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/

Shelter Solutions

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

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

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


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hold dogs and cats much longer than the prescribed four to six days as it is now, and even if the Hayden law is repealed in whole or in part, shelters would most certainly not be REQUIRED to kill in three days.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

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reimbursement since 2009, there will be no real substantive change in conditions even if the reimbursement provision is repealed.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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


• Provide incentives for apartment owners to allow pets.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

(Thanks to Carol Hamilton for all her great suggestions)

Shelter Schizophrenia

If you had to describe the shelter/rescue movement in just one word, that word would be:

SCHIZOPHRENIC***

How does mental illness relate to the shelter and rescue mindset, you might ask?

The GLARING evidence for the disjointed, illogical mentality of "rescue" and "adoption" was right there in public view, in the commercials during the Superbowl football game a couple of days ago.

First, check out this ad from Audi featuring a "Doberhuahua".

 

Haha, very funny, eh? A young couple are stupid enough to breed their obviously mismatched dogs, and the result of their efforts is the "puppy from hell." He's snarling, aggressive, dangerously insane, and stupid to boot. He's a mixed breed dog, an intentionally bred dog. Yet, by some strange twist of fate, he is thrown into the mix with all the other intentionally-bred "purebred" dogs at a dog show. Maybe Audi's people read about how mixed breeds are competing at Westminster (even though just in performance events) and thought it would be clever to poke fun at that idea?

It seems to be "common knowledge" as promoted in this commercial, that if a dog is purposely bred (either a purebred, or heaven forbid! a mixed breed), then he is going to be defective. And both purebred and mixed breed dogs automatically qualify to participate in a dog show, according to this commercial. HUH?

Perhaps someone should educate the folks at Audi at how we arrived at the Doberman breed. We MIXED the shorthaired shepherd, Rottweiler, Black and Tan Terrier and the German Pinscher to get the breed today known as a Doberman Pinscher. And chihuahuas were MIXED with another breed to get the long coated variety.

The ad ends with the couple picking up a shelter pet. Naturally, the shelter dog is a well-behaved WONDERFUL dog; no one knows what breeds went into his makeup, so we can't make fun of his lineage.

How illogical and delusional is it to believe that a mixed breed dog is a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad dog.... UNLESS he comes out of an animal shelter? In which case, he's automatically a perfect little angel.

Did I mention that schizophrenia is characterized by withdrawal from reality?

More evidence? How about a commercial from people you would normally expect to "get it", Budweiser? Their annual Superbowl commercial is usually wonderful, and this year it is a commercial featuring purebred English Labrador Retriever puppies. Take a look!

 

Hmmm. In this commercial the intro features a sign for "puppy adoptions", and then shows a pen full of gorgeous Labrador Retriever puppies.

Are we supposed to believe that this is a "rescue" center, since they are using the politically correct term "puppy adoptions"? My first thought was that the only way a "rescue" gets their grubby paws on beautiful puppies like those is by stealing them from a breeder.

Then the rest of the video shows the antics of an escape artist pup and his horse friends who team up to prevent him from leaving for his new home. Sure, it could happen (rolls eyes). Wonder why the pup doesn't have a dam who was worriedly looking after him. We only see Little Miss Adoption Godmother tracking him down. This seems to give further credence to the idea that this is a "rescue" scenario.

After a bit of investigating, I found that the puppies in the Budweiser video were bred by Blackfork Labradors. They state on their website that they breed English-style Labradors in four different colors. No mention of AKC registration but mention of careful selection for health and fitness for work and companionship.

I found myself wondering if these particular breeders might soon become a target of the new APHIS rules, as it seems they ship dogs to buyers in what might be viewed as "large volume". I hope they were not consulted about the content of this commercial, as "adoption" centers aim to put breeders out of business....permanently!

The commercial itself was taped at Warms Springs Ranch, owned by Budweiser. The website of Warm Springs Ranch states that it is a breeding farm. NOT an adoption center or a rescue.

So why use a touchy-feely phrase like "adoption" if we are talking about a dog SALE? Sales of animals are NOT "adoptions". Ever. You "adopt" a child or a relative. You OWN your pet. Big difference. Animals are only referred to as being "adopted" lately because we as a society are falling into the trap of using the animal rights extremist propagandist lingo.

