Read Between the lines - USDA Conference Call

I've got the transcript in front of me from the USDA conference call regarding the new rules for retail pet stores, that took place on Sept 10, 2013, Thanks to the Sportsman and Animals Owners' Voting Alliance! I've also listened to the recording of the call, courtesy of The Cavalry Group. After examining the details of the call, I tried to imagine how it might go with a "read-between-the-lines" interpretation. Here we go!

Kevin:

Welcome, callers. After suffering years of much yammering in our ears from scam groups like the Humane Society of the United States, the Doris Day Animal League, the ASPCA and other radical animal extremist groups, we are posting new rules limiting your exemption from the Animal Welfare Act as a retailer of pets. Dogs, primarily. But of course we will combine different species to "count against you" in order to limit you further.

We've discovered that 80% of breeders out there are hobbyists and are escaping our iron fist. That will never do! We want them to change to a business model.

The humaniac supporters of our new rules claim that USDA licensing is the hallmark of a "puppy mill". We're not so sure about that, but we are really listening to them. It seems that even though they don't like USDA licensed breeders, they want to have thousands more of them. Go figure! But, we need the money so we're anxious to get started. Why, they've already greased the palms of the politicians who appoint us with millions of dollars! We are DETERMINED to please them! Maybe we'll enjoy more of that sweet gravy!

We relied on the HSUS and other animal fanatics to help write up these new rules. They decided that you should be allowed no more than four female dogs on your premises. Any intact bitch "counts against you" as long as she is not too old or too young. But we will be the ones to decide if she "counts against you" or not! It's good to be queen, no? We don't bother with those pesky little details, like whether or not she is ever actually bred.

Further, our good friends, the humaniacs, insist that you must have a face-to-face meeting involving buyer, seller and the pet when the transfer is made. This doesn't need to be at your home, where you could be robbed at gunpoint or targeted by animal rights nuts who enjoy turning breeders in to authorities for any infraction of rules or laws, whether real or imagined.

No problem! You can meet in the WalMart parking lot. Just like all the people who sell sick dogs out of the backs of their trucks that they brought up from Mexico a few days ago.. You just go ahead and model your business practices after them. Many of them claim to be "rescues", so we can be sure that they are more noble than the rest of humanity. We like those "rescues" because they don't intentionally breed dogs. At least, we can't prove that they do, so no point in pursuing them. They are exempt from any and all rules.

Even though all dogs shipped currently are examined by a veterinarian, we have no confidence in the ability of a veterinarian to evaluate health. A veterinary health certificate is useless, even though all airlines currently require one to ship a dog. The buyer knows better than a veterinarian if the pet is healthy or not. Besides, we really don't care about health. It's all about getting snitches into your home in our quest to stop you from breeding.  

We are fully aware that hundreds of thousands of you oppose being brought under wholesale, commercial breeder regulations. We also know of the many concerns you have and exactly WHY you are opposed. We've read all of your comments, petitions and letters; but frankly, WE DON'T CARE. These are the new rules. If you don't like them, then you can just quit breeding dogs. Please.

We are only here today to explain to you, the BREEDERS who sell and ship sick, genetically defective pets to poor, unsuspecting buyers, why you can't do that any more. We will answer your questions if we feel like it. Regarding the questions we don't understand or don't want to be truthful about? Well, we will simply hem, haw and hedge.

Frankly, we don't like the fact that the information superhighway has facilitated sales of pets. Things have just been too easy lately for buyers and sellers. We prefer the days when people had to rely on classified ads in newspapers or the back of magazines to sell pets. That really put a cramp on pet sales, and we appreciated that. We really thought it was terrible that Sears, Roebuck and Co. sold dogs by catalog, but we could never figure our any way to "get" them for doing that.

Until now, that is.

We initially provided estimates on how many more breeders we thought we would be licensing, but we really doubt that will happen. We know that most of you will give up your dog breeding entirely, or at least cut it back significantly. If you want to give USDA licensing a whirl, we anticipate that you will need a one-time investment in an amount to effectively double the size of your current mortgage, to convert your home into a commercial kennel. Of course, your local zoning laws will prevent that anyway, so don't worry! It's all good.

OK let's get right to those questions! Who is first?

Susan from Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders:

My dogs both work in the field and are pets and are show dogs, too. Must I become USDA licensed? What do you consider a "working dog" for purposes of exemption?

Dr. Russian:

Let me get this straight, you have a dog who does multiple things?

Susan: Right.

Dr. Russian:
Wow that's incredible! Then you must keep separate kennels. Dogs that work must be kept separately from dogs who are pets.

