Idiocracy

Coming soon to a pet store in YOUR neighborhood!

The LA City council is entertaining a ban on sales of pets in pet stores. The proposal was presented by a committee headed by City Councilmember and animal rights activist Paul Koretz. This follows on the heels of similar bans or proposed bans in other California cities, including Glendale, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Chula Vista, Laguna Beach, and West Hollywood.

Never mind that the number of pet-selling stores in all these cities combined could be counted on one hand.

No pet sales in pet stores, unless, of course, "rescue" groups are the ones selling them. And just who is initiating such proposals? Why, of course, it's these very  same "rescue" groups. Best Friends Animal Society is leading the charge. 

How gullible can we be? Apparently, very.

We seem blind to the fact that "rescue" groups import dogs into LA for the pet market….from commercial breeding establishments in other states, and from the streets overseas, and from foreign "puppy mills".

Yet these groups, "Best Friends" and others, have the nerve to criticize retail pet stores? Best Friends Animal Society's "Pup My Ride" program plucks animals free of charge from commercial breeders in the Midwest and then trucks them into other states (including California), to sell at "adoption" events; and now, to sell in pet stores.

Nothing quite as sweet as eliminating the competition, is there? Make no mistake about it, these groups are just as mercenary a group of pet purveyors as the Hunte Corporation or any so-called "puppy mill" out there.

Pets purchased from regulated sources like pet stores come with legal protections for the buyer. These protections, provided under California's Lockyer-Polanco act, include monetary compensation when facing veterinary bills due to a pet's illness or infirmity. What sort of rules and regulations do "rescue" groups have regarding their sales? Slim to none. Just pay your money.

What recourse will consumers have when they purchase a rescued pet with poor health or when their rescued animal bites their child? They will have NO recourse. The provisions of the Lockyer-Polanco act DO NOT apply to animals obtained from shelters or rescue.

In 2004, the first case of canine rabies in over 30 years in Los Angeles happened when an infected dog was imported from Mexico. But hey, that's so much better than having dogs raised in the US under regulated conditions.

Consumers should not be robbed of their right to choice in the marketplace. The foundation of our country is the free marketplace where competition is the most effective motivator for quality.

The Los Angeles proposal does not limit the sales ban to puppies, but also includes a ban on the sales of cats and even rabbits.

Yeah, I've heard about those horrible rabbit mills. A big problem. What's next, hamsters, turtles, or maybe even goldfish? Oops, sorry, San Francisco is already way ahead of us there.

But wait; there's more.

  

The proposal that Koretz presented to the city proposes to study the shelter stats for the next few years after the ban, to evaluate the effect of the ban. So, now the city is going to presume that there is a relationship between pet shop sales and shelter numbers? What sort of faulty logic is this? Wouldn't they first need to do a study regarding where the pets entering shelters and rescues originate? Because, there was a study done by a shelter in Nevada called "Heaven Can Wait." They discovered that fewer than 5% of shelter animals originated from pet stores, and only about 1-2% came from "professional breeders". So where is that presumed link between pet stores and shelter numbers? It's imaginary. Another one of those facts that "everybody knows" to be true.

The committee also proposes to crack down on "illegal breeding operators." And what do "illegal breeding operators" have to do with pet store sales? Illegal breeders don't sell to pet shops. Does this crackdown relate to shelter numbers in any way? And how do we determine how (or even IF) pet stores, illegal breeders and shelters are interrelated?

Of course, all these new rules and regulations will require enforcement from the police state. That is costly. No problem, Koretz and his committee state that the increased regulations will result in...ready for this one?....more license revenues!

And how the devil do they think that they will increase revenues from dog licensing when they are prohibiting sales? So they plan to enforce their new rules with money that they won't be getting. Makes perfect sense to me.

Well, politicians are rarely known for their skills of logic; or, for that matter, for their intelligence.

 

Seen the movie "Idiocracy"?. Heck, we are already there. And our new president? The most likely candidate is the animal rights lackey LA City Councilman who brings us such great ideas, Paul Koretz.

Betcha the portly Koretz's next proposal will be to force us all to make our pets drink Brawndo instead of water.

President Koretz

Don't Pee on my Leg and Tell Me It's Raining!

Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) recently posted an anti-dog breeder, anti-pet store message on their "network" website. In an article entitled "Humane Trend Continues", they take delight in the fact that fewer pet stores nowadays are offering pets for sale. 'Course, that is happening with a little gentle persuasion by pet store protesters who are actually animal enterprise terrorists. Extolling the virtues of "adopting" rather than "shopping", they claim that adoption of rescued animals is the way to shut down what they call "puppy mills".

 

Really? Well, this sort of rhetoric is really nothing new. It's a recurrent theme with animal extremist groups. HSUS wages a constant smear campaign against dog breeders, and PETA's Ingrid Newkirk has stated, that in her ideal world:  "….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 animals shelters and the streets….eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance."

 

How's that for crazy talk? Yep, it's 'out there', direct from the minds of lunatics. We all laughed when we first heard Ingrid spouting such ideas. Who would ever take such nonsense seriously?  we chuckled.

 

But today, right here, right now,  in 2011, BFAS, HSUS and the other fringe groups are taking such anti-pet ideas mainstream! And getting actual consideration and legitimization of their oddball ideas.

 

Some readers to the BFAS website apparently disagreed with this anti-breeder message. Several comments were posted to the site, but strangely enough, within a few hours all those critical comments were ELIMINATED by "Best Friends". These were factual posts, with links to new articles and facts about the present state of the rescue industry in the US.

 

Never fear! By the magic of the internet, I have saved a few of the choicest comments…..and here they are! 