Anheuser-Busch should have refrained from such animal rightist jargon. If you breed and sell, say so! Don't insert "adoption" signs into the mix just to be politically correct.

Similarly, a friend of mine recently took back a puppy she bred. When she found him another home, she actually told the buyer to consider that puppy a "rescue"!! When I asked her Why on Earth would she want anyone to think that her beautiful puppy was a "rescue", she replied, "Well, the concept of 'rescue' is important to my buyer and she wants to feel like she is doing something good by 'rescuing' a dog."

How schizophrenic are we, that we feel guilty about buying or selling a nice dog? We have become browbeaten into surrender under the brunt of propaganda by misanthropist humaniacs who foist phoney terms on us like "rescue" and "adoption" and "puppy mill" and "backyard breeder"....and all the rest of their trashy rhetoric.

The Budweiser Clydesdales are carefully selected to look, act, and perform as top notch draft horses. Why produce a commercial that tacitly promotes animal "rescue" and "adoption"? As if breeding wonderful dogs for sale is something of which to be ashamed.

Let's refrain from promoting this unrealistic, martyr/savior complex when it comes to our animals. Please.

Yes, this commercial is "cute" and "heartwarming" and all the other trite cliches, but when you consider that damaging attitudes are reinforced with widely-distributed videos like this one, it is easy to see where all the intrusive and draconian nationwide anti-animal ownership legislation is coming from. Animals endowed with Disney-esque human qualities in the popular media have spawned the disjointed and illogical, SCHIZOPHRENIC animal rights philosophy.

You'd think Anheuser-Busch might consider the part their highly popular commercials play in forming public perceptions. After all, they are horse owners. Are they unaware that there is a highly successful campaign right now in New York City to ban carriage horses from Central Park? Don't they realize that their Clydesdales could be the next target of an animal rights attack campaign?

It seems to me that this failure to "get" the big picture is simply a manifestation of our own schizophrenic denialism when it comes to the threats from animal extremists.

Animal rights nuts often ascribe human thoughts and feelings to animals in order to make us want to treat animals more like humans. I don't find that "cute" at all. For that reason, I could not enjoy this year's Budweiser commercial.

We should strive to reject pathologic altruism as a philosophy counter to our well-being and that of our animals.

***SCHIZOPHRENIC: "Of, relating to, or characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements."

or

"Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances."

Dr Karen Becker on Spay/Neuter

Veterinarian Dr. Karen Becker formerly worked as a euthanasia technician in an animal shelter before she began her private practice. Dr. Becker was adamant about spaying and neutering all pets, preferably before their first heat cycle. Until she saw first-hand the damage that was causing to the health and welfare of her patients.

This is a video that you MUST watch. Grab a cuppa, silence your phone and settle in for a presentation filled with compelling facts and figures.

Rescue and Shelter Abuse

What is "rescue", exactly? My online dictionary tells me it is defined as:

:  to free from confinement, danger, or evil :  save, deliver: as

a :  to take (as a prisoner) forcibly from custody
b :  to recover (as a prize) by force
c :  to deliver (as a place under siege) by armed force

I'd have to agree that most pet "rescues" involve taking forcibly or recovering a prize through use of force. And if the "prize" happens to be a desirable small breed dog, so much the better for the rescue raiders! Their prisoner is then offered up for sale in a rescue retail store.

However, I'm betting most pet "rescues" view themselves as freedom fighters; nabbing animals from their horrible confinement.  By Jove! They derive a great sense of satisfaction and self-worth from this altruistic activity.

Sometimes this feel-good feeling is justified. When we rescue a pet from a shelter, we are saving it from certain death. But what about other situations?

What about "Rescuing" animals from their owners? Who decides what constitutes a dangerous situation for the animals? Could it be possible that this is not always the humane course of action? And if there is abuse and/or neglect involved, why isn't the first thought to provide assistance to the person involved? Many times animals are rescued from genuinely bad conditions, while the humans (usually elderly or poor, or both) are left behind, broken and forgotten. How "humane" is that, really?

There are actually many "rescue" situations which fall under definitions "a" and "b".  The elderly are often preyed upon by rescuers. The elderly don't often have the resources or the energy to fight for their ownership rights.