Susan:

But it's the same breed. It's the same dogs. All my dogs have multiple uses. They are retrievers, they hunt. I don't keep them in kennels. They are house pets too. Would hunting dogs and retrieving dogs be considered "working dogs" for purposes of exemption?

Dr. Russian:

What a conundrum. I really don't understand the concept of dogs having multiple uses and purposes. I suggest you call me and run your "business model" past me. That way I can figure out the best way to harrass you, OK? And make sure to tell all the other people in your group to call me, too! Next caller.

Roland from the National Finch and Softbill Society:

Are birds exempt? What about birds or dogs bred to a breed standard? How many comments opposed your new rules? Will the USDA contract out their inspections?

Kevin:

Birds are exempt. That's why we took your call. Geez, why did you have to ask other questions too? Who the hell is screening these callers?

Well, let me try to tackle the other questions, since this is probably all going on the record. We have no plans to outsource inspections at this time. Why should we when we have HSUS lackies employed right here at the USDA for that purpose? No comment on how many comments were submitted in opposition to the new rules. We frankly don't care. As to standards, we have our own standards, and they are arbitrary and capricious. That suits us just fine. We don't care about you.

Roland:

Again, why are show standards not taken into consideration?

Dr. Russian:

The rules are up, read them and get back to me. We've already told you, we don't give a shit about show standards.

Sarah from HSUS and Doris Day Animal League:

We are SO EXCITED that OUR new rules are going into effect!!! We only hope that they can do enough damage to really cripple pet breeding here in the US before this gets challenged in court. Our group (DDAL) already tried to push retail hobby breeders into the same regulations as wholesale, commercial breeders, but the courts ruled that we couldn't do that. The nerve of those courts, upholding the constitution! But that won't stop us from continuing on our crusade to ban breeding! My question is, how will you make effective use of your time and limited resources? How soon will you jump on board our bandwagon and start reaching out to bitchslap some breeders?

Kevin:

Not to worry, Sarah and other goodie two-shoes. We want to get to the most people as quickly as possible in order to protect animals from being exploited as pampered pets. We will look initially at those breeders we can catch who appear to have high volume, then we will be happy to take complaints from humaniacs such as yourself. So we will be depending on you guys from HSUS, DDAL, CAPS and other to help us out here, OK? Please don't let us down!!

Sarah:

We are ready, Kevin!! We won't fail in our quest to shut down every dog breeder in the US! Thanks again!

Jennifer from the HTPCB:

What is the definition of a "breeding bitch"?

Kevin:

It doesn't matter as long as you let people into your home to inspect you. Why are you breeders so hung up on definitions? We make the definitions up as we go along.

Dr. Russian:

Breeding FEMALE (oh I just can't bring myself to use that "B" word!). I say, it's a dog that can breed. Ultimately, we decide what does or does not "count against you" for your numbers limit. End of story!

Cathy from Animal Welfare Institute:

Hallelujah! Our prayers have been answered! New rules to put more pet breeders out of business. I just want to be sure you cover each and every species of pet. There is too much animal suffering, forcing them to be pets.

Kevin:

Yes, don't worry. All species of pets are covered.

Cathy:

Whew! Thanks again!

Tracy from the HSUS:

We are thrilled that those greedy, evil breeders will now be forced into the USDA system or quit breeding entirely. Thrilled, I tell you! When can we get started?

Kevin:

Well, by law, we have to wait 60 days to start enforcing any new rules. However, our motto here at the USDA is "why wait on legal technicalities"? Let's start right now looking for people to harrass by going through breed registries and looking at people advertising on the internet. We hope they will voluntarily just give up breeding on their own, or turn themselves in for enforcement, but if not, don't worry, we'll be on the lookout for them.

Larry, President of North American Falconers Association:

Are birds exempt?

Kevin:

Another call about birds? Great! Yes, birds are exempt.

Larry:

But you just told the lady from Animal Welfare that all species of pets are included?

Kevin:

Well if you were looking for honesty, Larry, this is the wrong place to be. Birds are exempt. We haven't figured out how to include them "at this point". Our friends at the HSUS are helping us work on getting standards in place to regulate birds.

Larry:

Great!! Birds are exempt! Yay!

Linda, hobby breeder:

Currently buyers all come into my house. I don't ship. So I'm a retail store, right?

Kevin:

You are covered.

Dr. Russian:

People don't need to come to your home for you to be exempt. Don't listen to Kevin, he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.

Linda:

Wal Mart parking lot is OK?

Kevin:

Sure, why not? But be careful not to get arrested in the states that have laws against sales in public places. Those new laws are awesome!! Hooray for HSUS! We're so glad to see that selling animals is now a crime in many places.

