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

DON'T Spay or Neuter Your Pets!

We shouldn't be listening to the Bob Barkers of the world.

Two significant new studies were released in 2013 on the adverse health effects of spay-neuter. This adds to a large body of previous information.

A study on Golden Retrievers done by UC Davis revealed some SHOCKING facts about what we are doing to our canine companions when we neuter them.

"The study examined hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, lymphosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, and mast cell tumor...... The disease rates for ALL FIVE diseases were significantly HIGHER in both males and females that were neutered either early or late, compared with that of sexually intact dogs. Specifically, early neutering was associated with an increase in the occurrence of hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, and lymphosarcoma in males and in the occurrence of cranial cruciate ligament tear in females."

"In most areas, the findings of this study were consistent with that of earlier studies, suggesting similar increases in disease risks. The UC-Davis study, however, is the first to specifically report an increased risk of mast cell tumors and hemangiosarcoma with late neutering."

"Furthermore, the new study showed a 100 percent increase in the incidence of hip dysplasia among early-neutered males."

Read all about it in the AVMA Journal:

https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/130401s.aspx

The study report:
 
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0055937


Golden Retrievers are one of the most popular breeds in the US, and the vast majority are going to end up as sterilized pets.

Why are we as a society setting up our dogs for pain and early death? Are YOU inflicting pain and suffering on your dog by spaying or neutering, just so you can feel morally superior and politically correct?



Now here's the other major study, just released. It's a retrospective done on literally THOUSANDS of Vizslas.

The study showed that, regardless of the age at the time of neutering, altered dogs had "significantly increased odds of developing mast cell cancer, lymphoma, all other cancers, all cancers combined, and fear of storms, compared with the odds for sexually intact dogs."

Female Vizslas spayed (regardless of age) had "significantly increased odds of developing hemangiosarcoma, compared with the odds for sexually intact dogs" as did males spayed AFTER the age of 1 year.

The study concluded that spay/neuter when done prior to six months old "significantly increased odds of developing a behavioral disorder."

"The younger the age at gonadectomy, the earlier the mean age at diagnosis of mast cell cancer, cancers other than mast cell, hemangiosarcoma, lymphoma, all cancers combined, a behavioral disorder, or fear of storms."

Translation: The sooner the neuter is done, the sooner your dog will likely develop a health or behavioral problem.

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.244.3.309

Of course, for followers of this blog, none of this is earth-shattering news. We've posted many previous studies that come to the same conclusion. For more information , do a search on the blog for the label "spay/neuter" or "rethinking spay and neuter".

Don't pretend you're spaying and neutering to keep your dog healthy....because, in most situations, you're NOT.

Vizslas Roscoe and Daisy, from Wikimedia commons.
 Poor Roscoe is only nine months old and missing a very important part of his anatomy, wouldn't you say?

That'll Never Happen!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government-forced neuter kills dog

Not that this is a unique situation; I've known of other small dogs who died from procedures like dental cleaning and yes, sterilization surgery. This came from the Encino-Chatsworth Patch comments section on an article on top ten popular dogs. Of course, we have to have an ignoramus come along and immdiately rub salt in the wound, wondering aloud how she can possibly believe his story.

....

·        Ed Ferrett

05/20/2013 03:06pm

I had four healthy, loveable, playful "chihuahuas. The most cruel thing is when I complied with a law that the county of Los Angeles passed, that said I had to have my little dog friends spaded and nuttered if I wanted to have them or they would fine me and take them away from me. So I complied wth the new law. Three days after I HAD THEM MUTILATED one of them died (he was only three years old), another one became a hatefull little recluse, if you tried to pet her, she would try to bite you and run off and hide. All she wanted to do, is sleep and eat everything she could get her mouth on. Other two two dogs became sickly, they wouldn't play any more and came doun with a breathing problem. I will take care of my little friends until they die and then no more dogs for me. I am 90 years old and find it to up setting to loose a little friend like this. I have had pets all my life and allways took care of them. A lot of people say "so what" they are only a dog, just go get another one at the dog pound. To me they are family.

o    

o   Report abuse

o   87

·        Mahkidzrpupz

To Ed Ferrett

05/20/2013 03:33pm

I am terribly sorry that this happened to you. I am a strong spay/neuter advocate; all the pets I have ever owned including the two my husband and I have now have been spayed. I've never, ever had any who experienced any terrible side effects such as you are describing. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I've just never heard of such a thing! It makes me wonder about the vet/clinic who performed the surgeries, or if your dogs suffered some other trauma besides the surgeries. At any rate, as I said, it makes me very sad that you had to go through such an awful thing. I know it's true that there are some people who may say "it's just a dog" but I think I can safely say that anyone posting here wouldn't feel that way at all. It brings me to tears even to THINK of losing one of our girls! In my opinion, a person who cannot appreciate the unconditional love that a pet offers and who looks on dogs - or any animal - with callous disregard is seriously lacking something personality-wise and isn't a person I would want to have anything to do with. Again, my sincere sympathy - never mind what uncaring people might say - there are plenty of us who completely understand what it means to consider pets a part of the family.

