changed that and saved many lives. But, Sayres made sure it didn't pass, making him directly responsible for the deaths of an estimated 100,000 shelter animals.

 http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?tag=ed-sayres

But let's back up first, back to August 8. There was a message on my home answering service that day from someone who identified himself as a Vice President of PIJAC. He was calling in regard to my blog post, and said he couldn't understand my objections to their advertising this park event, because NOBODY was going home with a pet. It was NOT sales being conducted in public, he claimed.

So absurd! This guy had completely MISSED THE POINT that PIJAC is supposed to be representing the industry and lobbying for the right to participate in the pet trade. Why would they be involved at all with "adoptions?" Bigger question, why do they have a problem with sales being conducted in public? I didn't bother to return the call because this guy was oblivious.

Next we get another sucker punch, financed by PIJAC, in the way of an upcoming Purdue study that is meant to push even MORE regulations on dog breeders. Candace Croney, an associate professor of comparative patholobiology and animal science who focuses on the behavior AND WELFARE of animals says: 

The public is becoming increasingly concerned that existing state laws, typically written as minimum standards, do not fully address important elements of dog care and well-being, such as health, genetics, reproductive soundness and behavioral wellness. The ethical issues involved, including lifelong obligations to the animals, must also be addressed.

Oh dear. PIJAC and Purdue think that we need more regulations involving health, genetics, reproductive soundness, "LIFELONG OBLIGATIONS" and other animal rights drivel.  USDA's APHIS is also an integral partner in producing this study. 

Surprise surprise! Government bureaucrats love nothing better than more rules and regulations to make their worthless jobs secure. 

And then came the news a few days ago that Ed Sayres was being hired by PIJAC. Not just hired, but will be their President and CEO!!

Holy Apoplexy, Batman! Dogs and cats.....living together! Gobsmacked, I say!


Now Mr. Sayres writes a self-defense piece after the public outcry for this new appointment, claiming that he just didn't realize at the time that most breeders were good! Dang! He's finally Come to Jesus.

Here is an excerpt:

I know I have the skills necessary to reduce the polarized dynamics
between animal welfare organizations and the industry. I know, after 40
years in animal welfare, that regulations that are well thought out
protect animals and facilitate commerce. I also have a core belief that,
when managed responsibly, companion animal ownership provides mutual
benefits. The benefits, given and received, which are best described in
studies about the human-animal bond, obviously depend on owners who are
well educated on the medical and behavioral needs of their animals.
These are two priorities of the PIJAC mission, and I believe that my
deep experience in the field would add reasoned input to this vital
conversation.

I am especially interested in the challenge of breeding pure-bred dogs
on a large scale with humane care standards that prioritize the care and
conditions that matter most to the well being and lifetime care of the
dog. I may be the only person in the animal welfare field that believes
this is feasible. After spending two days visiting the Hunte
Corporation, I now know it is possible. Importantly, the Purdue
University study comes at the right time, and will provide us with the
data we need to accelerate the process of defining standards so we can
begin to meet the demand for dogs with a humane, transparent system.

If this message from Sayres doesn't blatantly scream ANIMAL RIGHTS, nothing does. 

 More REGULATIONS? For WHAT?  

The "medical and behavioral need of animals"? 

"Humane care standards that prioritize the care and conditions that matter most to the well being and lifetime care of the dog." 

Why are we expecting breeders to to be responsible for the lifetime care of the dog? That is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE. 

And what the devil is a "humane, transparent system"? 

I'll tell you what it is, it is total government control over every aspect of breeding and selling animals. 

That's great if you are one of those MORONS who believe that more government regulations are good. That's BAD if you believe in the individual's right to pursue their business or hobby unimpeded by government numbskulls. 

Andrew Hunte apparently hosted Sayres for a tour of his facility and the two are now fast friends. Mr. Hunte wrote a plea for unity, one for all, and all for one, and whoever PIJAC hires is just dandy with him apparently, because, well, they are PIJAC!

IDIOT!!!

And we also hear from other bastions of the pet industry, including a representative from the Pet Expo, who seems to feel that there is no harm, no foul, and that more regulations are helpful to society. He would like us to "wait and see" how the study goes.  

NAIA also weighed in recently regarding more regulations for imported animals, health certificates and so forth. Seems like a no-brainer to require animals be healthy in order to enter the country, and that's great, but why the embargo on importing animals for resale if they are under the age of six months? What will follow? 

Just like all other government claptrap, regulations expand like The Blob and engulf us all until we are eliminated by them. Some "progressives" think the new rules are great because they exempt hobby breeders. How many times do these people have to be shafted before they realize that NO regulations exempt anyone for very long, and that any rule that contains "exemptions" should not be in force in the first place. What's good for one is good for all. And rules for one group will eventually be rules for all. 

I may not be a smart person, but I know what love is. And this ain't it.

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.

The Emperor's New Study

The Emperor's New Clothes Study

Hear ye, hear ye!

New study proves (beyond the shadow of a doubt) that:

Purebred Dogs are Just as Healthy as Mixed Breed Dogs!

Carry on with the mission! Inbreed; linebreed! It's not a problem! Breed to the most popular sire, so you too can have a chance to prevail supreme in the jousting tournament of dog superiority!