Take, for example, a situation in this week's news. A "rescue" deceptively confiscated an elderly couple's pet Chihuahua. The couple believed they were sending their pet off to training school. Instead, their dog was taken from them to be offered as product on the shelf of the rescue retail store.

This news team gets it, and the newscaster tells it like it is. "They intend to sell him for profit" she stated in the news report.

Here's the link to the news program. Check the lovely house the director of the "rescue charity" lives in. It pays to rescue! And they are not above taking advantage of the elderly in order to profit.

http://fox17.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/animal-charity-accused-taking-dog-19150.shtml?wap=0

And sometimes, the very groups that supposedly "shelter" and "rescue" are the very places that animals need to be rescued FROM.

Even as dogs in some areas are being taken from their rightful owners by animal rescuers who believe that double-coated dogs can't be kept safely outdoors in the winter weather, a shelter in Oklahoma left their door wide open and allowed their charges to freeze to death in the concrete-floored cages.

http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/Healdton-animal-shelter-closed-242584451.html?llsms=675591&c=y

Where is the public outrage? If this were a private party they would have already gathered up the pitchforks and torches for a fine lynching. But because it's an altruistic "shelter' there's barely a ripple in the news about it.

Shelters and rescues need to be held to the same standards as any other pet store, seller, breeder or broker. Heck, they need to be held to the same COMMANDMENTS as the rest of us.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL!

Instead, the current trend is to give these unregulated rescues and shelters preference in the marketplace.

While breeders and pet stores typically must be transparent in their dealings and provide health guarantees on the animals they sell, shelters and rescues can literally lie, cheat, steal and abuse with impunity. They have no ethical standards. They have no regulation. They provide no health guarantees and rarely any history on the animals they sell.

And for all these abuses, what is the penalty? Why, no penalty at all! They are even being rewarded  with a market monopoly in some areas.

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

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.

Animal Shelters - the new Puppy Mills

Truth is generally stranger than fiction, but no more so than here in the US where trite sound bites become a perceived reality. "Save a tree" was a motto in support of using plastic bags. Now plastic bags are taboo! "Make love not war" sounds good in theory but of course doesn't quite reflect the reality of defending against aggression. "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" Seriously?

Here are a few more recent slogans that do their part to twist reality to suit the animal rights agenda:

"Don't breed or buy while shelter dogs die"

Heard that one? Or how about:

"If you breed, rescue. If you don't breed, rescue anyway!"

And then there's:

"For every dog bred, a shelter dog dead!"

These cute little cliched maxims ring just a bit hypocritical in the light of current events in the wonderful world of animal sheltering.

I don't want to cover ALL the atrocities covered in the name on "sheltering", but let's present a quick review of current routine practices . It's a fact that, an a regular daily basis, "shelters" kill healthy animals while blaming "overpopulation" and while blaming those who choose to breed. Shelters kill animals with minor and easily treatable illnesses. There's no money for antibiotics or vaccines or even decent food, but there is an endless supply of pentobarbital. They kill because they budget money for fancy new office space, while there is no funding for more or improved kennel space. Shelters kill friendly animals, neutered animals, and pets who dared to stray too far from home. They kill community feral cats, denouncing them as menaces to society. They kill because they can't be bothered to scan for microchips or look for owners. They kill when owners are unable to immediately come up with hundreds of dollars in redemption fees. The vast majority of the time, shelters can't be bothered with organizing low-cost adoption fairs or advertising. Killing is much quicker and easier, and at the same time the killing allows them to inure themselves with a false sense of moral superiority.

So it is rather ironic and somewhat surprising to read in the past few weeks that shelters...MAJOR public shelters....are currently brainstorming ways to get their meathooks into more puppies. Los Angeles Animal Services own Brenda Barnett presented a proposal to take in and foster out to 'selected rescues' pregnant bitches, allowing the puppies to be born, raised to salable age and then sold to raise money for the shelter.

There was actually an ad recently placed on Craiglist by a shelter in Idaho. (You know, that Craigslist where NO responsible breeder would ever EVER offer a dog for sale <rolls eyes>.)

Well this shelter was offering to buy puppies for $25 each from people in the community, so that they could turn around and re-sell them for a profit. Seems they just don't have enough puppies to go around up there in Idaho.