KEEP OUR DOMESTIC ANIMALS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROVE IT!!!

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

Dear Ms. XXXXX:

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Tonya Woods

Director
Freedom of Information & Privacy Act
Legislative and Public Affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 www.keepourdomesticanimals.com

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

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

Surely he needs to be regulated by the Federal government!

Spay-Neuter Laws Kill Dogs

From: Jan Dykema

To:supervisor.foy@ventura.org

Sent: Wed, Dec 11, 2013 11:38 pm

Subject: MSN

Dear Supervisor Foy:

I spent the entire evening watching the entire public hearing on Ventura passing a mandatory spay/neuter law. Much of it was painful as I listened to erudite speakers having to defend their right to breed a litter of puppies without the government looking over their shoulder (or rather "inspecting" their private homes) and extracting fees and other fines, and .. let's call it what it really is, a TAX.. on people who wish to breed their dog.

 

I watched as speaker after speaker presented concrete evidence; facts and statistics that without any doubt showed that MSN does not work, never has worked and never will work. I watched as people decried and denied these facts as somehow irrelevant to Ventura County; as if it was somehow special and that what happens in LA is not relevant. It IS relevant, and always will be.

 

Facts are facts. The housing "bubble" cannot be blamed for years of proven statistics that show MSN does not work.

 

I live in Napa County. We do not have MSN. Lake County is the next county over, and they do have MSN . Their shelter kills many more animals than we do.

As I looked at Ventura County stats I wondered, how much better can they get? Your shelter is doing a great job, numbers are dropping at a huge rate, so why the need for this (I hesitate to use the word as it was so overworked) "tool"? It appears that you will reach the 90% rate in very little time if all continues as it has been, without MSN. I was impressed with the amount of VOLUNTARY surgeries that were already done in your area and with the fact they were low cost or even free. Good for you! It is working and working well, if all of that is true.

I will be forthcoming. I am a licensed American Kennel Club judge and an occasional breeder of English Bull Terriers ( the Target dog, General Patton or Spuds Mackenzie depending on your shopping habits, age and propensity for libations). I sit on the Board of Directors of the California Federation of Dog Clubs and have spent much time in Sacramento lobbying for people rights to own and breed animals of all types and for them to be able to use the animals for the work they were bred for, so I am not entirely neutral on this issue; but I try to be open minded because I am also a trained Humane Officer.

I did see that much information was handed to you all during the hearing. I wondered why? None of you had any time to read the information before the vote was taken, although it did seem that you ( and you alone) had time to look at the charts that were presented and at least absorb the information.

Animals are a very emotional issue, but all facts must be considered including loss of income for the county, and less licensing for dogs and cats. A major problem that I did not hear addressed in a very significant way was the drop in rabies vaccinations that occurs when punitive laws are put into effect. Rabies is not a dog issue. It is a serious public health issue and when people do not comply due to fear or interference, the risk is escalated to a degree that cannot be calculated until a human being is infected and dies.

Finally, I heard the words "No Kill" over and over again. And yet, no one actually reported who is the "father" of the No Kill movement. That would be Nathan Winograd. Mr. Winograd invented the words "No Kill" and has a very specific plan on how shelters can become "No Kill". Nowhere anywhere in his statements and writings regarding No Kill does Mr Winograd EVER say MSN is a part of the No Kill program. If fact, he intentionally says MSN NEVER helps the No Kill program and that MSN should never be a part of any No Kill program.

I have taken the liberty to include a few of Mr. Winograds information by attachments here. (all safe to open) Here is an excerpt:

"Moreover, mandatory spay/neuter laws are not a new or untested idea in the U.S. They have been around for decades and historically have been the favored form of pseudo-advocacy by the voices of tradition within the animal sheltering industry. In fact, many U.S. communities already have such laws. Are those communities No Kill? No, far from it. While mandatory spay/neuter laws have long been the siren song of the animal protection movement, the evidence proves that when implemented in the U.S., such laws have been disastrous. Over and over, mandatory spay/neuter legislation is pushed as a quick solution to high rates of shelter killing."

“If only we had a spay/neuter law” the argument goes, “all the bad, irresponsible people would have to take care of their pets properly, and shelters wouldn’t have to kill so many animals.” If this were true, given the proliferation of such punitive mandates nationwide, these laws would have already created many No Kill communities. That there are none as a result of mandatory spay/neuter laws proves that such legislation does not work. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. Communities that have passed such laws are not only far from No Kill; they are moving in the opposite direction, killing more, not fewer animals."