Linda:

My daughter and I both have breeding bitches, she has three, I have five. I also am a broker for other people. How does all that work? These new rules are confusing.

Dr. Russian:

We see intact dogs on your premises, they are being counted. If you don't ship any dogs you are not covered. But now that we know you are a dog breeder and broker, we are going to definitely have you on our radar screen.

Linda:

But I don't ship.

Kevin:

We will wait, maybe, for a few months or even years before we start to go after people like you. But rest assured, we WILL be coming after you eventually. What we say now, and how the rules are written, may be two entirely different things.

Linda:

I advertise online, sometimes dozens of dogs for sale at a time.

Kevin:

Boy, you are one of those upfront, honest people who will be the first to go. SUCKER!!

Since you say you don't ship, we will be leaving you alone. Temporarily. Rules will be tightened up in the future to better protect dogs and persecute breeders.

Deborah from ASPCA:

Thank you thank you! How can we make sure that everyone is licensed within 60 days? How will we go after people who don't apply for a license?

Dr. G:

We will outreach beginning immediately. We will try to get the more naïve to turn themselves in and those who don't, we will be on the lookout for them. Rest assured, humaniacs, that your wish is our command.

Carla, breeder of Aussies:

There is an exemption for working dogs. What about stock dogs? And, if I have a state license, why do I need a license with the feds?

Kevin:

We don't care how many layers of bureaucracy you have to contend with. The more, the better. I don't know what a "stock dog" is so I'll let Dr. Russian address that part.

Dr. Russian:

Good God, I don't know what a "stock dog" is either. But if it isn't used for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, exhibition or use as a pet, then we can't sink our meat hooks into it. Darn.

Kara from MPBA:

Can we advertise on the internet as long as we don't ship? What about my stock dogs? What if I say I'm selling breeders? Can't you give us a few loopholes to work with?

Dr. Russian:

We LOVE people who advertise on the net, that's where we will go a-huntin' for breeders. So advertise away! Your business model is what we are looking at. If you sell dogs, then how you do it is OUR decision!

After all these questions about dogs for stock, I am really wondering now what the heck you are talking about. Stocking the shelves of your stores? Making soup? You breeders are really wierd!!

Kevin:

We are from the government, and we are here to help! Restraint of trade is what we do best. Who needs free enterprise? Phooey.

We suggest if you are confused about the rules that you call us so we can begin to investigate you immediately. We need to know about your "business model" even though you are a hobby breeder, not a business. We don't take into consideration your profit or loss, only the fact that you dare to sell pets. At the end of the day, that's all that matters. We are here for the animals, and as long as we draw breath and continue to collect our six-figure salaries (provided by your tax dollars), we are committed to continuing to dream up new ways to screw over anyone evil enough to breed pets.

I will happily refer those of you with further questions to our knowledgeable enforcement division: Sarah L. Conant, former lawyer for the Humane Society of the US, and animal rights extremist Deborah Dubow Press. They are waiting to prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. They'll even do it with a smile!

And, if we can drive a few breeds extinct, or prevent someone from getting the dog of their dreams, then our efforts will not have been in vain.

The dog of tomorrow, once breeding is stopped.

Animal Abuser Registry

I received the below forwarded message regarding the nationwide push for "animal abuser" registries in my inbox this morning.

 

To most people, the idea of an abuser registry sounds peachy. Just register all those convicted animal offenders so we can prevent them from owning animals in the future. Not that registries for child abusers and sex offenders have been shown to work, but hey, such efforts make a nice public show of concern that goes over well at election time.

 

But if you examine the animal abuser registry issue more closely, there are some definite valid, frightening concerns involved here. 

Notice, there are many types of offenses that can be considered "abuse" offenses, including being over legal limits (so-called "hoarding") or failure to license, and technical offenses such as an observed lack of space/food/water readily available. Such offenses are vague and arbitrarily applied. Such offenses could apply to almost anyone. I know of a case from just last week, where the accused "abuser" had animals in excellent condition, and could not have been charged with any neglect, so the raiding agency searched her refrigerator and took any bottles of medications that they could find (including those labelled for the human of the household). They were hoping to find something illegally purchased without a prescription. Never mind that various animal antibiotics, wormers and parasite medications, and even all vaccines with the exception of rabies, do not NEED a prescription when bought for animals. Most of these can be bought 'over the counter' and online with NO prescription. And never mind that if these animal rightist seizing agencies can't find any actual animal "abuse", they will grasp at straws to try to manufacture a technical offense that will stick. Naturally, if anyone is scrutinized enough, an offense can eventually be found...there are so many laws on the books that it is impossible to exist in today's world without being a criminal.

