Canine racism

In the early 20th century German Shepherds were reviled. They were regarded as aggressive, mean and untrustworthy. The mental association of the breed with German Nazis didn’t help its image either. What turned the tide in the negative public perception of this breed was the advent of a nationwide television hero named “Rin Tin Tin.” Suddenly, a breed that was shunned, feared and hated became adored as a family pet and admired for its courage and loyalty.


Every era needs its scapegoat, and so it goes today, with the popular media and even some so-called “dog bloggers” (who really should know better) railing against “pit bulls.”

For decades, one of the most popular types of dog in this country has been the “bully”-type breeds. This type of dog has served as the mascot for the “Little Rascals”, the logo dog for “Target” stores, the dog listening with rapt attention to the RCA Victrola, and the “Spuds Mackenzie” dog in beer commercials. Helen Keller owned a beloved bull terrier. Millions choose dogs of this type when selecting a family dog, and why not? According to aficionados, the Bull Terrier was known in Victorian times in England as the “nanny dog” because it was so reliable with children. Whether the legend about this nickname was true or not, it certainly COULD have been true. Bully breed dogs are smart and loyal and brave, known on many occasions to save the lives of their owners. Just like all dogs of all breeds.

Breeds that are popular tend to be over-represented in shelter statistics and bite statistics. This only means that there are more of them around, not that they are a problem based solely on their type of breed. There are a lot of Chihuahuas in shelters too, and they figure way up at the top of the list for dog bites as well. The most pressing concern about dog bites is the risk of rabies, and that risk is the same regardless of whether the bite came from a bulldog or a Chihuahua.

It's amazing that people who would be immediately offended if a human racial slur was slung are so willing to fall into that sort of insulting and ignorant activity when it comes to dog breeds.

Now we are seeing unsubstantiated claims thrown about that “pit bulls” are a large percentage of shelter intakes and deaths. To illustrate the fallacy of this idea, here is a message I just received from a friend of mine in response to an article I posted about shelter stats on our breed club list:

“I am not sure where they get the information on "Pit Bulls" - it seems to me that pretty much anything large can get that designation. A neighbor's AKC Labrador escaped and was impounded. They swore they had not had any Labs brought in, yet there he was. But he was a Pit Bull. Good job she went and checked personally instead of just taking their word for it.”

This is a typical scenario. Shelter workers are conditioned to be disgusted at the sight of “pitbulls” and to watch warily for them at every turn. And all those misidentified dogs are lumped into the statistics claiming that “pit bulls” are rampant in shelters.

The California Federation of Dog Clubs has produced a Breed ID workshop for shelter workers. There is a quiz included with pictures of dogs of many breeds, and quite a few of them look similar to so-called “pit bulls”. In fact, according to the CFoDC, there are 25 purebred breeds that are commonly mistaken for “pit bulls” including Boxers, Rottweilers and (yep) even Labrador retrievers.

Try for yourself and see how easy it is to identify a dog breed just based on appearance alone:

www.stopbsl.org/bsloverview/impossibleid/
www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

At the risk of sounding trite, how we can treat man's best friend this way? He gives his all for us, and we villainize him, outlaw him, and kill him. 

Animal Welfare - AR Lite?

Most of us are familiar with groups that consider themselves to be “Animal Rights” groups. PETA, HSUS, and the like. But most animal groups consider themselves to be concerned with animal welfare, not animal rights. These groups include ASPCAs, local humane societies, "rescues" and other groups

I propose that the difference between animal rights and animal welfare is merely a matter of degree.

Animal rightists don’t believe that people should have any involvement with animals in any way. No animal agriculture, no hunting or fishing, not even any pets. They don’t want to see people adversely affecting animals.

Animal welfare is a more insidious threat because the ideas are presented as more mainstream. No one wants animals to “suffer”, right? Therefore, we need a few laws on the books to prevent that. The animal welfarists, just like the animal rightists, wish to prevent people from adversely affecting animals

Animal welfare has been defined through any of the following concepts:


• Prohibition of dog fighting, and banning of breeds deemed "dangerous"

• Prohibition of tail docking

• Prohibition of ear cropping

• Prohibition of vocal cordectomy (commonly called “debarking”)

• Prescriptive care standards for housing, food, water, exercise and grooming

• Promotion of spay/neuter

• In my case, avoidance of spay/neuter!