I hope Ventura County will be the exception to this rule but statistics and time do not bear this out.

Thank you for your support of less government interference in the lives of American citizens and for voting "no" on this ordinance. You would have my vote if I had one!

Jan

Jan Dykema

Certified Humane Officer

American Kennel Club Judge

BOD California Federation of Dog Clubs

attachments:

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?tag=mandatory-spayneuter

http://fixaustin.blogspot.com/2008/01/mandatory-spayneuter-success-not.html

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mandatorylaws.pdf

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.

The USDA Wants YOU!

TO STOP SELLING PETS!

Of concern to all dog owners and breeders in the US are new APHIS rules set to go into effect in November, 2013. The rules are intended to address internet sales, which the USDA alleges are problematic. I'm still waiting to see the facts and figures which provoked that allegation, but am not holding my breath. 

These new rules expand the influence of USDA/APHIS. They will increase the number of breeders who will be forced to comply with USDA regulations. The new rules are ninety-one (that's 91) pages long and are posted on the APHIS website. There is also a Q & A document on the APHIS website, which raises even more questions than it answers.

We do know for certain that anyone who houses more than four intact bitches (or in combination with females of any other covered species) on his or her premises AND who ships any dog by so-called “sight-unseen” methods will now be required to be licensed and inspected by the USDA.

The new rules explanation is vague, leaving many specific questions unanswered. How will breeders be able to comply with commercial kennel guidelines when raising dogs in a home environment? How can I be available during business hours for inspections, when I have a full-time job outside my home? Will rescues be held to these same guidelines? How will that be possible when they do not breed and raise the dogs on their premises? Why is shipping suspect, when all airlines require veterinary health certification prior to shipping? What if you want to sell a dog that is not born and raised on your premises? Why is offering dogs to pet homes considered an undesirable activity, subject to investigation and regulation? What is the definition of a “breeding bitch”? What is the definition of a “working dog”? What proof will be needed for exemption as a breeder working to preserve bloodlines? Why is the Federal government now usurping states' rights to regulate intrastate commerce? Why are small breeders who only sell at retail being subjected to rules meant for wholesalers and dealers?

 
Unfortunately, during the telephone conference calls with USDA officials, the answers to many of these questions invariably reverted to “we will determine that on a case-by-case basis”. Nothing quite as malleable (and subject to being overturned) as vague rules and guidelines.

The USDA employs animal rights activists in high positions, including Ms. Sarah Conant, formerly an HSUS attorney and now the chief of enforcement at APHIS. The USDA under Ms. Conant has demonstrated a crusader-style, anti-breeder bias, and with these new vague rules that lack specific guidelines, we will likely find that our exemptions are not as available as we think they may be.

The advice from APHIS to breeders is to give the USDA a call, to run your “business model” past them, and then they will inform you whether or not you need to be licensed with them.

 
USDA licensed breeders have long been subjected to a campaign of hate and discrimination by animal extremist groups. If licensed by the USDA, your information goes public and you may be vulnerable to attack by animal enterprise terrorist groups. These groups like HSUS, PETA, Best Friends and CAPS have conducted smear campaigns against USDA licensed breeders, and they have driven pet shops out of business and pushed for laws making pet sales in retail stores ILLEGAL in certain locales like California. How long until that “no retail sales” mentality is extended to those who sell dogs as retailers.....us! The hobby breeders who are exempt from USDA licensing, because we are in the same category of retail sellers! So we'll be damned if we do get a USDA license, and damned if we don't.

In addition to Ms. Conant, there are other known radical animal rights activist associations at the USDA. The head of the department is Tom Vilsack. Tom's wife Christie was the recipient of HSUS campaign contributions and a near-million dollar campaign television advertising blitz funded by the HSUS in her Iowa congressional bid against Steve King. Deborah Dubow Press, an animal rights activist who co-founded the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund at Cornell University, and received a grant from the HSUS's PCRM, was also employed by the USDA until just last January as an APHIS enforcment specialist.

The “intent” of the breeder is being judged by the Federal government; if you sell mostly pets, then the USDA feels that you need to be subjected to excessive regulations and red tape. The “intent” of the USDA seems clear enough. Though they deny it, it is obvious that they hope that there will be a chilling effect on the breeding of pets. The goal is to gradually and incrementally eliminate breeding of pets.

As a branch of the United States government, the USDA was created to collect and distribute the best farming knowledge.  In 1862, Congress passed a bill establishing a Department of Agriculture. Its mission was “to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word.” When did we jump the fence and allow the USDA to over-regulate every little agricultural detail? What happened to the mission of EDUCATION?

Who dreamed way back in 1862 that the people at USDA would turn out to be the most threatening animal enterprise terrorists of all?

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.