To the AR activists behind such punitive laws as abuser registries, every breeder is a "puppy mill", and every owner of multiple dogs is a "hoarder". There are many, many trumped-up "abuse" cases against animal owners formulated daily in the hope of "getting" animal owners and freeing the animals from their human enslavement.

 

Are you aware of the agenda of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, who formulated this message? They are a radical animal rights group.

 

saova.org/resources_ALDF.html

 

Notice the closing motto of the below message: "Animal abusers should be put down". Calling for the killing of humans for "hoarding" and whatever other oddball charges the AR groups can come up with? That is frightening.

 

Be careful what you wish for. You might be next on the "list".

---

 

First U.S. Animal Abuser Registry Makes Convicts Public Monday, Suffolk County activates the first animal abuser registry in the United States, which will make public the identities of convicted animal abusers. The internet registry will display their names, addresses and photographs. The law requires pet stores, breeders and animal shelters to check the registry and not sell or adopt animals to anyone on it, according to the Animal Law Coalition. Abusers will stay on the registry for five years each, and will face jail time or fines if they do not sign up for and renew their registrations throughout that period. The Coalition reports that in Suffolk County, "animal abuse" includes animal fighting; overdriving, torturing and injuring animals; failing to provide proper sustenance; aggravated cruelty to animals; abandoning animals; interfering with or injuring certain domestic animals; and harming a service animal. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is leading a nationwide effort to pass more laws like Suffolk County's. If registries like this were widespread, they could make a real difference in preventing animal cruelty. Without them, convicted animal abusers, including hoarders, can easily evade court sentences forbidding them from owning animals by moving to a different county or state. Nationwide registries would make it much harder for them to acquire new animals just by changing their location. Registries like Suffolk County's could also prevent crimes that hurt humans. A person who abuses or kills animals is five times more likely to commit violence against humans and four times more likely to commit property crimes, according to a Business Week report on a 1997 study by Northeastern University and the Massachusetts SPCA. Other counties and states have considered similar registries and some plan to implement them, but last February Colorado voted down a law to create one. Objections to the registries include concerns about the civil rights of animal abusers and the possibility that exposure to the public will make offenders even less likely to cooperate with authorities that otherwise might be able to keep them from harming other animals Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/first-u-s-animal-abuser-registry-makes-convicts-public.html#ixzz1uIBmR9h6

Animal Welfare - AR Lite?

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

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

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

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

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


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

• Prohibition of tail docking

• Prohibition of ear cropping

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

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

• Promotion of spay/neuter

• In my case, avoidance of spay/neuter!

• Prohibition of dewclaw removal

• Establishment of breed standards

• Kind treatment in animal shelters

• Euthanasia in shelters as a necessary evil

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

• Limiting how many animals one can legally own

• Expectation of health testing of breeding stock

• Prohibition of crossbreeding

• Prohibition of inbreeding

• Limiting registrations, whether for cause or arbitrarily

• Tethering limits

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

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

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


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

The Death of Liberty in Philadelphia

Philadelphia Freedom? Not likely under a new animal ordinance.

Passed in May, and effective immediately: All "adoptions" from shelter/rescue and dogs sold at retail must be sterilized. (police, service and competition dogs exempted).

Sale of Unsterilized Animals Prohibited. No animal retailer shall sell a dog or cat on a retail basis unless the animal is of an appropriate age for sterilization and the animal has been sterilized by a licensed veterinarian. In addition to a fine for any unsterilized cat or dog sold in violation of this subsection, the Animal Control
Agency may order an animal retailer to cease operations for up to one year from the date of a violation.

Some provisions in this ordinance sound eerily similar to the Title 10 ordinance in LA, including the requirement for  kennels to have staffing for 18 hrs per day. However, the mandatory sterilization requirement in LA applies to every owned dog. 

Does the "sold at retail" provision apply to private parties (i.e. small home breeders)? According to the definition included in the ordinance, it just might apply depending on what is considered a "business". If you deduct your expenses for tax purposes, are you a "business"?

Animal Retailer. A person in the business of selling dogs or cats to the
ultimate owners of such dogs or cats, including but not limited to a pet shop kennel under the Dog Law, and a dealer, to the extent such dealer engages in the retail sale of dogs or cats.

As in LA, the requirements necessary to qualify for an exemption as a "competition" dog have not been cearly defined. See page 15-16 for the MSN requirements.

http://www.pijac.org/_documents/pa_philadelphia_mandatory_spay-neuter_ordinance_2011.pdf

But wait! As if that mandatory sterilization law is not enough to make you want to move to some freer nation (Mexico perhaps?), there are yet more chilling new rules now in effect under this ordinance. Now veterinarians must verify dog licensure in order to treat the animal. And, a seller reporting requirement sounds strangely similar to a bill currently in the California legislature, AB 1121, that mandates "pet dealers" report the details of their sales to the local licensing agency.