 

"Kaitlyn Chaney" wrote: "How does Best Friends reconcile the fact that many "rescued" dogs are strays from Mexico, Taiwan, the Caribbean, Spain, Romania and other distant locales? There is also evidence surfacing that puppies are being bred in foreign lands specifically for the "rescue" market. Many rescues currently operate as unregulated pet stores. Breeders in the US have PLENTY of rules and regulations already...so much so that very few small, ethical breeders remain. Sorry but I don't believe that "rescued" dogs with unknown backgrounds, genetics and health histories are preferable to dogs bred in the US under regulated conditions. Several dogs imported in recent years have also been infected with rabies."

 

Pretty heavy accusations, eh? If true, this blows their theory of "overpopulation" due to "puppy mill" breeding right out of the water. So, Best Friends pulled in their "top gun" anti-pet store crusader, Elizabeth Oreck, to conjure up a response. Ms. Oreck wrote that, while BFAS is not opposed to responsible dog breeders, they feel that the more "humane choice" was to adopt a rescued animal. This, she reasons, will help reduce "overpopulation" and ease the burden on shelters. She denied that there is evidence that rescues practice importation of animals from distant lands, but believes that even if it happens, it is preferable to "adopt" rather than "shop" for purposely-bred dogs.

 

Here we go, back to those kooky Newkirkian ideas again! No breeding, just street refugees allowed as pets….oops, sorry for the faux pas. They aren't "pets"; that's "speciesist" according to the Newkirk/Best Friends philosophy. They are "companion animals" instead.

 

Kaitlyn then responded with a partial list of the many "rescue" groups that currently import dogs:

 

Save A Sato

Compassion Without Borders

Save a Mexican Mutt

Pets from Paradise

Helen Woodward Humane Society (imports dogs from Romania)

Dogs Without Borders

 

Mary Chekov then asked, Don't you people read the news or watch TV? Rescues import dogs all the time.

 

Examples were given….there were over 40 Beagles imported from Spain by a rescue group into Los Angeles just last week. Links to a couple of article documenting pet importation by "rescues" were also listed.  We've posted those here before, the 2007 ABC news report entitled "300,000 imported puppies prompt rabies concerns" and the 2003 Tufts article "Filling Empty Dog Pounds"…. There was also an article in USA Today just a few months ago, about the pet importation situation.…see the comments section of our blog article "It's Raining Dogs….From Other Countries" for a link to that article, along with many others. NAIA has a recent article on their site as well, documenting the many "rescue" groups that import dogs on a regular basis.

 

"DougW" wrote: "If you want to keep dogs out of shelters, buy a dog from a good breeder and KEEP it."

 

Smart guy, that Doug.

 

"Freedom Lover"  wrote:  "That philosophy is so totally WRONG!!!!  You, of all people, should be aware and appreciative of why pure-breds are needed.  You know – I supported you when you rehabilitated and went to bat for the Vicks' dogs – when the jerks at H$U$ wanted them destroyed.  That was a proud moment in your history.  However – you have shown your true colors – and it's embarrassing.  I didn't think you were a butt-kisser of H$U$ - but apparently I was wrong!"

 

"Kelty Gordon" wrote:  "So, what is the difference between selling supposed puppy mill dogs from pet stores vs selling unhealthy imported dogs from shelters…they're both sales. At least the pet shops have rules and regulations governing the conditions and sales of their puppies. Are the shelters just trying to eliminate the competition?"

 

Yes, the heat was on, but Best Friends chose to firebomb the kitchen. All comments….now GONE. Erased, as though they never existed.

 

BFAS can't allow the public to know the TRUTH; to see to the warts of the "rescue" industry exposed. You see, groups like BFAS get fewer donations when the truth about their industry is made public. And they depend on the public making generous donations to fund their existence and to pay for their salaries. And I bet you thought that Best Friends was a volunteer organization! NOT!!! Lots of people on their payroll. Best Friends discovered years ago that it is more lucrative to be an animal charity than a church. Their old-time religious zeal magically transformed into animal fervor.

 

Heck, nothing wrong with turning a buck and making a fair profit. But please, BFAS…..admit that is what you are doing. Tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Hiding comments to your articles show us that, well, you have something to HIDE! And please, enough with the anti-dog breeding rhetoric already.

 

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

 

With "Best Friends" like this who needs enemies?

Here's an interesting post from Best Friends Animal Society online forum. Dogs were surrendered by a former rescuer turned "hoarder" in Kern County. Were they "rescued" by HSUS just so they could be turned over to Best Friends and subsequently killed by the SPCA?

That's not very 'Best Friendly', now, is it. 

Life with a so-called "hoarder" at least means you get to stay ALIVE.

But consider for a moment the unholy origins of this group. "Best Friends" is a group that used to be known as the Process Church. This is noted on their website under the information on their history. Just google them for information on that unholy group. Years ago, the Process Church discovered it was fairly easy to get donations for an animal charity. Great way to finance their covenstead! Hopefully the days of animal sacrifice are behind them, but who knows for sure?
Can we trust a group that has ties to Charlie Manson? Brrrr.... 
Here's the snip from their forum.

Sid(Sweet Pea), Petey, and Nancy, all pit bull terrier mixes, have until 6pm on Friday, August 27th to be saved. ......This picture shows their nervous behavior when they first came into SPCA after being rescued from the hoarder in Kern County. If you can help Sweet Pea, Petey or Nancy please contact.....

http://network.bestfriends.org/campaigns/pitbulls/forum/p/44459/172435.aspx#172435

Gosh I'd be "nervous" too if I were taken to an unfamiliar location with strange people. What a crock.