• Prohibition of dewclaw removal

• Establishment of breed standards

• Kind treatment in animal shelters

• Euthanasia in shelters as a necessary evil

• Establishment of breeding criteria (age, number of litters, and the like)

• Limiting how many animals one can legally own

• Expectation of health testing of breeding stock

• Prohibition of crossbreeding

• Prohibition of inbreeding

• Limiting registrations, whether for cause or arbitrarily

• Tethering limits

Even such activities as dog racing, dog sledding, and other traditional pursuits are sometimes considered abusive and contrary to animal welfare.

So, exactly how far should the tenets of animal welfare extend into our lives? How much outsider intervention in animal husbandry is acceptable?

While I am sympathetic to many of the above “animal welfare” proposals, I am adamantly opposed to the government or anyone else attempting to force their ideals regarding care standards on the rest of society.


Dogs and cats are what’s for dinner in some countries. That’s not an appetizing picture to me, but I’m sure some people in other countries feel differently. When you consider that the overwhelming majority of people in western culture revere and adore their dogs and cats, we're really not hard-hearted and bereft of animal welfare concerns after all is said and done.

Language and Our Messy World

Language and Our Messy World

Carlotta Cooper

Many people have observed that there is a difference in world view between those of us who breed and raise animals and people at the other end of the spectrum. That would be people who would like to see an end to pet ownership, otherwise known as animal rightists. There may be some confused people in the middle. There may even be some dog breeders who espouse some animal rights philosophy without knowing it. Those are often the people shouting loudest about how awful puppy mills are or pointing fingers at their dog show enemies and calling them puppy millers.

You can often tell just where someone stands on this spectrum by how comfortable they are discussing certain things and by their use of language. For instance, when you hear or read animal rights people talking about animals you may be confused and think they are talking about babies or children. “I took Betsy to the doctor for x-rays and she was so good! She had her temperature taken and the doctor felt her all over. She never moved at all during the x-rays. The doc wants us to come back next week.” I have no idea if Betsy is a dog or a child. When my dogs go to the vet they lick shoes, wriggle, get petted and, if they are good, they get treats. Sometimes they eat things they shouldn’t or throw up. In short, they do dog things. Sometimes I have to apologize for them — a lot. But they are always dogs and everyone who meets them knows they are dogs and not children.

If you ever try to have a conversation with an AR person about a subject like, oh, dog breeding, it can be anywhere from frustrating to amusing. First of all, there is the word. The “B” word. Bitch. There, I said it. Breeders say this word 100 times a day. Having a bitch in your home is a fact of life and there’s nothing pejorative about the word. I have four bitches right now. They are all related and they get along very well. They get along the same way that you would expect any four related girls/women to get along. They have “words” sometimes. One may be cranky occasionally. The two youngest play. The older ones pull rank. They have relationships. But they are all intact bitches. Big deal.

Just the fact that I have four intact bitches is probably enough to set off some AR people. Most AR people prefer their female dogs to be “sterile.” What an awful word. If you consider the language you find in legislative bills and local ordinances, it invariably refers to bitches as “adult female dogs.” And it often calls for them to be sterile — unable to reproduce, which, of course, is the antithesis of what a breeder strives to do. So, let’s just say that AR people have a hard time with the bitch word. They won’t or can’t use it in normal conversation. If you insist on having a conversation with an AR person about breeding they will usually talk about the “poor breeding dogs” or the “girls” or “the mothers” or start using other soppy language for bitches which will take you far, far away from whatever it is you are actually discussing. Yes, it is hard to have a reality-based discussion with an AR person about dog breeding. This is largely because they have been brainwashed into thinking that all dog breeding is somehow harmful to dogs. It doesn’t matter that you spend every waking moment with your dog up to and during whelping, waiting on her hand and foot, tempting her with any kind of food you can get her to eat and doing everything in your power to make her happy. It doesn’t matter that you devote yourself to raising and socializing the puppies from the moment they are born. In the eyes of an AR person, you are a dog breeder and that makes you evil incarnate. You have to be breeding your dog for money and you cannot possibly love your dog the way they love their dog, even if these ideas are pure science fiction.