  

(a) Licensing Upon Purchase or Adoption. A person obtaining a dog
that must be licensed under this Section from an animal retailer or animal shelter shall submit an application and the applicable fee for such license to a dog licensing agent or the Animal Control Agency as a condition of obtaining the dog. No animal retailer or animal shelter shall release a dog to a person unless such person has submitted a license application and applicable fee.

(b) Licensing Upon Provision of Services. Whenever a veterinarian, veterinary hospital, boarding kennel, or groomer provides services for a dog that must be licensed under this Section, such service provider shall verify that the dog is licensed.

http://www.pijac.org/_documents/pa_philadelphia_mandatory_spay-neuter_ordinance_2011.pdf

Can you imagine how many dogs will not be treated when they need it? Bad enough to make vets report their rabies vaccinations to the state, but now for veterinarians to be the licensing police?? 

All this out of a city that saw the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the assembly of the Continental Congress, and that was the seat of the new Republic in the 18th century. All traded away for Gestapo-style tactics aimed against the citizenry.

A sad reflection on how far we have strayed from the freedoms which founded our nation.

"How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count The Ways! - Top three Ways to Love Your Pet"

A MESSAGE FROM THE DESK OF BRENDA BARNETTE, LAAS GENERAL MANAGER WHO OVERSEES THE PROTECTION AND WELFARE OF OUR CITY'S ANIMALS  

City of Los Angeles  Department of Animal Services

221 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 500, Los Angeles, California 90012 / http://www.laanimalservices.com/

 For Immediate Release                                        

April 28, 2011                                                                

Contact: Brenda F. Barnette, General Manager

Email: Brenda.barnette@lacity.org                                                                                    Phone: (213) 482-9558

How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count The Ways!

Top Three Ways to Love Your Pet

 Number 3:  Spaying/Neutering -- A Change for the Better

You get a healthier pet.  Spayed/neutered pets are less likely to get injured in fights or get lost.  They live twice as long and are less likely to develop certain cancers.  This means lower medical bills.

You get a happier family member.  Spay/neutered pets are calmer because they are more focused on being a loving member of the family; and with adequate daily exercise and a reasonable diet, they don't get fat.

Your pet and your house will be cleaner.  Spayed females will not have heat cycles that soil your rugs and furniture.  Neutered males are less likely to mark furniture and rugs with urine.  This means less special cleaning bills.

Spaying or neutering your pet is a good investment.  Once you multiply the increased food, basic supplies, veterinarian and advertising costs to find homes for the animals, you will see that the cost of altering your pet is very smart investment.

Number 2:  Microchip your pets.

A microchip is a tiny electronic transponder about the size of a grain of rice.  The chip is embedded under the pet's skin using a simple, relatively painless procedure similar to a routine vaccination.  Each chip bears a 10-digit number that can be traced to the pet's guardian.  When your lost pet is found, anyone with a scanner – animal care and control agencies, adoption centers, veterinary clinics – can quickly reunite the family.

Microchips are available from veterinarians, some vaccination clinics, and public shelters at an average cost of $15 to $75, sometimes with additional registration fees.  Los Angeles City Shelters include a microchip for all dogs adopted from City Shelters.  We also microchip non-shelter animals for $25.

And the Number 1 Way To Love Your Pet:

Get Your Dog Licensed NOW!

Make sure your dog's license is current because it protects your dog if he/she accidentally gets out and gets lost.  License tags give you the peace of mind to know that Los Angeles Animal Services will be able to reunite you with your pet if she/he is turned in by a Good Samaritan or is picked up by one of our officers.  It is not only a great safety net for your dog, it is the law.

Do not delay; get your dog a license TODAY!

·         Fees: Spayed or Neutered: $20.00 with proof of rabies vaccination and proof of spay/neuter.

·         Not Spayed or Neutered (if qualified): $100 license plus $235 breeder's permit fee.

Call the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services at 888-452-7381 (TTY Hearing impaired: 877-875-8205) or visit our website at http://www.laanimalservices.com/ to find out how you can get your dog license today.

Golly, only $335 per dog, per year, for a license! Wow, let me call right away! What a bargain. If I have three dogs, that's only a THOUSAND dollars per year. For dog licenses.  No problem, I'll just cut back on food for my children. And what's that you say? I need to beg for government permission each year, or else my dog will be forced to have unnecessary surgery? Where is the hoop? I am ready to jump! How high?