Shelters need puppies to sell. They need to make profit. They are GREEDY. They are LIVING OFF THE BACKS OF ANIMALS; the very offense of which they accuse breeders.

By their own twisted logic, for every dog that a "shelter" or "rescue" imports from overseas or across the border (yeah, they do that all the time) one more shelter dog dies. But, sadly, this trite expression comes to life in the reality of shelter operations. They are the ones controlling the killing and they also seek to be the sole source of pets for sale....be they imported or bred on the premises or sought out from the local community.

Since when is it OK to cherry-pick the animals you want to have on hand to sell while summarily killing anything that is older than a puppy?

Los Angeles, along with other nearby cities like West Hollywood and Glendale, has enacted a ban on retail sales of animals unless they are from "shelter" or "rescue".

Hmmm.. so now we will not only have the Shelter Pet Store but the Shelter Breeder too. San Diego is apparently next in line for this sort of monkey business, having approved a retail sales ban unless the animals are sourced from "shelter" or "rescue". How long before they look to start breeding their animals or trucking them in from Mexico?

The actual text of the ad from Craigslist. It has since been removed, but those of you with "wayback" talents may be able to pull the ad up:

http://boise.craigslist.org/pet/3856286135.html

===========

Our dog adoptions at Canyon County Animal Shelter are doing great and we

have a large demand for puppies right now. If your dog has had puppies,

we will pay $25 per puppy and spay the mother for free. We are trying to

make sure that puppies adopted in the Nampa-Caldwell area are vaccinated

and spayed/neutered before being adopted to cut down on the pet

overpopulation. If you are interested in having us find homes for your

puppies, please TEXT Andrea at 208-258-5208 for all the details, or call

the shelter at 208-455-5920. Some restrictions apply. We are located at

5801 Graye Lane, Caldwell ID and our hours are Mon-Sat 10-6:00 and Sun

10:00-4:00.

============

And here is the info about LAAS considering breeding their own puppies.

http://tinyurl.com/LAASBarnett

General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) Brenda Barnette, issued a report on June 23, 2013, recommending that the Department:

Make dogs in late-term pregnancy available to New Hope partners (rescues) as Department fosters OR to Department foster volunteers if fosters are available.

(1) Prohibit third-trimester spaying if a foster is available; and

(2) New Hope partners (rescuers) could also serve as foster volunteers for the Department for the pregnant mother and subsequent litter.

In her Fiscal Impact statement in the report, Barnette contends:

"Fostering puppies until they are eight weeks old, and returning them to Animal Services to be adopted out, represents additional revenue opportunities through adoptions to the public or through pet shops."

However, earlier in this report, GM Barnette states, "If the New Hope partner (rescuer) chooses, they can return them [the puppies] to the shelter for spay/neuter surgery and then adopt them for the regular fees." OR "The New Hope partners can have the dog and the puppies altered and after the Department receives proof…they can be transferred to the New Hope Partners at no additional charge."

From: "Brenda Barnette | Department of Animal Services" <Ani.LAAnimalServices@lacity.org>

Subject: Commission Meeting 7-9-2013

Date: July 3, 2013 7:22:03 PM PDT

* Board of Animal Services Commission Meeting Tuesday, July 9, 2013 @ 10:00 a.m. Reminder: The Commission meeting is Tuesday at 10 a.m. at City Hall, 200 North Spring Street in Los Angeles, CA 90012. Our normal meeting room is 1060. We have been advised that the City Council may need that room and we may be moved to another room. Since we do not have the location yet, please come early and we will post the meeting room on the door. This will be a presentation and a discussion of SPAYING DOGS IN LATE TERM PREGNANCY. Please join us to get your questions answered and give your input. The meeting materials can be found at http://www.laanimalservices.com/about-us-2/commission/. Sincerely, Brenda Barnette General Manager

LA Animal Services 221 N. Figueroa Street, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 482-9558

San Diego SPCA aims to Eliminate the Competition

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

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

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

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

What a bald-faced liar!

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

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

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

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

Oregon Has to Stem the Tide of Yellow Journalism



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gotta restock the store shelves, you know.

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

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

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

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

Because there is a shortage of pets in some areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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