If ARs have problems with the concept of dog breeding then you can imagine how uncomfortable they are with the nuts and bolts, so to speak, of the act. Good luck if you are ever in the position of trying to describe breeding or whelping to someone with such exquisite sensibilities. Of course, it’s not just animal rights people who have problems with imagining their dog getting pregnant or having puppies. There are plenty of web sites online where pet owners ask questions about canine pregnancy. I suppose we should be happy that spaying and neutering have been so successful in this country that most people don’t seem to have any idea what happens during a dog mating or during whelping, but it’s too bad that more people don’t understand some basic biology about their pet dogs. Unfortunately, this has led to animal rights people spreading all kinds of inaccurate information about breeding and whelping.

For instance, most people now believe that dogs need to be spayed and neutered as young as eight weeks old, or by the time they are four months old. Hold everything! Spaying and neutering at such a young age is actually BAD for your puppy’s longterm health! It’s extremely rare for any dog to be sexually mature at this age. It’s much better for your puppy to wait until later to spay or neuter, even if you never intend to breed him or her.

Spaying and neutering is a good choice for many pet owners, but it should remain a choice. It should never be government-mandated. There are many things to consider before spaying or neutering your dog such as your dog’s overall health, age, sex, breed and so on. It is an individual decision between you and your veterinarian. Do some research before automatically deciding to spay or neuter your pet. It may be the right decision for you and your pet, but make sure. Don’t be a lemming.

Animal rights people have also leapt to some ridiculous conclusions out of possibly good intentions. For instance, we can all probably agree that dog fighting is a bad thing. But when it comes to the so-called “rape stands,” animal rights people are way off base. This is another case where they have misused language, in this case for propaganda reasons. There are no such things as “rape stands.” There are breeding stands to facilitate breeding. Anyone who actually knows anything about dogs knows that dogs don’t get bred by rape. This is a ridiculous anthropomorphism. Bitches have a heat cycle and when their hormones tell them they are ready to breed, they breed. They will not accept a male dog until they are ready. If a male tries to breed before it’s time a bitch is likely to bite his face off. Not only will a bitch not accept a mate until it’s time, but she is not fertile until she is ready to accept a mate. As any breeder knows, if a bitch won’t accept a male, it means she’s not ready to breed. So, rape would be pointless and would not result in any puppies. A breeder would be stupid to do anything to encourage a male to breed before the bitch was ready and willing. Breeding stands (not “rape stands”) are used to give the bitch physical support when the male leans on her. Some male dogs also need ramps in some cases, if the female is taller, and so on. These things are done to help the dogs, not because one or either partner is unwilling. Many breeders also offer physical support themselves during the breeding, holding up the dogs by placing an arm around their stomachs, etc. This is all part of being a breeder.

Unfortunately, too many times animal rights people make statements about dog breeding when they don’t understand what they’re talking about and don’t have any first-hand experience with the subject.

Many animal rights people seem to have a problem when it comes to contemplating bodily functions related to animals. They don’t seem to enjoy too much reality or being very close to nature. Consider, for example, this statement from the chairwoman of Chattanooga, Tennessee’s food and agriculture action team, when asked a question about city residents keeping chickens on their premises: “'What carries disease more than chicken poo is cat and doggy poo,' Mayo said." Poo? Chicken poo? Cat and doggy poo? Is that any way for an adult to discuss excrement? Especially when that person is supposed to be in a position of authority over chickens for city residents? Wouldn’t it be preferable to have someone in that position who could talk about chicken manure without sounding like an 8-year-old child?

I think it’s fair to ask ourselves if we have all become so distanced from animals that we have to resort to such childish language when speaking about barnyard animals and pets, or is it only people who prefer to have their animals in Disney form — without bodily functions, without genitalia, who don’t reproduce, and who only die when there is an orchestra standing by to play sad music. I think there are still plenty of people, especially those of us who breed animals, who are very familiar with animals in their true form. And we prefer to use language that really describes them as they are instead of euphemisms or words that make them seem like children. We love animals, too. And we love them as they truly are. Not in some make believe, fantasy form.

So, here’s to using the proper words for things. For describing our animals as they really are instead of pretending they’re babies or children. For calling “poo” manure. For telling my girls they’re bitches and appreciating them. And for celebrating heat cycles and all of the bodily functions that make the animal rights people so squeamish. This is a messy world and that’s a lot better than the sterile world the ARs would like us to have.