Dear, dear. Seems Ms. Barnette has been swilling some serious AR Kool Aid. Well, after all, she USED to be a breeder, just like she USED to eat meat, but not any more. Maybe her brain is fogged from lack of Vitamin B-12? Just like the rest of her vegan friends. And maybe....just MAYBE....that KoolAid is laced with some serious psychedelic stuff!

Well, first, before I can address the string of lies in this propaganda, let me pick my jaw up off the floor. Gee, a government official who lies to us? Who would have thought?....I am absolutely SHOCKED!

Ready? Here we go:

Neutered pets live twice as long and are healthier? Where is the proof of this? The scientific evidence proves the exact opposite. Many studies that show that keeping all the original parts is the appropriate course of action if you want to promote health and long life. Ovaries promote longevity. Testicles and their precious hormones protect against prostate and bladder cancer. Intact animals have significantly lower rates of hemangiosarcoma, osteosarcoma, hip dysplasia, hypothyroidism, diabetes, pancreatitis, and senile dementia.

Happier family members who won't get fat? Baloney! Many studies show a link between speuter and obesity. When you lose essential hormones and your metabolism slows down, you easily get fat. And really, the dog is happier? You know this how? Behavioral studies show that sterilization increases fearfulness, shyness, and studies show that dog-to-human aggression actually increases! Oops!

Your house will be cleaner? I guess Ms. Barnette forgot that 20-30% of spayed females develop urinary incontinence. They even have a special name for this problem; it's called SPAY INCONTINENCE. Your house won't smell real great with pee all over the place; but seriously, for any dog with a housebreaking problem, or the minor problem of discharge during a season, whether that pet is intact or neutered, it is a simple matter to buy bitch britches or belly bands. Get over it already.

Guess what, neutered dogs get into the mud and get skunked just the same as those who are intact. Duh!

Spaying and neutering a "good investment"? After paying hundreds for unnecessary surgery, you then get the added bonus of extra vet bills for other health problems that come along with sterilization.

 But hey, since your pet likely won't live as long as it would if it kept all its vital organs, then I guess you will save a lot of money. Dead animals don't eat or have medical bills.


Typical AR swill. Do any of them have any kids? Two-legged ones, I mean. Do they turn up their noses in disgust changing a diaper, or at the messes kids make? Would they slice out their child's organs and then lie about their reasons for doing so? Yet they think nothing about doing exactly that to these victims "family members".

Guess when Animal Rights nuts make those claims of how "pets are part of the family", it's just lip service. Who would treat a family member like that?

      Someone with a VERY dysfunctional family.

  

Buy a Puppy, Go to Jail.

Making meth is illegal. Buying or possessing meth is illegal.

Making kiddie porn is illegal. Buying or possessing kiddie porn is illegal.

Making puppies is illegal. Buying or possessing a puppy is illegal.

Sound outrageous? Maybe for now.... But increasingly, making puppies (breeding dogs) is illegal, and is following in the footsteps of other prohibitions, as if it was likewise some great social evil. The day may come when the other half of the prohibition equation is put into effect.

"Rehome" or "rescue"?

Our choice of words can wield a powerful influence. Words can evoke a particular sentiment or emotion. The crafty animal rights extremists have capitalized on the effective use of words such as "rescue", "puppy mill" and "overpopulation" to help promote the agenda of tightening restrictions on breeders.

Over time, such words and phrases can influence attitudes within society. Consider these oft-repeated platitudes:

"Every dog produced by a breeder takes a home from a shelter dog."

"Don't breed or buy while others die"

"Until there are none, rescue one"

"If you breed, you should rescue"

The not-so-subtle implication is that there are not enough homes to go around; that breeders are to blame for dogs who wind up in a "rescue" situation; that dogs are abundant, and that animal control agencies simply cannot find homes for them all. We are told that there is a dearth of dogs needing homes simply because, well, they exist. Therefore breeders should, the logic follows, help to solve that problem of dog homelessness, since they are the parties responsible for bringing dogs into existence.

However emotional this appeal is, logically, it is a fact that there are many more homes opening up for pets each year than there are pets entering shelters. But emotionally, it's difficult to shake the notion of the need for "rescue", replete with images of forlorn waifs enclosed behind bars awaiting their knight in shining armor to deliver them from the evil human dragons who bred them and thereby are responsible for their imprisonment.

Progressive shelter directors, like Ontario's Bill Bruce, know that shelter problems are not caused by "overbreeding".

"We don't have a DOG problem," states Bruce, "we have a PEOPLE problem."

People want pets and will obtain them through the most convenient avenue. Sometimes, however, problems can occur in the home. It is the inability or unwillingness of these pet-owning people to deal with these problems that results in pets needing a new home. And more often than not, these troubled, pet-owning folks are NOT breeders.