We are advocates for health testing, but we don't worry about the risks of narrowed gene pools! That would simpy be too upsetting to the apple cart!

Today I read an article about how AKC wants to "clarify misconceptions about purebred dogs." (a) For one of those "misconceptions" the author cites a recent study comparing the health of purebred vs. mixed breed dogs. The author claims that this study affirms that purebred dogs are just as healthy as mixed breed dogs. 

In actuality, the UC Davis study shows that for heritable health problems common to most dogs, mixed breeds are just as susceptible as purebred dogs, while for many more breed-specific health problems, purebred dogs are more susceptible than mixed breed dogs. This "news" should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the science of inheritance and genetics.

However, this same study is continually touted in social media sites and in news releases from the AKC, as some sort of ultimate proof of the undisputed superior health of purebred dogs. Similar to other "Big Lies", there's a belief that if something is shouted loudly enough, everyone will believe it!

Well, not quite EVERYONE. In fact, the American Veterinary Medical Association examined that same study and came to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion:

"STUDY SHOWS MUTTS GENETICALLY HEALTHIER"

"The researchers concluded that modern purebred dogs or members of similar lineages appeared to be more susceptible to certain inherited disorders. Disorders occurring equally among purebreds and mixed-breeds suggested that the disorders represented more ancient mutations and were more widely disseminated throughout the canine population." (1)


And the conclusion itself on the published study on Pub Med states:

Recently derived breeds or those from similar lineages appeared to be more susceptible to certain disorders that affect all closely related purebred dogs, whereas disorders with equal prevalence in the 2 populations suggested that those disorders represented more ancient mutations that are widely spread through the dog population. Results provided insight on how breeding practices may reduce prevalence of a disorder. (2)

But, unfortunately, the results did NOT help the willfully ignorant to understand "how breeding practices may reduce the prevalence of a disorder."

THEY DON'T GET IT!


Here is a list of a few of the most egregious examples of breed-specific health problems:

• Purine metabolism dysfunction gene in all (except pointer backcross) Dalmatians
• Protein malabsorption disorder in virtually all Norwegian Lundehunds ("Lundehund syndrome")
• Syringomyelia and Mitral valve disease in the vast majority of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels
• "Collie Eye Anomaly" in Collies and related breeds
• Copper toxicosis in Bedlington Terriers
• Fanconi Syndrome in Basenjis

Ah, but we can test and remove dogs with such bad genes from the genepool, right? Actually, that's how Fanconi syndrome became so prevalent in Basenjis. The Basenji breeders noticed a problem with hemolytic anemia. In attempting to eliminate hemolytic anemia, entire families of dogs were culled. Yes, the incidence of hemolytic anemia dropped, but they found many of their dogs were now afflicted with a fatal kidney disease, Fanconi syndrome. They had to return to Africa to add new stock to the decimated gene pool. 

And, according to geophysicist and canine genetics expert Sue Bowling:

“Unfortunately, we cannot breed animals based on a single gene – the genes come as a package. We may inbreed and rigorously remove pups with PRA or even their parents and littermates from the breeding pool. But remember inbreeding tends to make all genes more homozygous. In at least one breed, an effort to remove the PRA-causing gene resulted in the surfacing of a completely different and previously unsuspected health problem. It is easier and faster to lose genes (sometimes very desirable genes) from the breeding pool when inbreeding is practiced than when a more open breeding system is used. In other words, inbreeding will tend to produce more nearly homozygous animals, but generally some of the homozygous pairs will be "good" and others will be ‘bad’.....Furthermore, there may be genes where heterozygosity is an advantage……A more widespread case is the so-called major histocompatibility complex (MHC), a group of genes where heterozygosity seems to improve disease resistance.” (3)

Let's reduce it to something that even non-scientists can understand.

While health testing is admirable and a great beginning to a healthy future for dogs, no amount of health testing can substitute for outcrossing to produce robustly healthy dogs.

For the good of our breeds and all the dogs of the future, we need to change the current dog competition system. Conformation competition should be de-emphasized and standards need to be relaxed and more generalized. While today's dog shows do recognize and reward placid temperament, that is usually a secondary consideration to physical conformation characteristics.

If we want to improve the health of our breeds, the priority needs to be shifted to breeders who employ low levels of inbreeding; to those who breed first and foremost for excellence in temperament and ability as a worker or as a companion. Closed stud books need to be opened, and judicious crosses need to be allowed. Individual breed clubs need to invite outside genetics experts to help them develop policies to effectively manage their breed population.

The good work of AKC's Canine Health Foundation can and should be expanded. Beyond identifying genes that cause disease, the Foundation could employ geneticists for specific recommendations on how to better control genetic disease occurrence.

Our actions now will determine the ultimate fate of our dogs. Are you ready for the revolution?

(a) http://www.oregonlive.com/pets/index.ssf/2014/02/akc_hopes_to_clarify_common_mi.html
(1) http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/vet-breaking-news/2013/06/04/study-shows-mutts-genetically-healthier.aspx
(2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23683021
(3) http://bowlingsite.mcf.com/genetics/inbreeding.html