Why does re-homing sometimes become necessary for pets? There can be many reasons. Some, such as death or illness of the owner, cannot be prevented or even predicted in many cases. Divorce causes a split in the family, with the pet in this situation possibly needing to be re-homed. Other reasons may stem from an unprepared owner's unwillingness or inability to deal with normal dog training issues such as barking or housetraining. In today's poor economic climate, another major factor is pet owners who suddenly lose their job. Loss of a job may mean losing your home and having to move, resulting in homeless pets as well as people. In some severe cases, the decision for giving up the family pet may result from the choice between feeding the pet or feeding the family.

These situations call for rehoming, not necessarily for something we might tag as "rescue". Rescue implies removal from an abusive situation. None of the situations above are considered abuse, and such dogs don't need to be RESCUED from abusive owners, they simply need a new home!

The term "rescue" implies a Dudly Doright riding in and swooping Nell from the train tracks. Rescuers generally have an evil nemesis, a Snidely Whiplash. How evil is a dead or unemployed owner? Most of the time, Not Very.

Re-homing seems to be a better term to use for such situations. I've heard some "rescue" groups playfully tag themselves as "pet recyclers" or "second chance groups", and I think that more accurately describes the re-homing job at hand.

In many cases, breeders will take back dogs they have bred when re-homing becomes necessary. In other instances, breed rescues step in to help. However, it's the animal control agencies, the local "dog pounds", who bear the brunt of pet relinquishment. And, according to these agencies, many animals they take in end up being killed.

There is, however, no earthly reason for this situation! No adoptable pet should be killed. Claiming a lack of homes is disingenuous, because statistics show that there are plenty of homes. 

According to the 2010 US census, there are over 105 million households in the US. And, according to the 2009-2010 survey by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, 17 million of those households will add a pet this year. This translates to roughly one in six US households who will add a dog or cat to their home….this year, and every year! With pets only living on average about 10 years or so, and most pet households owning multiple pets, these statistics are reasonably accurate.

So how best to re-home the homeless pets?? Obviously, many shelters are not effectively performing the job. Could local limit laws be partly to blame? After all, if there were no pet limits, there would be many more homes for the homeless, and many less pets sent to shelters simply because the owner might happen to be over the legal limit. Claiming there are not enough homes, and then removing pets from homes due to technicalities of limit laws smacks of the most blatant hypocrisy.

Yet removing pets from homes for not good reason does occur, on a regular basis. In my local area, in just the past few months, there were a couple of rescue groups who were forced by the local humane society to relinquish dogs due to being over limit. These were groups who were not mistreating their dogs in any way, and there were no neighbor complaints. They were simply over the arbitrary numeric limit.

One of these rescue parties is a couple that runs a local yoga ashram studio who took in some street strays. The other group was an established dog rescue actually prosecuted in civil court for being over the legal nuberic limit, and for having facilities built for the dogs....without obtaining a permit. 

Limit laws are "just another tool in the toolbox", to quote the animal control agencies. Meant to be selectively applied in cases of abuse. Right! Like taking rescued pooches from peaceful yogis and from a group without a building permit!

But what limit laws really teach us is this: "Better off dead than living happily with a few other pets". Because the shelters then take the easy route. Rather than being proactive in placing dogs, they kill them.

So how best to place the adoptable dogs in shelters? Should rescue fall to breed clubs? There is no question that, when it comes to specific breeds, breed club rescues are most qualified to match pets with appropriate homes. But what about all those mixed breed dogs? Are the breed experts responsible for those dogs as well? After all, their puppies are keeping those mixed breeds in shelters, right?

This is really twisted logic and yet we see it continually, from rescue groups, to breed clubs to breeders themselves who believe that breeders are responsible for circumstances that result in dogs needing to be re-homed….even when those circumstances are beyond anyone's control!

If our animals shelters would implement more effective methods of rehoming rather than the knee-jerk reaction of killing for space, society would be better served. It can be done! And it has been done in many areas where they have embraced the No Kill philosophy.

"No kill" is also about "no blame". To be part of a solution means to help unselfishly and without sitting in judgment of others. That's sort of difficult, considering human nature, isn't it? We always seem to want to demonize somebody for problems that just, well, are really nobody's fault. Whether it be loss of a job, being over limit, or faced with relocation, there should be someplace to turn when it comes time to re-home a pet.

Because there, except by the grace of God, go you or I tomorrow. Will there be someone there to help re-home our pets when our turn comes?

http://www.championnewspapers.com/articles/2011/01/18/news/doc4d30c30c68a44342574575.txt

Message from "Addicted to Yoga".......

To our very dear students,


We are sending you this email with hesitation but hope that you will be able to help! We love dogs and have rescued many from the streets in the last several years. Many of which we have placed and some of which we have not. We have seven dogs left that need homes and if we don't find homes for them the humane society will take them and most likely euthanize them. Below are pictures of some of the dogs if you are interested or know of anyone who is interested please have them call, email, or visit us to see them! There is no cost we just want the dogs to have a loving and caring home. We are sorry if we offended you by sending this email we just want the dogs to be in a good home and not be euthanized. We have one week before they come back and take the dogs. Thank you for your help and time.


Sincerely,

Dave & Polina

These dogs need a home or they will be euthanized!

Re: How Many Is Too Many

Dear Anonymous,

Usually I ignore posts by those too cowardly to identify themselves, but I'll make an exception in your case, not because I have the slightest hope of opening your mind, but for those who read your words and wonder.

Anecdotal experience gained from visiting a shelter, or several shelters, does not prove the rule. Statistics do. While you may have observed crowded cages, in other parts of the country, the cages are empty, or filled with dogs imported from third world countries or smuggled in from Mexico. Dogs are shipped across the country on a regular basis to fill the demand for pets where there are very few available.

I would say that YOUR knowledge of "animal rights" is what accounts for your baseless opinion. I see nothing to back up your accusations. There is a term for those who live life with blinders on - appropriately, it's "blind followers," the people who follow emotional, persuasive propaganda, celebrity endorsements and the like, rather than taking the time to do the research.

Did you know that the biggest animal rights organization in the country, the misnamed Humane Society of the United States, spends less than one half of one per cent on the care of animals and does not own or operate a single shelter anywhere? Or that it is under investigation by the IRS for tax fraud, being sued by Ringling Brothers under the RICO Act, was called to the carpet by the Louisiana D.A. for collecting 35 million dollars on the tails of Katrina, only 7.5 million of which ended up caring for disaster victims, and did the same in the Michael Vicks case, begging for money to help the dogs, even though they did not have possession of them and had formally requested their extermination?

Animal rights is NOT the same as animal welfare, which promotes the humane treatment of animals and believes that humans have a responsibility towards them. Animal Rights, on the other hand, is based on a philosophy that animals have rights equal to humans and that, among other things, pet ownership is slavery, and all animals should lead their own lives without human interference.

Pause for a moment in your emotional rush to judgment and answer one simple question. If all dogs and cats are spayed and neutered and all breeding is banned, where will our future pets come from?

My post, "How many is too many?" comes from the awareness that limit laws are one of many incremental ways of making pet ownership and breeding more and more difficult until, in the words of Wayne Pacelle, president of HSUS, "One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals."

But you don't get any of that. You just think I hate animals.

How Many Is Too Many? None Of Your Business

Less than a month ago, a longtime, respected, poodle breeder was raided by Animal Control and had her 34 dogs confiscated based on a claim of "unhealthy conditions of the living environment." Evidence indicates that this may not be the case and that she was targeted by animal rights activists, but true or not, it has resulted in comments like the one below.

"I don’t understand why anyone would have 34 dogs. One person really cannot manage that amount...I just think unless you have hired help and a place for your dogs 34 is way to many for me."

Who is to say how many is too many? Just because you or I may be unable to care for 34 dogs does not give us the right to make that decision for anyone else. The number owned has no bearing on the level of care. One animal can be too many for some people, and yet others can handle fifty just fine.

Despite this, several states are moving to pass legislation limiting the number of animals an individual may own. As I have just explained, the number is NOT the issue, nor is it any of our business, and unless there is concrete evidence of abuse and/or neglect, it’s none of the government’s business either. These ineffective, irrational and unfair laws are in fact, the result of pressure from radical animal rights groups such as the Humane Society of the United States, whose much larger agenda is to eliminate animals from our lives altogether.

Having said that, what bothers me most about comments like the one above is that they are made by those who are most active in the fight to save our pets from these fanatics - the same people who have been with me in Sacramento, trying to make our legislators understand the true goals of the animal rights movement. How can such well informed people then turn around and judge someone for having too many dogs? The bottom line is that the minute we make that statement, we’ve opened the way for a limit law.

By the way, years ago I saw a couple on the Phil Donahue show who owned 200 cats. They were retired and spent every minute and every dime they had on those cats. Vet bills, food bills, all of it. They’d roast entire turkeys for them. Those cats were the most loved, most well-treated cats I’ve ever seen. Who are we to say that they had too many? For them, it wasn’t too many.

Hey, I think five cars is too many for one person to take care of, but unless you’re parking them on my lawn, it’s none of my business. As long as cats and dogs are considered property under the U.S. Constitution, NO ONE has the right to tell anyone how many is too many. End of story.